Planning Commission Minutes 05-15-1979
.
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 15, 1979 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: James Ridgeway, Fred Topel, Dick Martie.
Members Absent: Dave Bauer, Ed Schaffer.
1. Review of Minutes.
Motion was made by Dick Martie, seconded by Fred Topel and unanimously carried
to approve the Minutes of the May 1, 1979 Special Meeting, as presented.
2. Continuation of Public Hearing on James Maus's "The Meadows" Subdivision
Plat.
At the Commission's April 3, 1979 meeting, the Subdivision plat proposed by
James Maus was tabled until such time as the engineer could adequately review
the proposed development. Since that time, the Plat has been changed by
Mr. Maus in the following manners:
A. The initial plat indicated a ponding area to satisfy the storm sewer and
water runoff requirements, and the revised preliminary plat indicates
that a permanent storm sewer underground would be utilized to resolve
this problem.
B. The Plat was proposed to be developed in two stages, one phase would be
the development of all lots along Prairie Road, except the most westerly
lot bordering Prairie Road, and in Phase two, the balance of the subdivi-
sion would be developed.
C. As a result of the change in the ponding requirements from the initial
plat, the new proposed subdivision would have 70 lots instead of the 64.
The elimination of the ponding area would result in a cash dedication
instead of actual land for parks.
Mr. Jim Maus presented to the Commission the new subdivision plat, but since
the City's engineering staff had not had a chance to review the subdivision
and give comments to the City on the proposed development, a motion was made
by Fred Topel, seconded by Dick Martie and unanimously carried to again
table any consideration of this subdivision plat until the engineer can
prepare a written report in regards to the plat and the storm sewer proposed.
2-A. Public Hearing on Rezoning Blocks 11 and 21, Upper Monticello, from R-3 to
R-2, and Consideration of Recommendation of Approval of these Blocks along
with Block 10 of Upper Monticello from R-3 to R-2.
At a previous Planning Commission meeting, a hearing was held on rezoning
Block 10 from R-3 to R-2. The original Commission's recommendation was
then forwarded to the City Council which decided to lift a moratorium it
had previously imposed on lots B, 9 & 10 of Block 10, for a Multiple
Family Dwelling unit. This moratorium was lifted to allow the developer,
- 1 -
.
.
.
.
"
Minutes - Planning Commission - 5/15/79
Ron White, to continue with his plans for an apartment in that area. However,
the Council decided not to take any specific action on the rezoning request
and requested that the Planning Commission hold a hearing to also consider
the possibility of rezoning the surrounding blocks of Block 10 to R-2 from
R-3.
The reason for the action by the Council to hold another public hearing on
the additional blocks was that they felt the areas considered for rezoning
were primarily single family residential consisting of new and older homes
and also that one of the blocks was devoted for parking for St. Henry's
Catholic Church. Also, the Council felt that rezoning these areas from
R-3 to R-2 would still leave a large area within the district for multiple
family R-3 zoning, and there seemed to be neighborhood concern in regards
to future traffic flow and congestion if all of the area were developed
into R-3.
Mr. John Uban, of Howard Dahlgren Associates, the City's consulting planner,
reviewed with the Commission his recommendations on rezoning this area.
Mr. Uban felt that the area has been improving in the past years with single
family homes, and the existing homes have been upgraded, which he felt was
due primarily to the new streets in the area. He also stated in the area
of concern most of the lots are owned by separate individuals, except for
Block 21 which is mostly owned by the St. Henry's Catholic Church. Since
these lots are under individual ownership, Mr. Uban felt that larger apart-
ment buildings would be hard to locate in this area due to the need to
purchase the property from a number of people. He felt that the area in
question would primarily remain in a residential single family status
with the existing empty unbuilt lots being good sites for future duplexes
or fourplexes.
Mr. Uban suggested that if the Commission was to consider rezoning the three
blocks in question, they may also want to consider extending the rezoning
to R-2 to also include those areas south of Sixth Street which abut up to
the existing apartment houses located in the area. In other words, there
are now existing single family residential homes south of Sixth Street in
Block P and 0 which are now all single family residences. Mr. Uban felt
that this may be a more natural area to consider to R-2 zoning since the
development is already dictated single family residences in the area, and
future development of multiple family housing would be very unlikely.
In regards to the rezoning questions, the following testimony was presented:
Mr. Ron Peters - again indicated that he would like to see the area rezoned
to R-2 since the area is primarily single family residential.
Mr. Peters also presented a petition from the area residences stating their
opposition to the present R-3 zoning.
