Planning Commission Minutes 07-06-2021MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, July 6, 2021 - 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: Paul Konsor, Andrew Tapper, Alison Zimpfer, and Eric Hagen
Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler
Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), and Ron Hackenmueller
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
Paul Konsor called the Regular Meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission
to order at 6:00 p.m.
B. Consideration of approving minutes
a. Regular Meeting Minutes —June 1, 2021
ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
—JUNE 1, 2021. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED, 4-0.
C. Citizen Comments
None.
D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
Angela Schumann noted that the City of Monticello received a request for appeal
of administrative decision related to the 15 percent brick or stone requirement in
the R-1 District. The item was requested to be presented as 313.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. ALISON ZIMPFER
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
Eric Hagen requested the addition to the Regular Agenda for a recommendation
of appointment to the Planning Commission.
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
Eric Hagen also requested adding to the Regular Agenda an item for a proxy for
Vice Chair with the resignation of John Alstad.
E. Consideration to approve agenda
ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
2. Public Hearing
A. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
Group Residential Facility, Multi -Family in an R-3 District
Applicant: Dawn Rogosheske
Angela Schumann explained that the Planning Commission was being asked to
Planning Commission Minutes —July 6th, 2021 Page 1 1 8
reauthorize a previously approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Group
Residential Facility, Multifamily. The property is located at 612 5t" Street West.
Schumann noted that according to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. The
applicant has one year to secure and begin construction or commencement of
the use authorized under the CUP. At this point, the applicant had not yet begun
that work causing the CUP to expire.
The applicant is only requesting one change from the previous approval. The
applicant is proposing a platform lift system.
Staff recommended approval of the application with conditions as explained in
Exhibit Z.
Eric Hagen asked if the pandemic and construction difficulties were the main
reason for the request. Schumann noted that was correct and that the applicant
sited those as concerns.
Charlotte Gabler noted the applicants future switch from a group residential
facility to assisted living with the CUP. She asked if the zoning would remain the
same. Schumann noted that was correct due to the number of residents at the
facility.
Paul Konsor opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, the public
hearing was closed.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY, MULTI -FAMILY FOR 612 5T" STREET WEST,
BASED ON FINDINGS IN RESOLUTION PC -2021-020 AND SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED, 4-0.
EXHIBIT Z
Conditions of Approval
Rogosheske Conditional Use Permit
6125 th Street West
1. Density of residents shall equal no more than one person per 520 square feet of
total net livable area in the principal dwelling.
2. Living accommodations for on-site resident staff may be accommodated as needed
and shall be deducted from the principal dwelling square footage for purposes of
determining density in (1) above.
3. The property shall maintain a minimum of 30% landscaped green space based on the
gross area of the property.
4. The exterior building addition shall be designed and constructed to be consistent
with the architectural character of the neighborhood in which it is located.
5. Comments of the Building Official, and other staff and Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes —July 6th, 2021 Page 2 18
B. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Request for Variance to Cul-de-Sac
Length, Rezoning to Planned Unit Development, Development Stage
Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat for 28 Twin Home Units in
the R-2 (Single Family and 2 Family Residential) District
Applicant: Mark Elliot Homes
Steve Grittman introduced the item and explained in detail the development
proposal for 28 twin home units in the R-2 District and noted that it is
surrounded by a variety of different zones. The Monticello Comprehensive
Plan notes the area as Mixed Density Residential, which the proposal falls
below the recommended density, however staff believes that it is an
appropriate land use of the property. The property is slightly under seven
acres.
Grittman showed the location of the proposal and the site plan. The
development is proposed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for two
primary reasons. The design of the plat creates building lots around the
individual building sites and common area surrounding these areas.
Technically, the building lots do not have street frontage. The second request
is for the cul -du -sac length. Per the subdivision ordinance, cul -du -sacs should
not be larger than 600 feet, whereas the applicant proposed slightly over 700
feet. Grittman noted the impracticality of bringing the cul -du -sac out to Elm
Street or 7th Street. He also explained that additional traffic generated at the
proposed intersection was not seen as an issue and the additional right-of-
way would accommodate any of the necessary changes.
Staff recommended approval of the application with conditions as explained
in Exhibit Z.
Paul Konsor asked if they were twinhomes or townhomes. Grittman noted
they are two family homes or twin homes. Konsor asked if these units would
be owner or rental occupied. Grittman responded that it was his
understanding that they would be owner occupied and a homeowner
association would be established. Konsor asked if there was a landscaping
buffer requirement on the west. Grittman confirmed that there are land use
changes requiring the additional landscaping. Konsor noted that there is not a
buffer requirement on the north side. Grittman confirmed as the zoning is the
same as the subject parcel. The City anticipates a medium density project on
the parcel to the north in the future. Konsor asked about Building 1 and the
proposed 25 -foot side yard setback. Grittman confirmed and noted the
zoning ordinance requires only a 20 -foot side yard setback in the R-2.
Andrew Tapper asked for clarification on lot lines.
