Planning Commission Minutes 07-07-2020MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, July 7th, 2020 - 6:15 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: Sam Murdoff, Paul Konsor, Andrew Tapper, and
Alison Zimpfer
Commissioners Absent: John Alstad
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 Planning Commission to order at
6:15 p.m.
B. Consideration of approving minutes
a. Regular Meeting Minutes — June 2nd, 2020
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR
MEETING MINUTES — JUNE 2ND, 2020. ALISON ZIMPFER
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
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, 4-0.
2. Public Hearings
A. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for
an approximately 728 square foot residential detached Accessory Building —
Maior in an R-1 (Single -Family Residence) District.
Applicant: Kevin & Sara Haman
Steve Grittman introduced the item and noted that a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) was being sought for the construction of a second rear yard garage for
parking and residential storage for property located at 10051 Prescott Drive.
Grittman provided an overview of the location of the property and the location
where the proposed garage would be located. He noted that the staff report
incorrectly identified the existing garage as 690 square feet and should be
amended to state 770 square feet. The proposed total garage space was just under
1,500 square feet. Grittman noted that the total of garage space with a CUP could
be between 1,200 and 1,500 square feet. The CUP standards were reviewed by
Grittman and noted compliance with those conditions.
Planning Commission Minutes — July 7th, 2020 Page 1 12
Staff recommended approval of the request subject to conditions identified in
Exhibit Z. Grittman reviewed each condition, but noted that the applicants were
concerned with installing the brick wainscot to the front of the structure. Grittman
added that the City seeks to approve accessory structures that are similar in
appearance to the principle building. He also noted that the color of the structure
should at least be complimentary and he encouraged assessor structures to match
wherever possible. It was thought that the siding color would be easier to match,
compared to the brick/stone.
Sam Murdoff noted that the Planning Commission is familiar with these CUP
requests. He noted unfamiliarity with the requirement for the installation of brick
wainscot on the front from previous requests for accessory structures and asked if
it was forgotten in previous applications. Grittman responded that the standard
had applied to recent CUP requests for detached accessory structures and some
applicants have proposed it in the past. The most recent request for a CUP for an
accessory structure was for an attached garage, where the code did not apply.
Grittman stated that the condition was routinely applied to these types of requests
if the structure would be visible. He noted that the applicant suggests it is barely
visible and would like to avoid such addition to the structure.
Andrew Tapper clarified that the brick wainscot was in place to match the
principle building. Grittman confirmed and noted that the current Zoning Code
requires properties in the R-1 to have a percentage of brick wainscot on the front
of their principle structures. It was unclear whether Groveland 2nd Addition was
constructed during the time the code for the wainscot on principle structures
existed.
Sam Murdoff opened the public hearing and invited the applicants to speak first.
Sara and Kevin Haman, the applicant, introduced themselves and noted that they
have lived in the home since 2001 and have outgrown the current garage space.
Sara Haman noted that they have lived in the house for almost twenty years and to
find matching siding would be difficult. She noted that they were hoping to go
darker gray and something that would be complimentary. She provided samples
of the material color. She also stated the desire to not have the brick on the front
of the structure and noted a detached accessory structure along Brentwood Drive,
a nearby neighborhood, without brick.
Charlotte Gabler asked if the existing home was white or gray. Haman responded
it's a light gray. Gabler noted similarities when she had to re -side her home and
was unable to purchase the exact same color. Gabler had no concerns with the
gray coloring. Gabler asked if they were mainly looking for flexibility on the
removal of the condition regarding a brick wainscot. Haman's did not believe it
would negatively impact the property value and indicated that the visibility is very
minimal especially when the leaves on the trees come back. They had pictures
ready to share with the Planning Commission. They also noted they live on a
curve and it would probably be a half of a second view if driving by at 30 mph.
Gabler asked if there was alternative option instead of the brick required by code.
Grittman explained the code states a masonry finish such as brick, stone, or
Planning Commission Minutes — July 7th, 2020 Page 2 13
similar. Gabler asked if there was a similar product to the brick, could that be
used. Grittman noted there are a lot of brick veneer products and the codes intent
for an aesthetic purpose rather than material style. Haman's reiterated that since
the structure would have so little visibility that it not be a requirement of the
approval and that it just be vinyl sided.
Murdoff asked if the applicants planned to purchase the completely built shed or
build it on site. Kevin Haman responded they would build it.
Paul Konsor asked if the applicants were able to review and were accepting of the
conditions in Exhibit Z. Haman's confirmed.
Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Murdoff was not inclined to include the brick wainscot front on the proposed
structure and noted a development where the City didn't require brick on the
fagade of a detached accessory structure. Paul Konsor stated they should get
clarification on whether it should be required or not for future applications.
Because it is such a small portion of brick, Konsor also agreed that the brick
wainscot was unnecessary.
Angela Schumann stated that there was a recent CUP approval along River Street
for a property owned by Buboltz. The detached accessory structure was visible
from the street and required to have a brick or stone consistent with their house.
There was another CUP approval in River Forest that required the brick wainscot.
Schuman noted that there was some subjectivity, but that the code states what is
visible from the street will require some similarity in materials.
Grittman noted that an alternative would be to have a nominal amount of shrub
plantings (possibly evergreen) that would screen the view of the building rather
than the brick. This planting could be near the front building line or near the
proposed structure and block the view from the street. Staff discussed that a
variance might need to be sought if the condition was removed.
Zimpfer asked how much the brick would cost for the project. Kevin Haman did
not have that amount. Zimpfer noted that it would take several years for the
shrubs to grow and screen. Grittman stated that the code is written to say that if
you plant shrubs for screening, it will take a few years to grow and fully screen.
It was noted that screening would fulfill the requirement and more discussion
would need to occur if the Planning Commission would only remove the
condition for brick wainscot as to whether a variance would be necessary.
Murdoff asked for clarification that the code states that accessory structures are
required a brick wainscot. Schumann read verbatim of the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance Section 4.11 that requires accessory structures — major in the R-1 to
provide 15 percent of the front building facade less the square footage of the
garage doors should be covered in brick or stone if visible from the street.
Schumann also read the code that stated the Community Development
Planning Commission Minutes — July 7th, 2020 Page 3 1 4
Department may approve optional fagade treatments when additional architectural
detailing so warrants, but it seems to encourage additional alternatives such as
front porches, roof pitch, and other features.
Murdoff asked the applicants how they preferred to move forward. Kevin Haman
noted that he preferred to plant shrub in the front and that would also help to
cover the electrical boxes.
Schumann noted that the language in the Zoning Ordinance regarding the building
materials came from a desire to have high amenity housing and keeping the
housing attractive. Schumann indicated that the standards apply to the existing
property, just as they would a new property.
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2020-019,
ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE
PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z OF THIS REPORT WITH THE
ADDITION OF COLOR AND TYPE OF BUILDING BE SIMILAR AND/OR
COORDINATING AND THAT THEY HAVE A BRICK FRONT OR
SHRUBBERY PLANTED. SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED,
4-0. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
EXHIBIT Z
Conditions of Approval
Conditional Use Permit for Garage
10051 Prescott Drive
Lot 7, Block 4, Groveland 2nd Addition
1. The exterior materials used to finish the accessory structure must match the existing home
in material type and color, including a wainscot treatment of brick similar to that of the
principal building front.
2. No exterior lighting be attached to the garage that will glare onto adjoining property.
3. The disturbed areas of the site shall be seeded or sodded within one (1) calendar year of
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
4. The City Engineer review the plans and address any drainage concerns. The applicants
shall adhere to any follow up recommendations by the City Engineer.
5. The applicant is responsible for any and all damage that may happen to any utilities during
construction of the project.
6. No business or home occupation shall be allowed in either the attached or detached garage.
7. The applicant shall provide an updated survey with the building permit.
8. The applicant obtains a building permit prior to construction.
Planning Commission Minutes — July 7th, 2020 Page 4 15
B. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for variance to the required 10'
side yard setback in the Mississippi Wild Scenic Recreational River District
in the R-1 (Single -Family Residence) District.
Applicant: Chris Holtz
Steve Grittman introduced the request for variance to side yard setback to
accommodate a house and garage/storage addition (two levels) for property
located at 305 Riverview Drive. The property is located in the R-1 District and the
MWSRR District. The current side yard setback in the MWSRR is 10 feet.
Grittman provided the site aerial and survey. A unique aspect of the property is a
shared driveway with the easterly property exists along the lot line. The proposed
expansion would occur on the west side of the parcel and it was noted that a
significant slope exists downward from the addition to the driveway. The garage
addition on the upper level would face south, with the lower level garage facing
east. Grittman noted that an updated survey was received later that day and shows
that the applicant plans to add driveway space that veers off near the intersection
and provides driveway and a parking pad for the upper level garage.