Mr. Don Luger - representing the st. Henry's Catholic Church, indicated that
their long range plans may include developing a new Church on portions of
Block 21, but in the meantime, they would be in favor of leaving the zoning
as R-3.
Mr. Ken Holker - representing Mr. Darwin Straw, property owner in Block 10,
indicated Mr. Straw's opposition to R-2 zoning. Mr. Holker indicated that
Mr. Straw has presently an application for a multiple family building pending
with the City of Monticello, and indicated that Mr. Straw bought his property
- 2 -
.
.
.
.
Minutes - Planning Commission - 5/15/79
back in 1974 knowing full well that it was R-3 zoning. Mr. Holker felt
it would be an injustice to Mr. Straw to now rezone this to a lower
classification due to Mr. Straw's potential multiple family building pending.
Mr. John Meier - indicated to the Commission that he has purchased property
within 350' of Block 10 and has bought this for an investment purpose knowing
full well it was R-3 zoning. He also indicated that he would like to see
it remain classified as R-3 Multiple Family zoning.
After reviewing the testimony presented at the public hearing, a motion was
made by Fred Topel, seconded by Dick Martie and unanimously carried to
recommend that the rezoning from R-3 to R-2 for the three blocks be denied.
3. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment to Re~uire all Driveways and Parking
Areas to be Hardsurfaced for a Single Family and Two Family Dwelling.
Current Monticello Ordinances require all parking areas including driveways
to be hardsurfaced with concrete or bituminous except for single family and
two family dwellings. At recent planning commission meetings, citizens
have commented that they would be in favor of this ordinance being amended
to also include single family and two family dwellings. The primary reason
for instituting a policy of hardsurfaced driveways for single family and
two family dwellings was that it would improve the appearance of the pro-
perty in question along with the values of property in the neighborhood.
Hearing no other comments, motion was made by Dick Martie, seconded by
Fred Topel and unanimously carried to recommend that the City Council amend
the ordinance to include hardsurfaced driveways for single and two family
dwellings. It was noted that if this ordinance amendment was adopted
it would apply only to new construction rather than existing homes.
4.
consideration of Proposed Ordinance Amendments,- Public Hearing.
The following ordinance amendments were proposed to help provide better
documentation of proposed subdivisions, and to better insure their compliance
with County and City regulations:
Section ll-4-l-(C)-(7)
7. A statement of the approximate square footage and
dimensions of the individual lots.
Section ll-4-2-(A)-(ll)
11. An accompanying letter from the County Surveyor's Office stating
that the plat or land survey has been examined and approved.
section
1.
ll-4-2-(C)-(l)
A letter from the County Recorder's office stating the
final plat has been recorded as approved by the City Council
shall be received by the Building Official's office before
any building permits may be issued.
Ordinance Amendment Section 11-4-l(C)-(7) would, if adopted, be the guide used
in determining the cost of various improvements based on square footage, etc.,
and also would be useful in insuring minimum lot sizes and dimensions are
adhered to.
- 3 -
.
.
.
.
Minutes - Planning Commission - 5/15/79
Section 11-4-2-(A)-(ll), if adopted, would insure that the County Surveyor has
had an opportunity to review the proposed plat and insure its compliance with
Minnesota Statutes.
Section ll-4-2-(C)-(l), if adopted, would insure that the proposed subdivi-
sion has been recorded according to its approved final form before any build-
ing permits could be issued, thus insuring that the buildings weren't built
on unrecorded lots. This provision would also insure that proper records
are recorded for future assessment purposes.
Hearing no other comments, motion was made by Fred Topel, seconded by Dick
Martie and unanimously carried to recommend adoption of the above three
ordinance amendments.
5. Consideration of a Variance Request on Hardsurfaced Parking Area by the
Trinity Lutheran Church.
Last Fall, the Trinity Lutheran Church requested variances that would allow
them to have only approximately half of the necessary parking lot hard-
surfaced, with the balance to be in grass or similar to the country church
concept. Since that time, they were granted their request, and they have gone
through the bid letting process and the bids have come in at approximately
$30,000 more than their lender will allow them to spend. A representative
of the Church requested that they not be required to put in any of the hard-
surfaced parking at this time, but be allowed up to three years before
any hardsurfaced parking would have to be installed.
Motion was made by Dick Martie, seconded by Fred Topel and unanimously
carried to grant the Trinity Lutheran Church an additional three years
variance from any hardsurfaced parking requirements previously granted.
6.
