Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 01-07-1986 . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION January 7. 1986 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Richard Martie. Richard Carlson. Joyce Dowling. Members Absent: Jim Ridgeway. Ed Schaffer. Staff Present: Gary Anderson. Thomas Eidem. Richard Wolfsteller The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson. Richard Carlson. at 7:42 p.m. Motion by Joyce Dowling. seconded by Richard Martie. to approve the minutes of the November 12. 1985. regular Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Public Hearing - A Replatting Request to Replat an Existing Lot into Eight Townhouse Lots and One Common Area Lot - Applicant. Jay Miller. Jay Miller was present to propose the final replat of an existing lot into eight townhouse lots and one common area lot. Mr. Miller indicated he had discussed it with zoning Administrator. Gary Anderson. and met all the requirements of the ordinance. Acting Chairperson. Richard Carlson. opened the hearing for input from the public. There being no input from the public. motion by Joyce Dowling. seconded by Richard Martie. to approve the replatting request to replat an existing lot into eight townhouse lots and one common area lot. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Public Hearing - A Conditional Use Request to Allow an Office Business in a proposed New Zone. PZ-M (Performance Zone Mixed) - Applicant. Seestrom Company. Mr. Wayne Seestrom was present to propose his conditional use request to allow an office business in the proposed new zone. PZ-M (Performance Zone Mixed). zoning Administrator. Gary Anderson. explained to the public Mr. Seestrom's proposed request. Acting Chairperson. Richard Carlson. opened the hearing for input from the public. Mr. Keith Kubert questioned as to why this request was being heard when there is a new zone that hasn't been approved yet. and aren1t we putting the cart before the horse. zoning Administrator Anderson answered that even though it is a proposed new zone and is subject to adoption by the Monticello City Council at their next City Council meeting. January 13. 1986. the zone has been in place and there has been very little negative response from the publici and Mr. Seestrom's request would be based solely in anticipation of the new zone being approved. Should the new zone not be approved. Mr. Seestrom's conditional use request would be null and void. zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members that there are conditions that apply -1- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 1/7/86 to this conditional use request. He must meet the m1n1mum parking requirements. landscaping requirements. and also some screening requirements because We are trying to blend a business into a predominantly single family neighborhood. Although this may not be the best design for off-street parking and should his business increase and we have more congestion or traffic around his site. he would have to install additional off-street parking to the rear of his garage with an entrance to that new lot off of East Broadway. There being no further input from the public. Acting Chairperson. Richard Carlson. then closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. Motion was made by Richard Martie. seconded by Joyce DOWling. to approve the conditional use request to allow an office business in a proposed new zone. PZ-M (Performance Zone Mixed). subject to the new zone being approved at the next City Council meeting; and should the off-street parking for this site become too congested. Mr. Seestrom must install additional off-street parking to the rear of the garage and extend the screening fence south along the east side property line. Motion carried with Planning Commission members Richard Martie and Joyce Dowling approving. and Planning Commission member Richard Carlson abstaining. 5. Public Hearing - A Replatting Request to Allow Construction of a Zero Lot Line Duplex on Existing Lots - Applicant. Vic Hellman. Mr. Vic Hellman was present to propose his replatting request to allow construction of a zero lot line duplex on existing lots. Mr. Hellman indicated the minimum requirements of the ordinance have been exceeded in that it is currentlY zoned R-2 (single and two family residential) with the minimum lot size requirement of 10.000 sq. ft. and the proposed new zoning would be R-1 (single family residential) in which the minimum lot area is 12.000 sq. ft. Zoning Administrator. Gary Anderson. indicated to those present some background on Mr. Hellman's request. It is currently zoned R-2. which is single and two family dwelling. and is proposed to be zoned as R-1. The request has been filed before the rezoning has taken place and is subject to approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Construction of this zero lot line duplex could take place even with a new zoning attached to it before the duplex is built. Acting Chairperson. Richard Carlson. opened the meeting for input from the publiC. Mr. Jack Reeves. neighbor in the area. questioned as to why we would allow duplexes if we are going to rezone to R-1. Currently. within the R-1 zone. he could recall three duplexes in the immediate area. Zoning Administrator Anderson countered that the applicant could build the duplex on the existing lot without going through the replatting process. However. the applicant is proposing this replatting request to allow a zero lot line duplex to be split to allow two single familY residences with a common wall between them. Therefore. with a new R-1. single family. zone attached to this prior to construction completion -2- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 1/7/86 of this zero lot line duplex, this duplex could be sold off as two single family housing units and meet the requirements of the R-1, single family residential, zoning. Mr. Keith Kubert questioned why we should allow any duplexes at all when we have single family residential out there and we are trying to put duplexes into the single family residential neighborhood. Mr. Kubert also questioned the square footage requirements. Looking at the square footage for the proposed site, he felt that it was too small to accommodate the zero lot line duplex. Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, answered Mr. Kubert's questions that the duplexes are an allowable use in the R-1 zoning and could have been constructed upon meeting the minimum requirements for the building permit application. However, the applicant has chosen to replat this to allow him another alternative if he would so choose to sell it at some point in time in the future. To sell it in the future, this would be an allowable use within the new zoning which is proposed to be attached to this property, R-1 (single family residential). The square footage requirements have been exceeded in that he has adhered to the new proposed zoning for this area with 12,000 sq.ft. lot area required rather than the 10,000 sq. ft. of lot area. He does meet the minimum frontage, which is 80 feet. There being no further input from the public, Acting Chairperson, Richard Carlson, closed the public hearing and asked for any input from the Planning Commission members. There being no input from the Planning Commission members, motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve the replatting request to allow construction of a zero lot line duplex on existing lots. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Public Hearing - A Replatting Request to Allow Construction of a Zero Lot Line Duplex on Existing Lots - Applicant, Jerry Barthel. Mr. Jerry Barthel, owner of the proposed replatting request, asked Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, to explain his replatting request. zoning Administrator Anderson explained to the public and Planning Commission members present that Mr. Barthel'S request which was published as a public hearing notice should have been changed to a simple subdivision request, as we are not changing lot lines, we are merely adding square footage to existing lot to make it more conforming and thus creating enough lot area to a~low a zero lot line duplex. Mr. Barthel'S request is to take the easterly 8 feet of Lot 9 and dedicate it to Lot 8 to make his existing house in conformance with the minimum sideyard setback which is required in R-1 (single family residential) zoning, which is 10 feet. with the existing lot line between Lots 9 and 10 would be created the zero lot line duplex. with the proposed construction of the zero lot ~ine duplex, the minimum sideyard setbacks would be met on both halves of the duplex, with the front yard setback being half the distance between the two existing front yard setbacks of the adjoining houses to the east and west of the proposed zero lot line duplex request. Acting Chairperson, Richard Carlson, opened the public hearing for any input from the public. Mr. Jack Reeves -3- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 1/7/86 questioned as to the triangular area at the northwest corner of Lot 10. Who owns that property, what is being done with that, and why it is not included with this request. zoning Administrator Anderson countered that this was originally platted as part of a street; and in the Certificate of Survey which was filed for it, it did not denote any ownership to Mr. Barthel even though he has been maintaining this property all these years and that the property is still owned by the city. It is up to the City Attorney to check into it to see if this can be vacated to the adjoining property owner or owners. Mr. Keith Kubert questioned if we are going to al~ow duplexes south of this property, why would we allow duplexes on the south side of River Street when predominantly all of the houses east and west on River Street are single family residential houses. zoning Administrator Anderson countered that the proposed new zone to be attached would be single family residential and that Mr. Barthel's request for creation of a zero lot line duplex would allow him to sell off each half of the proposed zero lot line duplex for single family residential, even though there is a common wall separating these two single family units. Thus, this would be an allowable use in the R-1 zoning and would bring it more in conformance with the predominantly R-1 zoning around it. Acting Chairperson, Richard Carlson, then closed the public hearing and asked for any input from the Planning Commission members. There being no input from the Planning Commission members, motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve the simple subdivision request to allow construction of a zero lot line duplex. Motion carried unanimously. 7. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow Additional Pylon Sign Square Footage than the Maximum Allowed - Applicant, Citizens Task Force. Mr. Jack Jensinski was present to represent the Citizens Task Force and their variance request. The Citizens Task Force is proposing to construct a pylon sign at the Monticello Junior/Senior High School. The maximum square footage allowed for a pylon sign in this area is 50 sq. ft. The sign they are proposing would be 60 sq. ft., therefore needing a 10-foot variance. They are also looking into the possibility of a seven line message pylon sign, which would be an 8'x10~' sign (84 sq.ft.), therefore needing a 34-foot variance. The variance request before you tonight was to go to the maximum 84 sq. ft. sign with a 34-foot variance. Acting Chairperson, Richard Carlson, opened the meeting for input from the public. Mr. Jack Reeves suggested that this would be a very worthwhile variance request in that the sign would be very beneficial to the whole community, listing the numerous events that take place at the Monticello Public Schools. -4- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 1/7/86 With no further input from the public, Acting Chairperson, Richard Carlson, closed the public hearing and asked for comments from Planning Commission members. There being no additional comments from Planning Commission members, motion was made by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Richard Carlson, to approve the 34-foot variance request to allow the additional pylon sign square footage. Motion carried unanimously. 