Planning Commission Minutes 08-15-1978
.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEEI'ING
August 15, 1978 - 7:30 P.M.
Members present: Dave Bauer, Fred Topel, Fran Fair, Jim Ridgeway.
Members absent: Denton Erickson
1. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by F. Topel, seconded by F. Fair and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
held July 18, 1978.
2.
Public Hearing - Rezoning Application by Jom Sandberg - Riverside
Addition.
.
Mr. John Sandberg made application to have Lot 5, Block 1 of Riverside
Plat rezoned from :&-1 to R-3 to allow the construction of a 5-plex
luxury apartment building some time in the future. Mr. Sandberg indicated
that he would not be starting an apartment project immediately, but was
now requesting the rezoning to be able to know whether or not it could
be built and to also notifY the prospective property owners that there
may likely be an apartment building going up in the near future.
Mr. Sandberg stated that he would like to build a lrplex, but didn It
want to go to an R-2 zoning and get a conditional use permit as he did
not know when he would be building this apartment building and a condi-
tional use permit has to be renewed every year. Mr. Sandberg felt that
there is no other property in Monticello on the River that is currently
zoned for R-3 zoning, and felt that an apartment of this nature would
be well suited for Monticello.
According to current zoning ordinances, if the property was zoned to R-3,
as many as 12 units or possibly up to 38 units could be built with a
conditional use. Mr. Sandberg indicated that he would be agreeable to
providing a covenant on the land itself that would limit the number of
apartments to 4 or 5; however, the consulting planner for the City
recommended against establishing a precedent of this type by using a
covenant. The following testimony was received by the Planning Com-
mission in regards to this rezoning request:
.
Adeline Pierce indicated that as long as Mr. Sandberg was trying to
get this property rezoned before any future development takes place on
the abutting lots, he should also consider the feelings of the people
that are already living in the area such as herself. She indicated
that she was strongly opposed to the rezoning for apartments.
Ron Rasmussen indicated that the area was indicated for single family
use and is currently used that way and should remain single family. He
was strongly opposed to the rezoning also.
.
.
.
Minutes - 8/15/78
Jim Melville indicated to the Planning Commission that he just recently
built a new home in the Riverside Addition Plat, and was never aware that
an apartment building would be built. He also expressed opposition to
any multiple family dwelling.
Virgil Lafond indicated that he was a long-time resident of the area
and always felt the area should remain in a wild nature atmosphere.
Mr. Lafond strongly opposed rezoning for an apartment complex and felt
that the area should remain single family.
Marie Peterson, an abutting property owner, strongly opposed the rezoning
and indicated that she had concerns over the number of apartments that
could some day in the future be built and the number of people that
could be living there.
Arlene McIntire strongly opposed the rezoning for an apartment and felt
that the area should remain single family as all other residences are.
Roy Lauring felt that the City should adhere to the comprehensive plan
which called for R-l zoning in this area, and indicated that if the
planner had wanted R- 3 zoning along the River, it would have probably
been rezoned to R-3 to begin with. He also indicated that an apartment
complex in the area may hurt property values of other residential single
family homes.
Because of the opposition, a motion was made by F. Topel, seconded by
F. Fair and unanimously carried to recommend to the City Council that
the rezoning request be denied.
2.
Continuation of Public Hearing on Proposed Ordinance Amendments for
J'llIllG"ard s.
At the Planning Commission I s last regular meeting, the issue of proposed
ordinance amendments relative to junkyards and salvage yards were dis-
cussed at a public hearing. At that time, it was decided to table the
matter until the next meeting to allow consultation with our City Attorney
relative to this matter.
City Attorney, Gary Pringle, indicated that the question of requiring
screening on salvage yards was a complicated matter, but it appeared
that enforcement of an ordinance requiring screening may not be feasible.
Because of the recommendations by the City Attorney, the City Administra-
tor recommended to the Planning Commission that:
1. The ordinances be amended to allow existing junkyards or salvage yards
to be lawful, non-conforming uses and to provide no amortization
period for eliminating them.
2. In light of the extreme complicated nature of the screening issue,
it would not seem feasible to require any fencing at this time in an
ordinance form.
- 2 -
.
.
.