Eric Hagen asked for clarification on the two proposed pathways. Grittman
explained that because the property abuts collector streets (7th Street and
Elm Street), there is a pathway requirement in the right-of-way along Elm
Street. Grittman explained that one of the quirks of the parcel is that it does
not extend all the way to the corner of 7th Street and Elm Street as there is an
intervening parcel. There is a little bit of frontage along 7th Street that would
Planning Commission Minutes —July 6th, 2021 Page 3 1 8
require pathway. Grittman noted that 7th Street is unique and that there is
not pathway west of the subject parcel. Hagen asked if there were any
implications for having a path in front of the entrance monument sign.
Grittman noted that any monumentation would have to be on private
property.
Andrew Tapper asked what happens with the triangle parcel along 7th Street
and Elm Street. Grittman noted that the parcel is part of the west. Tapper
asked if there was a screening requirement because of the change in zones
from the two parcels. Grittman explained that there would not be because
there is an intervening right-of-way. Grittman stated that no commercial
development would be located on the small triangle parcel.
Charlotte Gabler asked if the Fire Department reviewed the proposal. Angela
Schumann confirmed they were part of the staff review and made comments
related to compliance to standards for width and turning radius at the cul -du -
sac. Gabler also asked that staff recommended requiring a sidewalk inside of
the development. Grittman confirmed. Gabler asked that parking was
sufficient for the development proposal. Grittman explained that there is
room to park two cars on the driveway without extending into the road.
Parking on the public street could also occur as adequate width is proposed.
Paul Konsor opened the public hearing.
Patti Pratt, 514 Elm Street, noted traffic concerns with Elm Street. She
recommended a three way stop or some traffic calming measures. Pratt also
asked where children would play that lived in this development as the back
yards are small and no playground existed on the proposed site plan.
Grittman noted that the applicant is proposing this as an age restricted
neighborhood of 55 years plus. Konsor asked if they needed to add that as a
condition of Exhibit Z. Grittman stated that was an aspect of the application,
but it's inherent of their request. Konsor asked if clarification on Ms. Pratt's
comments for a three way stop. She recommended at 6th Street and Elm
Street or at 7th Street and Elm Street. Gabler asked if at the intersection of 7th
Street and Elm Street there has been any traffic count or study. Schumann
was not aware of any traffic count or study for that section of Elm Street,
however the intersection of Elm Street and 6th Street & Elm Street and Golf
Course Road are an area that have been studied for pedestrians and cyclists
through Safe Routes to School.
Mark Pasvogel, applicant/Mark Elliot Homes, introduced himself. Gabler
asked for confirmation on that the homes would be for 55 years plus.
Pasvogel confirmed that was the goal. Hagen asked if the applicant could
speak more about the concern for pathways on 7th Street and Elm Street.
Pasvogel noted that with these types of communities, privacy is a big deal.
Pasvogel noted that sidewalk on Elm Street is a good idea to connect it to the
west with existing sidewalk. They had concerns with the southern portion of
the sidewalk connection. Gabler asked about if eliminating a few buildings
would still make the project work. Pasvogel noted they needed both buildings
Planning Commission Minutes —July 6th, 2021 Page 4 18
to make the project work, but they are looking to adjusting it to provide more
room for units 25 and 26. Pasvogel reiterated concerns with having pathway
in connecting from the cul -du -sac to Elm Street.
Konsor asked if the developer talked to the owner of the triangle piece parcel
to see if it could be part of their development. Pasvogel declined.
It was noted a similar development at the intersection of Edmonson Avenue
and Elm Street. Schumann commented that the City has received concerns
from residents with the public use of the pathway that connects from their
development to the School Boulevard pathway.
One letter of public comment was received by the City and included in the
agenda packet. The letter comments on the traffic on 7t" Street and the loss
of the open space given this is a vacant property.
Hagen asked if we were aware of any wildlife in the area that would need to
be relocated. Schumann explained not that she was aware of.
Hearing no comments, the public hearing was closed.
Zimpfer commented that the setback for units 9 and 10 according to the
applicant was because of privacy of the units next to them but noted that
other units are looking into each other.
Decision 1: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for Stony Brook Village
ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-021 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF THE STONY BROOK VILLAGE PRELIMINARY PLAT, SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z WITH AN AMENDMENT TO ITEM 8 — REMOVING THE
STIPULATION OF A CUL -DU -SAC ELM STREET PATHWAY CONNECTION AND BASED
ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THAT MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
Decision 2: Consideration of a Rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development
District
ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-022 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF THE STONY BROOK VILLAGE REZONING TO PUD, SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z WITH AN AMENDMENT TO ITEM 8 — REMOVING THE
STIPULATION OF A CUL -DU -SAC ELM STREET PATHWAY CONNECTION AND BASED
ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
Decision 3: Consideration of a Development Stage PUD
ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-023 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF THE STONY BROOK VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD, SUBJECT
TO CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z WITH AN AMENDMENT TO ITEM 8 — REMOVING THE
Planning Commission Minutes —July 6th, 2021 Page 5 18
STIPULATION OF A CUL -DU -SAC ELM STREET PATHWAY CONNECTION AND BASED
ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
EXHIBIT Z
Conditions of Approval
Stony Brook Village Preliminary Plat, Development Stage PUD
1. Revise the landscaping plan to increase understory tree planting along the west
buffer of at least 42 ACI. Remove unwanted species including Siberian Elm and
Boxelder trees as a component of the landscaping plan.