Staff acknowledged that they initially didn't realize the proposal included two
levels and have worked with the applicant to shift the upper building to the east to
minimize the setback encroachment and to modify the lower level floor plan so
that they are not exceeding the standard threshold for accessory garage space of
1,200 square feet. Grittman further added that the applicant was able to modify
the original application from an approximately 3.3 to 3.5 foot encroachment to a
1.9 foot encroachment or an 8.1 foot setback.
Grittman reviewed the exterior elevations and interior footprint of the building
with the Planning Commission. He noted that the encroachment was only at a
small notch near the center of the proposed expansion. Grittman noted that the
home sat on an angle to the lot line. He also discussed the proposed lower level in
detail, noting that a one stall garage would be included and a walled off storage
space accessible by a service door. Walling off the two spaces maintains the
requirement for maximum garage space to be under 1,200 square feet.
Grittman reviewed the variance criteria for approval of an application.
The applicant suggested that the steep slope in grade from west to east inhibits the
ability to construct an expansion in a number of ways. Another aspect that
complicates access and construction is the shared driveway. It was noted that
access to the lower level is limited and there currently is no garage for the
property.
Grittman explained that the revised survey submitted shows an impervious
surface coverage of 24.9 percent including a 9 foot driveway breaking from the
driveway to the upper level. Staff would continue to work with the applicant to
ensure there is less than 25 percent impervious surface coverage. This is also
noted as important by the DNR and they commented they were not concerned
with the side yard setback request.
Planning Commission Minutes — July 7th, 2020 Page 5 16
Staff recommended approval of the variance, but noted that it would be possible
to build an expansion without encroaching in the setback area. Grittman noted
that the variance criteria has changed to considering if the proposal is a reasonable
use of property rather than if it is capable of meeting code. Grittman also stated
that the average setback of the proposed project is consistent with the code. The
small corner of the proposed living space is the only area that is encroaching. The
structure meets the side yard setback from the front proposed garage space and
also meets the setback for the rear portion of the addition.
Paul Konsor asked for clarification if the impervious surface totaled 24.9 percent.
Grittman stated that the most updated survey indicated that amount. Konsor noted
that the DNR mentioned that the total impervious surface coverage in the
MWSRR should not exceed 20 percent and the City requires less than 25 percent.
Grittman explained that the 25 percent was written into the code and it was
believed the DNR misquoted the code in their response. Konsor asked how the
DNR communicates to the City on applications. Grittman explained that they did
respond via email confirming they were acceptable of the project moving forward.
They did not receive the revised survey. Konsor asked if removing the existing
shed would help lower the impervious surface on the lot. Schumann stated that the
existing shed is 95 feet, but the impervious calculation includes a wood deck
which is typically considered pervious. Staff would need to look closer at these
numbers as they likely hover between 20 and 25 percent total impervious. Konsor
also asked if gravel is considered impervious surface. Grittman confirmed that
gravel is considered impervious and noted staff should confirm with the surveyor
to understand what was measured as impervious. It was noted that the shed was
counted towards the impervious surface coverage.
Charlotte Gabler has a question regarding tree preservation on the site. Schumann
noted the ordinance does apply, but the trees on site do not meet the protection
ordinance. Schumann noted that staff would verify, but it was thought that
properties in the MWSRR have tree protection ordinances in addition and staff
will verify. Grittman added that the updated survey showed that three oak trees at
18 (x2) and 22 inches were being removed.
Sam Murdoff opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first.
Chris Holtz, the applicant, stated that the surveyor did include the existing gravel
driveway as impervious surface area. Holtz noted that in meetings with staff, he
explained that it could be removed and replaced with additional lawn space, but
that the proposal still meet the 25 percent impervious surface maximum. His plan
was to remove a portion of the gravel driveway, the chain link fence, shrubs, and
small trees to make a larger front yard, which would lower the impervious surface
coverage. The applicant noted that he cannot remove the shed as he will be using
it as a dog house. He added that the proposed storage in the lower level addition
would be used for the items stored currently in the shed.
Murdoff clarified that the applicant was going to remove part of the existing
driveway. Holtz confirmed that gravel would be removed and that an apron would
probably be installed to the lower level for easy access to yard equipment. Holtz
Planning Commission Minutes — July 7th, 2020 Page 6 17
explained that the proposed addition would clean up the whole front end of the
house and property.
Charlotte Gabler expressed her excitement for the project and asked if the
applicant was saw the requirements of the conditions of approval in Exhibit Z.
Holtz confirmed.
Andrew Tapper asked if the applicant was able to discuss his plans with his
neighbors, especially to the west. Holtz declined, but noticed that the western
property was fenced and should not be an eye -sore.
Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Murdoff expressed his appreciation for the project, but noted the high amount of
variances that have been received for MWSRR.
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2020-020
APPROVING THE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE HOLTZ HOME
ADDITION AT 305 RIVERVIEW DRIVE, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID
RESOLUTION, AND PURSUANT TO THE CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED IN
EXHIBIT Z. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED, 4-0.
EXHIBIT Z
Conditions of Approval
Holtz Side Yard Setback Variance
305 Riverview Drive
Legal: Lot 2, Manhattan Lots
1. The applicant verifies the final setback encroachment by survey, consistent with the
assumptions made in this report.
2. The applicant verifies by survey compliance with the maximum impervious surface
requirements of the MWSRR ordinance.
3. The applicant verifies the exterior materials to be used are consistent with the materials
used on the existing principal structure.
4. The applicant's final plans retain a maximum of 1,200 square feet of garage space as
required by the City's Zoning Ordinance.
5. The existing shed is converted to non -storage purposes to maintain compliance with the
accessory building regulations.
6. Incorporation of the City Engineer's comments as noted in this report.
7. Comments and recommendations of other staff or Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes — July 7th, 2020 Page 7 18
C. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for an Amendment to
Monticello Zoning Ordinance to Chapter 3.6, Industrial Base Zoning
Districts, related to maximum height of a structure.
Applicant: Citv of Monticello
Steve Grittman reminded the Planning Commission that they recently reviewed a
proposed CUP to the height of a structure in an industrial district. The current
code limits industrial building height to 30 feet. Grittman noted that the City has
received other requests at a staff level, where taller industrial buildings are
desired. Grittman noted that dragging people through the CUP process for what
has become the standard for industrial building seemed to be excessive. When the
City updated its Zoning Ordinance several years ago, it was noted that one of the
objectives was to minimize the number of CUPs. The proposed amendment would
allow industrial buildings to be constructed at 45 feet, with a CUP for larger
structures. Grittman provided a survey of height requirements of industrial
buildings in neighboring communities.
Staff believed that the 45 foot height would accommodate requests for building
height in the industrial district.
Staff also ran the request by the Fire Department to ensure there would be no
issues with the additional height. They expressed satisfaction with the code
increase as proposed.
Grittman provided context of other buildings in the City.
Staff recommended approval of the request.
Sam Murdoff asked why other communities have different height maximum
requirements for different industrial districts. Grittinan was unsure, but it would
be possible that they may have existing structures that tall given the city.
Paul Konsor asked if a property was located in the MWSRR would they be
restricted by the height requirement of that district. Grittman confirmed.
Charlotte Gabler asked if the height increase would help businesses, notably in
Otter Creek, from having additional indoor storage space. It was noted the high
expense of expanding, but not a large impact would likely exist, but it could help
limit outdoor storage.
Andrew Tapper asked if the amendment would impact any current CUPs.
Grittman explained that it extinguishes the need for a CUP for an existing 45 foot
structure. The CUPs run with the land, but no longer are relevant to the site.
Tapper also recognized an inconsistency with the staff report and the draft
ordinance regarding industrial buildings with CUP's shadow casting on
residential structures. Grittman confinned that it was intent to remove that section
due to the 200 foot buffer requirement. A building of 45 feet or under with a 200
foot buffer would not cast a shadow that far regardless. Grittman stated that a
building would have to be larger than an estimated 90 feet (and seek a CUP) for a
Planning Commission Minutes — July 7th, 2020 Page 8 1 9
shadow to be present. A CUP would be required for buildings taller than 45 feet
and there would be discretion on the request.
Sam Murdoff opened the public hearing. Hearing no further comments, the public
hearing was closed.
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC -2020-021 TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN UPDATE TO THE CITY'S ZONING
ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 45 FEET AND FOUR
STORIES IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, WITH NO CHANGE
TO THE ALLOWANCE FOR GREATER HEIGHT BY CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED, 4-0.
3. Regular Agenda
A. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report
Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Director's Report.
Schumann confirmed with the Housing Study consultant that the scope would
cover affordable housing in all levels and look at comparable cities. Schumann
encouraged the Planning Commission to participate in the survey available on the
City's website. The study and engagement will be completed by MSA
Professionals.
4. Added Items
None.
5. Adjournment
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:36 P.M. ALISON
ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
Recorder: Jacob Thunander
Approved: August 4th, 2020
Attest:IJIYA I
Angela Sc , Community Development Director
Planning Commission Minutes — July 7th, 2020 Page 9 19