Planning Commission Minutes 08-03-2021MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, August 3, 2021- 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: Paul Konsor, Eric Hagen, Teri Lehner, Andrew Tapper
Commissioners Absent: Alison Zimpfer
Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler
Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), and Ron Hackenmueller
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
Schumann administered the oath of office to new commissioner Teri Lehner.
Chair Paul Konsor was absent. In the absence of the Chair, the meeting began at
with a quorum of three Commissioners at 6:00 p.m.
ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO APPOINT ANDREW TAPPER AS VICE -CHAIR. MOTION
SECONDED BY TERI LEHNER. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0.
Chair Paul Konsor joined the meeting at 6:04 p.m. and presided for the
remainder of the meeting.
B. Consideration of approving minutes
a. Special Meeting Minutes — July 6, 2021
ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO APPROVE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES —JULY
6, 2021. MOTION SECONDED BY TERI LEHNER. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0.
b. Regular Meeting Minutes —June 1, 2021
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES—JULY 6, 2021. MOTION SECONDED BY ERIC HAGEN.
MOTION CARRIED, 3-0.
c. Special Meeting Minutes — July 6, 2021
Angela Schumann explained that the minutes for the joint workshop
from July 6, 2021 had not yet been prepared.
MINUTES TABLED TO NEXT MEETING.
C. Citizen Comments
None.
D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
None.
E. Consideration to approve agenda
ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. MOTION SECONDED BY
ANDREW TAPPER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
Planning Commission Minutes —August 3, 2021 Page 1 1 10
2. Public Hearing
A. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Request for Conditional Use Permit and
Variance to Size of an Accessory Use Structure — Major in the (Single Family
Residence) District. Applicant: William Swan
City Planner Steve Grittman explained that the applicant is proposing to add a
detached garage to the property currently developed with a single-family home,
including an attached garage. The proposed detached garage would exceed the
maximum 1,500 square feet of garage space on a residential parcel.
According to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, the subject site is zoned R-1
Single -Family Residence District and within the R-1 district, detached garages
are an allowed accessory use but are limited to a total floor area of 1,200 square
feet or 1,500 square feet by CUP. The total garage space being requested is
approximately 1,560 square feet, which will also require a variance.
For variances, the applicant is required to demonstrate that they have a
unique physical condition on the subject property that creates a practical
difficulty in putting the property to what would otherwise be considered a
reasonable use. Such conditions may not be caused by the applicant/owner,
nor may they be solely economic in nature. In the subject case, the applicant
has not identified any such condition. The primary argument put forth by the
applicant relates to the ability to fit the building within the required setbacks
and lot area. However, the City's standard, following state law, requires a
unique condition that interferes with property rights otherwise common in
the area. The City has not granted such variances on residential parcels in the
past, and the applicant's property is a typical single-family lot, although it is
somewhat larger than the average. Such larger lots are permitted to construct
larger accessory buildings than the base standard of 1,200 square feet, but
the cap is 1,500 by CUP, as discussed above.
Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit, based on findings in
the resolution, and the conditions of the approval as required in the
ordinance and in Exhibit Z. The lot is large enough to support additional
detached garage space and meets all setback requirements. However, staff's
recommendation includes a condition that the building result in a total garage
area of no more than 1,500 square feet when combined with the existing
attached garage. Staff recommends denial of the Variance to exceed the
1,500 square foot threshold. There are no apparent conditions that would
satisfy the uniqueness, practical difficulties, or reasonable use requirements
found in both the City's ordinance and state law.
Paul Konsor asked if we have an improved surface calculation that is used for
this type of zoning, so that we do not reset the standard. Grittman said that
does not come into play as this is not in the shoreland district.
Planning Commission Minutes —August 3, 2021 Page 2 1 10
Chairman Konsor opened the public hearing.
Applicant Bill Swan, 8526 Ebben Circle, commented that he did some research
on other lots in the neighborhood and found that at 1,500 square feet others
with smaller lot sizes were able to use around 6% of their lot size for
accessory structure and another resident was able to use 6.2% of the lot
size. Swan said that he is requesting to use 5.9% of the lot size for his
structure. The proposed structure is 24 x 32 and is not the biggest detached
garage in the area. There are outlines and drawings included showing the lot
and that the garage easily fits within the lot setbacks. He said that he is using
the garage to park his pontoon and his truck, and he said he is agreement
with the conditions of Exhibit Z.
Charlotte Gabler asked about the three lot examples provided by the
applicant, if they had a CUP approved. Staff confirmed that at least two
required CUPs with approvals.