Minutes - 8/15/78
Mr. William Hoffman, representing Ruff Auto Parts, indicated to the
Commission that Mr. Ruff would be agreeable to providing an easement
for the State to erect a fence along the freeway and also indicated
that Mr. Ruff couldn't afford the type of fence the State would erect
on the balance of the property, but would be favorable to a less costly
type of screening such as possible plantings.
Darwin Straw and Jeanie Hoglund, property owners in the area, indicated
that they did not object to the Ruff Auto Salvage Yard and also indicated
that no other residents in the area have ever actually complained at
a hearing on the salvage yard operation.
Motion was entered by F. Fair, seconded by F. Topel and unanimously
carried to recommend that the ordinances be amended allowing junkyards
and/or salvage yards to be lawful, non-conforming uses with no amortiza-
tion period with the recommendation that the existing salvage yards
consider voluntarily erecting some type of screening fence.
Voting in favor of the motion was F. Topel, J. Ridgeway and F. Fair.
Opposed: D. Bauer.
3.
Consideration of a Variance - Gus Hammer.
Mr. Gus Hammer requested a variance to build a 6' tall fence on his
property at 900 West Broadway. Mr. Hammer would like to have this
6' tall fence built 16' in front of his home which would be still
20' from the front property line.
According to City Ordinances, no fence taller than 3' may be erected
in front of a home in a front yard. Mr. Hammer indicated that his
neighbors home is currently located S' in front of his home, and
he would like to extend the fence another S' beyond his neighbor's
home to provide more privacy.
A motion was made by Bauer, seconded by Topel and unanimously carried
to recommend approval of the variance allowing Mr. Hammer to construct
a fence in the front yard to wi thin 20' of the property line. The
reason for granting the request was based primarily on the fact that
the neighbor's house is situated clo ser to the front yard than
Mr. Hammer's and that a variance of only 10' is being asked for.
4. Consideration of a Variance Recommendation - Duane Rajanen.
Mr. Duane Rajanen, of 412 E. 3rd Street, requested a variance to allow
him to erect a garage to within 5' of his easterly property line.
Mrs. Rajanen indicated that no opposition from the neighbors has been
recei ved regarding placing of the garage wi thin 5' of the property line.
Hearing no objections, a motion was made by F. Topel, seconded by
F. Fair and unanimously carried to recommend approval of the 5' setback
variance for the garage.
- 3 -
~
Minutes - $/15/7$
4'"
.
5. Consideration of Variance Request - Darwin Straw.
Mr. & Mrs. Darwin Straw requested a variance to allow them to subdivide
a 66' lot off of their 2t lot plat on the southwest corner of Block 10.
Presently, they own lots 1, 2 and the wi of 3, in Block 10, or a total
of 165'. An existing home and garage are now located on lot 1 and part
of lot 2, thus they would like to set off the East ~ of lot 2, and the
West ~ of Lot 3 to make a 66' building lot. They indicated that the
reason this parcel could not be divided equally is that the existing
garage is located 75' from the East property line. Mr. Ron Peters,
the abutting property owner, recommended that the Planning Commission
consider making the lot a little bit larger than 66', as he felt that
this may create problems in the future if a home would be built in
regards to variances for setbacks. Mr. Peters recommended that since
there is 76' to the existing garage located on lot 2, he recommended
that the lot be made at least 75' wide.
.
Motion was made by Bauer and seconded by Fair and unanimously carried
to approve the division of lots 1, 2 & 3 in Block 10 into two building
lots with the newly created lot being 75' wide to within one foot of
the existing garage on the first parcel, contingent upon submission
of a certificate of survey.
6. Consideration of a Setback Variance to Build a Four-car Gara e on
his Property Located at 01 West 3rd Street - Tom Chock.
Mr. Chock indicated that he would like to build a garage 5' from both
his rear property line and his side property line, which is the West
side.
According to the current city ordinances, a garage can be located in a
rear yard to within 5' of the back property line, but that a 10' setback
is required on all sideyard variances.
Since Mr. Chock owns the property abutting the sideyard, and naturally
had no objection to this 5' setback variance, a motion was made by
Bauer, seconded by Topel and unanimously approved to recommend approval
of the 5' setback variance for Mr. Chock's garage.
Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Topel and unanimously carried to adjourn.
.
RW/ns
-4-