8. Public Hearing - A Simple Subdivision Request to Subdivide One Existing Residential Lot into Four Residential Lots - Applicant, Doug Pitt. Mr. Doug Pitt was present to propose subdividing an existing lot into four residential lots. with the proposed split, each of the lots does meet or exceed the minimum requirements for single family lots, which is 12,000 sq. ft. of land area and a minimum of 80 feet of frontage. Acting Chairperson, Richard Carlson, opened the meeting to any input from the public. Mr. Keith Kubert said that he was opposed to the proposed lot subdivision with the adjoining lots surrounding this being single family lots. He felt that cutting this up into four lots would greatly devalue the properties surrounding this. And creating smaller lots in the front could lead to smaller, less costl.y homes to be built on these two front lots. Mr. Moose Sherritt was also present to question as to the residentiai area along side his house. It was explained to him that he is in an R-1 (single family residential) zone only. Mr. Richard Kelly expressed his concern as to Mr. Pitt's intentions of the residential character of these houses, that the new lots not merely be sold off just to sell the lots and allow any type of residential housing to be constructed on them. The adjoining neighbor to the west, Mr. Robert Hammagren, who owns the lot that fronts on River Street, was concerned that there were too many lots on this proposed subdivision and that there should only be two lots at the most. Mr. Jack Reeves stated he was neither for nor against the proposed request, but did voice his concern that he felt Mr. Pitt would not sell the lots to anybody to put up any type of house they so chose, that being of the low quality type house. He felt any lot that would be sold and the type of house that would be built would be of the quality and architecture that would compliment the existing houses. Acting Chairman, Richard Carlson, then closed the public hearing and asked for any input from the Planning Commission members. Joyce Dowling questioned as to whether staff had any input on the title opinion. Mr. Thomas Eidem, City Administrator, addressed the Planning Commission members stating that a title opinion was issued to Mr. Doug Pitt, and the City Attorney is insisting that a new title opinion be done for the City of Monticello and to the City of Monticello. Motion by Dick Martie, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide one existing residential lot into four residential lots with the following conditions: 1) provide a copy of the utility easements for Lots 2 and 3; 2) provide a list -5- Planning Con~ission Minutes - 1/7/86 . of restrictive covenants for the proposed lot subdivision; 3) provide a title opinion naming the City of Monticello as the recipient for the property. Motion carried unanimously. 9. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow a Building to be Constructed in the Front Yard Setback Requirement - Applicant. Raindance properties. Tom GOdlewski. partner in the Raindance Properties, was present to propose their variance request. The variance request is to be allowed to place the side of the proposed new Maus Foods building within 10 feet of the front property line off of Cedar Street. Acting Chairperson. Richard Carlson. opened the public hearing for any input from the public. There being no input from the public and no additional information from the Planning Commission members. motion was made by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Dick Martie. to approve the variance request to allow a building to be placed within the front setback requirement. Motion carried unanimously. 10. Public Hearing - A Rezoning Request to Rezone Existing R-1 (Single Family Residential) Lots into R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential) Lots - Applicant. John Sandberg. . Mr. John Sandberg was present to propose his rezoning from R-1 (single family residential) to R-2 (single and two family residential). With the existing zoning ordinance intact. Mr. Sandberg explained that there is R-3 zoning across the street; and what he is proposing is more than the zoning which is attached to the property, but less than the zoning which is immediately across the street. With the proposed rezoning, it would allow him construction of a duplex on the lot. Acting Chairperson. Richard Carlson. opened the meeting for input from the public. Larry Muehlbauer objected to the spot zoning and the rezoning from R-1 to R-2. The character of the homes in this area is for single family housing. and he wants it to remain as that. Mr. Sandberg responded to Mr. Muehlbauer's objections that Mr. Muehlbauer is objecting to any type of request that he has had. Mr. Lyle Olson objected to the rezoning request stating that he just built a new single family house. and he would like the rest of the area to remain single family housing. Mr. Sandberg responded to Mr. Olson's request that he was allowed to place his house within 30 feet of the front property line as was requested and not placed back to be in line with the rest of the houses. Mr. Olson responded that his intent was. when he received the letter. to attend the meeting to express his opinion on Mr. Sandberg's request. . Mr. Tom Eidem. City Administrator. spoke representing the City staff stating that City staff is objecting to Mr. Sandberg's rezoning request and that the proposed R-3 zoning across the street would -6- Planning Commission Minutes - 1/7/86 . be reduced to R-1 (single family residential) zoning with the new zoning ordinance map. They definitely felt that for this size of land that he would like rezoned would be a type of spot zoning. Fran Fair questioned as to whether or not Mr. sandberg's parcel could be simple subdivided. City Administrator, Thomas Eidem, answered that yes, it could be subdivided under the present zoning ordinance. Mr. Jack Reeves questioned as to the front setback of 30 feet which exists when the existing houses are placed farther than 30 feet back. City Administrator, Thomas Eidem, indicated that the new ordinance addresses front setbacks indicating the setbacks be more than 30 feet where appropriate to line up with existing housing. zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, handed to Acting Chairperson, Richard Carlson, a letter of a phone conversation he received this afternoon from Mr. David Richardson. Being an adjacent neighbor across the street from Mr. Sandberg's request, he objected to the rezoning and felt it was spot zoning. Acting Chairperson, Richard Carlson, then closed the public hearing and asked for additional input from the Planning Commission members. with no additional information from Planning Commission members, motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Joyce DOWling, to deny the rezoning request to rezone existing R-1 (single family residential) lots into R-2 (single and two family residential) lots. Motion carried unanimously. . 