Eric Hagen brought up concerns about setting a precedent for others coming
in requesting to go outside the city code for detached garage structures.
Swan said that most of his lot size is in the backyard and by putting the garage
on the back side of the lot it won't interfere with other neighbors or inhibit
their views in any way. Andrew Tapper said he's struggling with the fact that
the total square feet are over what is allowed by ordinance. The zoning
requirements as written, have nothing to do with lot size. Tapper says he
understands the applicant's reasoning but in following the ordinance it
doesn't meet requirements. Hagen said it really comes down to 1,500 square
feet and the fact that there's nothing in the code that allows a larger lot to
equal a larger structure in an R-1 zone. While the other examples use the
same or slightly higher percentage, they're still within the 1,500 square feet
requirement.
Angela Schumann said that this is the first variance request to go over 1,500
square feet in some time. Most applicants choose to meet the 1,500 square
feet when they learn of the requirements. She explained that the intended
principal use of a residential lot is a single-family home and that garages are
accessory uses. The ordinance limits the accessory use to maintain the
principal use as the single-family dwelling. While the city encourages
residents to store things inside and keep neighborhoods neat and tidy, there
is a balance.
Andrew Tapper said the only way to allow it would be to change the
ordinance to allow for a percentage of lots for accessory structures; however,
that may not be appropriate and is a mute -point at this time. Hagen voiced
concerns about allowing given sizes will then continue to increase in request.
Swan said he thinks the setbacks stop it and he is within the setbacks. Tapper
said the city must follow the ordinance as written and if this were allowed,
the city could be liable if someone would come back and sue to the city over
it.
Konsor asked Swan if he would suffer a hardship by reducing the building size
Planning Commission Minutes —August 3, 2021 Page 3 1 10
by 60 square feet. Swan said there's no hardship per se but when you build a
garage you just want extra space for storage. On that note, Konsor said the
rules state that a variance may be granted if there's a hardship but as stated,
there is no hardship.
Swan asked about what his next steps are with the CUP recommended for
approval and the variance denied. Grittman said that he would resubmit the
new plans (less 60 sq ft) and request a building permit, and there is no need
to go back to planning commission or council.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Konsor closed the public hearing.
ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-02511
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, BASED ON
FINDINGS IN SAID RESOUTION, AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS
REQUIRED IN THE ORDINANCE AND IN EXHIBIT Z. MOTION SECONDED BY
ANDREW TAPPER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-026,
DENYING THE VARIANCE FOR A DETACHED GARAGE EXCEEDING THE TOTAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWANCE OF 1,500 SQUARE FEET ON A SINGLE-FAMILY
PARCEL, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE RESOLUTION. MOTION SECONDED
BY ERIC HAGEN. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
B. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Request for Amendment to the
Affordable Self -Storage PUD District for On -Site Storage Pods.
Applicant: Keith Burnham
Steve Grittman explained that the applicant proposes to utilize a portion of the
current self -storage property along the westerly boundary of the property to
store a series of "storage boxes" which are rented to individuals, and which are
then used to self -store goods on the properties of the renter. The applicant
indicates that the request is for a total of "approximately" 50 such storage
boxes, which he suggests will be empty, and not contain any private property
while they are stored at the Affordable Storage location. The applicant states
that the boxes would be stacked two -high. Box dimensions are 8 feet tall by 8
feet wide, and in lengths of 8 feet, 16 feet, and 20 feet. As such, the boxes could
be stacked to a height of 16 feet as proposed. It is noted that several of these
boxes have already been moved on to the site counter to the requirements of
the original PUD approvals and are currently in violation of the Zoning
Ordinance. A violation notice has been issued, with further enforcement halted
as the applicant moves through the amendment request process.
When the original PUD was granted for the self -storage facility on this property,
it was specifically noted that outdoor storage of materials on the site would not
be permitted. In Monticello, outdoor storage of materials is a use that is
specifically relegated to industrial districts. The reason for this is that such areas
often create a significant amount of noise and activity that is not compatible
with neighboring "low -scale" uses, and particularly problematic for single family
residential areas, where outdoor activities rely on relative quiet and
Planning Commission Minutes — August 3, 2021 Page 4 1 10
nonindustrial activity on adjoining property.
The applicant's materials do not specify, but the process by which the storage
boxes would likely be transferred to and from the site would be via truck and
some manner of lift, jack, or crane, increasing the heavy equipment activity and
noise on the site. This activity is expected in an industrial area, but not in a
commercial district, and not in proximity to a residential neighborhood.