2. Replace the Specimen Tree loss as required by city ordinance.
3. Revise the landscaping plan to add additional planting along the Elm Street
exposure and the stormwater ponding areas.
4. Clarify the potential for porches or patios in the rear of the units.
5. Address landscaping in the areas of the patios to provide additional privacy
screening and buffering.
6. Address the discrepancy in west lot line location with the County Surveyor as a
part of the Plat recording process.
7. Consideration of shifting building/lot locations around the cul-de-sac to minimize
the siting of buildings behind adjoining structures as noted in this report.
8. Provision of sidewalk along the internal street, pathway along Elm Street., and -a-
9. Compliance with the terms of the City's engineering staff letter dated June 241H,
2021.
10. Comments and recommendations of other staff and Planning Commission.
C. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Request for Rezoning to Planned Unit
Development, Development Stage Planned Unit Development and
Preliminary Plat for 94 Townhome Units in the B-4 (Regional Business)
District
Applicant: Monticello Meadow Townhomes, LLC (Peter Stalland)
Steve Grittman explained that the applicants are reconsidering their
townhouse proposal and have submitted a revised site plan that would
consist of a 200 -unit multifamily development. Following the adjournment of
the Regular Meeting, the Planning Commission and City Council will meet in a
joint work session, to discuss the revised plans. Grittman noted that there is
no action for the Planning Commission to take on this item, pending the
applicant's confirmation that they are waiving the 60 -day decision rule that
Planning Commission Minutes —July 6th, 2021 Page 6 18
the City has to make on the original application layout.
Paul Konsor opened the public hearing.
Mark Welch, G Cubed Engineering representing the applicant, noted that the
applicant would be sending a letter waiving the 60 -day review and tabling
action on the request. The applicant's will withdraw their original application
if everything goes well with the revised multifamily plans.
Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO TABLE THE AGENDA ITEM. ALISON ZIMPFER
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
3. Regular Agenda
A. Consideration of a request for a one-year extension of a 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
Due to the pandemic and construction pricing, the applicant is requesting a one-
year extension of their previously approved variance. Angela Schumann noted
that the applicant is working though the conditions of approval with the City's
Engineering and Building Departments. The applicant intends to begin
construction this year yet.
ALISON ZIMPFER MOVED TO APPROVE A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION (JULY 7T", 2022)
FOR THE VARIANCE APPROVED ON JULY 7T", 2020 FOR 205 RIVERVIEW DRIVE.
PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
B. (ADDED ITEM) — Consideration of Administrative Appeal Monticello Zoning
Ordinance Chapter. Applicant: Erin Jones.
Angela Schumann noted that this is an individual request for administrative
appeal to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance for the requirement for 15 percent
brick or stone on the front facade in the R-1 District. The request is for the
construction of one new home in the Club West subdivision. The applicant has
requested that the Planning Commission consider an alternative building design,
that is outlined and allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommended
approval of the request and believe the design presented on the facade includes
a number of desired aesthetic improvements that are specifically outlined as
alternatives within the code. Schumann noted that this includes the board and
batten siding, in addition to the vertical siding included along the porch. The
porch is more than the six-foot minimum usable. There are additional design
details including the eyebrow above the garage, additional window detailing
above the garage, and there are corbel features on the eves of the home. In
addition, on the gables facing the facade the roof pitches are 12' x 12'. Overall
the main structure of the house has gables set at 8' x 12'.
Planning Commission Minutes —July 6th, 2021 Page 7 1 8
ALISON ZIMPFER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-024M
APPROVING THE APPEAL AS SUBMITTED BY ERIN JONES AND AS SUBMITTED IN
THE PLAN DATED 5/19/21, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. PAUL
KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
Eric Hagen noted the importance of how the request met the zoning ordinance
for alternative materials to the brick or stone requirement.
ADDED ITEM: Recommendation to Fill the Planning Commission Vacancy:
Angela Schumann noted that the Planning Commission made a formal
recommendation at its special meeting to appoint its interviewee — Teri Lehner.
The recommendation will be forward to the City Council on July 12, 2021.
ADDED ITEM: Recommendation of Vacant Vice Chair Position:
Angela Schumann noted the opportunity of the Planning Commission to fill the
vice chair position or they could wait until the appointment of Teri Lehner.
Alison Zimpfer recommended waiting until the new appointment began before
making a recommendation on vice chair.
ERIC HAGEN TABLED ACTION ON SELECTING A VICE CHAIR. PAUL KONSOR
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
C. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report
Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Director's Report as
included in the agenda.
4. Added Items
Added items were discussed prior.
5. Adjournment
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:20 P.M. ALISON ZIMPFER
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
Recorder: Angela Schumann
Approved: August 3rd, 202
Attest:
Angela Sc�uniann, Community Development Director
Planning Commission Minutes —July 6th, 2021 Page 8 18