11. Continuance of a Variance Request to Allow Placement of a Sign in the Railroad Right-of-way - Applicant, John Sandberg. zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, questioned Planning Commission members of their determination of the request for tabling Mr. Sandberg's request. Acting Chairperson, Richard Carlson, pointed out that the reason for tabling the request is that Mr. Sandberg is to get the approval or denial from the Burlington Northern Railroad. zoning Administrator Anderson asked that Planning Commission members consider some sort of time table for Mr. Sandberg to receive written commitment from Burlington Northern Railroad for approval or denial of placement of his sign. A time period of 90 days was indicated. The general consensus of the Planning Commission members present was to set a 90-day limit for receiving approval or denial from the Burlington Northern Railroad. 12. Continuance of a Tabled Conditional Use Request to Allow Open and Outdoor Storage and Rental Equipment in a B-3 (Highway Business) Zone - Applicant, Suburban Gas, Inc. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members that he and City Administrator, Thomas Eidem, had met with the manager of the Suburban Gas facility and had come up with a proposed screening and landscaping plan for their site. zoning Administrator Anderson . -7- Planning Commission Minutes - 1/7/86 . indicated to Planning Commission members on a site plan the proposed landscaping, screening, and hard surfacing requirements for this facility. Acting Chairperson, Richard Carlson, opened the meeting for any input from the public. There being no input from the public, he closed the public hearing and asked for a motion from Planning Commission members. Motion was made by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Dick Martie, to approve the conditional use request to allow open and outdoor storage and rental equipment in a B-3 (Highway Business) Zone with the following additional conditions: a) A screening fence approximately 60 feet in length be installed in the front, and a screening fence of approximately 150 feet in length be installed to the west of the existing screened-in facility. This fence is to be a minimum of 6 feet in height and no more than 8 feet in height, and to be of a solid screening wood type fence. b) Some type of tree planting or shrub planting as proposed on the enclosed site plan be implemented. c) The tree and shrub planting, the solid screening fence, and the relocation of the existing security fence be done on or before June 1, 1986. d) The hard surfacing of certain areas of the parking lot and driveway be done by September 1, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. Additional Information Items . 1. Update on the Variance Request to Allow Additional Pylon Sign Square Footage than the Maximum Allowed and a Request to Allow a Non-conforming Sign to be Erected - Applicant, Burger King. The City Council acted at its December 9, 1985, meeting to grant the additional pylon sign square footage and the additional pylon sign height, but denied the non-conforming message board sign. The two variances are that the pylon sign height be increased to 75 feet, and the pylon sign be increased to 256 sq. ft. 2. Update on the Rezoning Request to Rezone from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential), and R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential). A Request to Replat Existing R-1 and R-2 Lots into R-3 Lots. Applicant, John Sandberg. At the December 9, 1985, City Council meeting, City Council members addressed Mr. Sandberg's request for rezoning of portions of this and that the comprehensive zoning map be amended. An approved motion by the Council was to direct the City staff to place on the proposed new comprehensive zoning map Mr. Sandberg's rezoning request of portions of existing R-1 and R-2 into R-3 zoning. . -8- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 1/7/86 3. Update on the Proposed New Comprehensive Zoning Map. City Administrator. Tom Eidem. explained to Planning Commission members the proposed changes as indicated by City Council on the new comprehensive zoning map. The two changes of significance were the rezoning back to R-2 from B-4 in the block immediately west of the Maus Foods building. and the proposed PZ-R zoning along the north half of East River Street to go back to R-1. single family residential. zoning. The other notable change was the Council agreed to look at some type of R-3 zoning in the Meadows Addition. and it was placed on the new zoning ordinance map. There are some provisions that were put in to protect the City in the new comprehensive zoning for this area. Mr. David Anderson was also present to propose some type of zoning change along West Broadway in the location of the end of the 400 block. The proposed use would be for retail office use of an existing residential house. The current zoning is R-2. single and two family residential. and he is suggesting that we look at some type of peformance zone to allow residential and commercial mix in this area. 4. Motion by Joyce Dowling. seconded by Dick Martie. to set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting for February 11. 1986. 7:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Motion by Richard Martie. seconded by Joyce Dowling. to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted. ~~~ Gary Anderson zoning Administrator -9-