There is one self -storage site in Monticello that was granted an interim use
permit for temporary storage boxes in the past. That site is the Storage Link
facility at Dundas Road and Cedar Street. The City granted the IUP for this site as
a temporary measure to accommodate expansion of the facility. There are at
least three major aspects of this prior approval that differentiate it from the
Affordable Storage request as noted in the staff report included.
In summary, Grittman stated that the proposed storage box business on the
Affordable Storage site would introduce what is commonly considered to be an
industrial activity to the Affordable Storage PUD site. As noted, PUD requires a
finding that the proposed development meets and exceeds the City's land use
goals in exchange for relaxation of certain zoning requirements. Introduction of
an industrial use on property guided for "low -scale" commercial use, adjacent to
a low -density single-family neighborhood would be counter to this requirement.
Grittman indicated that staff recommends denial of the PUD Amendment.
Should the Planning Commission or Council desire to allow the use on the site,
including through interim use permit, conditions will be required to be
enumerated by the boards for Exhibit Z. Staff has provided a set of suggested
conditions in Exhibit Z and in the resolution drafted for approval. If allowed as
an interim use, such condition and timeline should be added to Exhibit Z.
Paul Konsor said the dilemma is that it changes business from residential self -
storage in nature to shipping containers and cranes, which is a different
business altogether. As a business owner, he said he understands putting the
two together. Andrew Tapper asked if the underlying zone, the B-3 zone, allows
for outside storage. Grittman said it is not allowed, it is only allowed in an
industrial district with certain restrictions. Eric Hagen asked if the boxes stacked
two units' high are taller than the existing building. The boxes appear to be
slightly taller than the existing structures. In looking at the pictures.
Charlotte Gabler said that the shipping containers that are stacked there
currently look out of place and unattractive, especially from the road or to
residents living in the area. Gabler asked about the other site, Storage Link, and
the interim use permit. Grittman explained that those are single containers for
on -site storage and are there temporarily through interim use permit.
Andrew Tapper said his issue is the storage of empty boxes and that storage is
not allowed on this site.
Hagen asked about how a storage pod sales facility how would be classified.
Grittman explained that a similar example of that would be General Rental
where they store goods outside and renters pick and return those goods at that
Planning Commission Minutes — August 3, 2021 Page 5 1 10
site. This business model is different in that people aren't coming to view them,
pick them up or take them away. Another question brought up was if a request
came from a PODS company to set up shop and sell pods, is that B-3 allowable
or would that require a PUD. Schumann explained that facilities like PODS
typically have a warehouse facility where the PODS are built and kept in the
facility. On the other hand, if they wanted a display, it would be an accessory
use and there would be limitations per ordinance.
Chairman Konsor opened the public hearing.
Annie Decker from Decklin Group spoke on behalf of the applicant. She noted
that this is a common incidental use to a self -storage business. The pods are
empty, it is a temporary staging area and half the pods come assembled and
half don't, so they assemble those on site. B-3 allows for incidental light
manufacturing for an accessory use. In looking at this from the Comprehensive
Plan perspective, it states for the success of the commercial corridor to adapt to
allow businesses to change to meet market demand and this fits into that
model.
Decker said they read the conditions of approval and all the conditions are fine
with exception of the hours of business as he would like to open at 7 a.m. As
far as traffic, there would be no additional traffic or noise. The pods are moved
with a UTV like similar to that used by the RV dealerships, no cranes or other
heavy equipment is used. Decker said they are working with the applicant to
find warehouse space to store the empty pods. There will be a secondary
location where the pod is filled and stored. However, there is not currently an
off -site location so there is not an area to store them. The long-term plan would
be to have a warehouse but right now with the market demand the applicant
wants to launch the business from the Affordable Storage site.
Eric Hagen noted that if this is a short-term use thing, he could see an interim
use permit being OK like what storage link has; however, if it's a long-term thing
then we must weigh against a whole different set of long-term impacts. Decker
said she is fine with an IUP, but she doesn't know how long it will take to find a
suitable site and they have been looking for a while now.
Shawn Weinand, 4071 Chelsea Road West, addressed the Commission, noting
he is the 12-acre landowner to the south of the Affordable Storage property. He
owns the property being developed as Storage Link currently and the Groveland
property across the street. Weinand stated that he is against this approval as it
will open a can of worms in his opinion. He said that he worked hard to get the
StorageLink storage facility to follow the rules, and he totally enclosed Storage
Link with a tall fence that looks like a building. He noted that Affordable Storage
was originally required to put up a fence but then complained about it as it
would impede the snow removal process, so he did not have to do so.
Furthermore, Weinand said it would be allowing someone to just add on a
business that the city is not getting any tax dollars for. He res-stated his position
that it doesn't belong there and doesn't belong up against the neighborhood
and these boxes would be crammed into the snow storage areas.
Planning Commission Minutes — August 3, 2021 Page 6 1 10
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Konsor closed the public hearing.
Charlotte Gabler said she feels like it's a slippery slope to just violate the existing
PUD by doing what's not allowed and then asking for permission later. Tapper
noted that outdoor storage is a very hot button item even in the industrial area,
and he, too, has a problem with "well we did it and now we're asking for
forgiveness". The request is for outdoor storage, and it is not allowed, period.
Hagen agreed that the applicant is currently in violation, that the Planning
Commission is not responsible to enforce that, but that the outdoor storage is
not allowed.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2021-027 DENYING THE
PUD AMENDMENT BASED ON FINDING AS IDENTIFIED IN SAID RESOLUTION.
MOTION SECONDED BY ERIC HAGEN. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
C. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Request for Preliminary and Final Plat for
a Car Wash Facility in the B-3 (Highway Business) District
Applicant: RRG Holdings, LLC
Steve Grittman explained that the applicants are seeking a combination of
several remnant parcels into a single platted parcel. The platting includes
abandoned right of way for previously designated street alignments and platting
of required right of way to accommodate existing road alignments and required
drainage and utility easements. The applicants will then construct a car wash
facility on the newly platted lot, a permitted use in the B-3, Highway Business
District.
The applicant is establishing a plat consisting of one building lot, but which is
comprised of a series of parcels, easements, and former street rights of way.
The property has been utilized as a single business parcel for many years,
despite the complex legal descriptions underlying the use. At least five separate
property Identification numbers (PIDs) make up the property in question. The
plat consolidates this confused description by eliminating reference to the
former rights of way and clearing the title for new development. In addition, it
allows for the proper legal description and dedication of the Cedar Street and
Dundas rights of way as now constructed.
The property owner has petitioned for vacation of the rights of way as needed
to facilitate the plat as proposed. The applicant will be required to reestablish
drainage and utility easements and plat right of way along Dundas and Cedar as
required by the City Engineer.
Because the location is not near residential property, the external impacts are
not expected to raise any issues. The applicant has provided support for the
traffic lanes as proposed, and most of these items will be addressed as a part of
the formal site plan review that accompanies building permit application. As a
permitted use, the development is an expected facility in the B-3 District, with
expected impacts.
From a site planning perspective, the primary driveway entrance to the site is
the only departure from common development standards. The purpose of the
multiple -lane entrance is to separate traffic between those customers
Planning Commission Minutes — August 3, 2021 Page 7 1 10
continuing into and through the wash facility and those entering the parking
area only. Staff would suggest that these driveways are marked well to
distinguish lane locations and help drivers entering the facility to find the proper
lane. The City Engineer has also reviewed this proposed configuration and made
comments in their letter accordingly.
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat. As discussed, the plat is a
significant improvement over existing conditions, and will result in a compliant
B-3 parcel supporting redevelopment consistent with the City's zoning
requirements and Comprehensive Plan objectives. This recommendation
incorporates the conditions identified in Exhibit Z. The final plat will be reviewed
by the City Council for conformance to the preliminary plat.
Chairman Paul Konsor opened the public hearing.
No public was present to address the Commission on the item.
Paul Konsor asked if this is going to be right across from the city land that is
slated for parkland within Chelsea Commons. Grittman noted that there are
plans that may shift the park around the Chelsea Commons complex. If that
happens, then this would be across from commercial property. Charlotte Gabler
asked if the applicant is aware that we may close part of Dundas Road. Grittman
said that we aren't closing Dundas at this location and that small leg out to TH
25 stays. Andrew Tapper asked for clarification on what is requested of Planning
Commission, just talking about the preliminary plat at this time and not the
design. Grittman confirmed that the Planning Commission's responsibility at
this time is limited to the preliminary plat review only as the use itself is
permitted. Zoning compliance will be reviewed at building permit.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-0281
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, BASED ON FINDINGS
IN SAID RESOLUTION, AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IDENTIFIED IN
EXHIBIT Z. MOTION SECONDED BY ERIC HAGEN. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
D. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Request for Ordinance Amendment to
allow Excavation of Materials in the B-3 and B-4 Districts by Interim Use
Permit
Steve Grittman explained that the City is contemplating the potential extraction
of sand and other aggregate resources as a part of an implementation plan for
the Chelsea Commons project. Currently, the City's zoning ordinance only allows
"Extraction of Materials" in the Agriculture -Open Space or Industrial zoning
districts. The proposed amendment would establish a specific set of
requirements for extraction in the B-3 and B-4 districts, where sand and gravel
mining may have greater impact.
There are two primary proposed changes to the current code. The first is a
reference correction in the existing language which no longer points to a place
in the City Code, following the recent recodification of the City Code. The second
relates to the changes being proposed that would allow extraction of minerals in
the B-3 and B-4 Districts.
Planning Commission Minutes — August 3, 2021 Page 8 1 10
Finally, the City attorney has suggested that the excavation of a public
stormwater pond and accompanying facilities may be considered an allowed
public use, potentially exempt from what is often a private mining operation.
This ordinance is designed to ensure that the City has covered possible
eventualities for creation of the Chelsea Commons project and is intentionally
narrowly written. City staff recommends the amendment to the zoning
ordinance as presented.
Charlotte Gabler asked if the city hires a contractor to excavate on their behalf if
it's still the city's permit. Grittman said that is correct. Paul Konsor asked why
change the zoning for this parcel as opposed to a blanket zoning change.
Grittman said that the city doesn't regulate by parcel but rather we regulate by
district for use. While the intention for this change is for this project, it would
apply to both the B-3 and B-4, but subject to the strict provisions outlined in the
proposed amendment. Paul Konsor wondered if we are leaving open for others
and Eric Hagen said he thinks the red tape that would stop that is that it has to
be approved by the City and relate to governmental uses. Gabler inquired
about the Drinking Water Supply Management Area. Grittman responded that
should be part of the city's review of any permit, along with any other
regulations, such as overlay regulations.
Chair Paul Konsor opened the public hearing.
No public was present to address the Commission on the request.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2021-030
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE. MOTION SECONDED BY
PAUL KONSOR. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
3. Regular Agenda
A. Consideration of finding that land acquisition of Outlot A, Cedar Street Addition
by the City of Monticello is in conformity with the Monticello 2040
Comprehensive Plan
Angela Schumann said the Planning Commission is asked to consider adopting a
resolution finding the acquisition of Outlot A of Cedar Street Addition by the City
of Monticello is in conformance to the City's Monticello 2040 Comprehensive
Plan.
The approximately 35.6 acre subject acquisition parcel is guided "Commercial
Residential Flex" in the Comprehensive Plan and is currently zoned B-3 (Highway
Business) and B-4 (Regional Business) District. Over the last 7 months, the City
has been working on developing a small area plan (SAP) known as "Chelsea
Commons", which includes this parcel within its geographic scope.
The initial concept prepared for Chelsea Commons combines a varied mix of
commercial services, residential living opportunities, and public open space
amenities, consistent with the Land Use, Growth and Orderly Annexation chapter
of the 2040 Plan.
The City's acquisition of the parcel is intended to support and facilitate the
Planning Commission Minutes — August 3, 2021 Page 9 1 10
"Chelsea Commons" plan, specifically providing the City with additional control
over the timing of the core public improvements, including the water feature,
parkland, and transportation elements of the site. Through ownership, the City
will also be able to strategically manage private development consistent with the
SAP's goals.
The parcel is currently privately owned and has been used for agricultural
purposes for over 25 years. The City Council authorized a purchase agreement on
July 12th, 2021 for this site, contingent on Commission's review for
Comprehensive Plan conformance. City staff supports the acquisition and sees it
as consistent with the Monticello 2040 Plan.
Angela Schumann informed the Commission that there will be a Special Joint
Workshop on Thursday evening at 5 p.m. to gather final feedback of the four
primary components of the Chelsea Commons plan that will be presented to a
public hearing in September. Eric Hagan thanked Angela Schumann for providing
such detailed background information in her staff report.
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2021-029 FINDING THAT THE
PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF OUTLOT A, CEDAR STREET ADDITION BY THE CITY OF
MONTICELLO IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF MONTICELLO 2040
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION SECONDED BY ERIC HAGEN. MOTION CARRIED,
4-0.
B. 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
None.
5. Adjournment
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:09 P.M.
Recorder: Angela Schuman
Approved: September 7, 2021
Attest:
Angela Schum, n6, (omh�unity Development Director
Planning Commission Minutes — August 3, 2021 Page 10 1 10