Consideration of Ordinance Amendment to allow a Mixture of Residential and
Commercial Uses in a B-3 or B-4 zone.
Previously, the Monticello Pet Hospital had requested a variance to have an
apartment above the hospital itself. This variance was granted by the Planning
Commission and City Council, and since that time, Mr. Fred Topel has also
indicated a desire to do something of this nature to his Mini-Mall building
in downtown Monticello. Because of the two recent requests, the Planning
Commission felt there may be some merit in considering an ordinance amend-
ment to allow a business to have an apartment complex within the same
structure since the current ordinances do not allow for such a mixture
of uses.
since that time, the City's staff has consulted with John Uban of Howard
Dahlgren and Associates, the City's planner, in regards to the above ordin-
ance amendments. Mr. Uban has indicated that such a use could be considered
as a conditional use within a B-1, B-2 or R-B zone, but also indicated that
a review process should be looked at for each individual conditional use
for good design and neighborhood compatibility. In addition, Mr. Uban had
some concern for allowing a combination of commercial/residential establish-
ments in the B-4, downtown, zones. He felt that special consideration should
be given before allowing such uses based on the following:
- 4 -
.
.
.
.
Minutes - Planning Commission - 5/15/79
A. Such uses should be close to park areas in order to allow inhabitants
of the apartments adequate facilities for recreation.
B. Adequate provisions should be provided to meet the off-street parking
requirements. He felt that a specific portion of the parking areas
should be set aside for the residential occupants to insure that
residents of the apartment had adequate parking.
C. Special precautions should be taken 'to make sure that the residential
apartments would be compatible with the surrounding property. As an
example, he would not recommend a residential building located on
top of or near a filling station, as an example.
After reviewing Mr. Uban's comments on allowing a residential/commercial
mixture in a B-4 or other commercial zones, motion was made by Dick Martie,
seconded by Fred Topel and unanimously carried to authorize the consulting
planner, John Uban, to draft a proposed ordinance amendment to allow a
mixture of residential/commercial uses within the same structure within a
B-3 and/or B-4 zone. This ordinance amendment would then be reviewed by the
City's staff and a public hearing could then be held in the near future.
7. Consideration of a Variance to Allow an Apartment/Commercial Use within a
B-4 Zone - Fred TOEel.,
Mr. Fred Topel, owner of the Mini-Mall complex in downtown Monticello,
requested a variance to add a 2,600 square foot apartment above his building
which is currently zoned B-4.
Mr. Topel asked that his request be considered as a variance rather than
wait for the Planning Commission and Council to review and possibly amend
the ordinances allowing for such a use as a conditional use as mentioned in
Agenda Item 6, above. The reason for Mr. Topel's request is that he would
like to start construction as soon as possible for his apartment.
In reviewing some of the concerns of the Planner if a commercial/residential
mixture was allowed in a commercial district, the Planning Commission looked
at the various suggestions of the Planner in regards to the following:
A. Parking - the Planning Commission felt that Mr. Topel would have room in
the rear of his building to set aside a parking spot reserved for the
apartment complex owned by him.
B. Garbage/Refuse - Mr. Topel indicated that all refuse would be enclosed
inside the building and not be set out in the alley.
C. Access to the Residence - Mr. Topel indicated that his apartment complex
would have a separate access and would be compatible with the other
entrances to the Mini-Mall.
D. Traffic - Mr. Topel indicated that with the alley and the parking
space provided in the rear of the building, there should be no pro-
blem with pedestrian traffic or other vehicular traffic.
- 5 -
.. .
.
.
.
.
... ..!'
Minutes - Planning Commission - 5/15/79
After reviewing the conditions recommended by the Planner if an ordinance
amendment is added in the future to allow this type of use, a motion was
made by Dick Martie, seconded by Jim Ridgeway and unanimously carried to
recommend approval of a variance for Mr. Topel's apartment to be in a B-4
zone.
8.
Consideration of a Subdivision of Lots - Ralph Kiffmeyer.
Mr. Ralph Kiffmeyer requested that he be able to subdivide the west half
of Lot 3 and Lots 4 & 5, in Block 38, into two 13,613 square foot lots.
The current R-2 zoning would require lots at a minimum size of lO,OOO square
feet, and as a result, if this variance was approved, both lots would
exceed the minimum requirements by 3,613 square feet each.
Motion was made by Fred Topel, seconded by Dick Martie and unanimously
carried to approve the proposed subdivision of lots 4 & 5 and the W~ of 3,
in Block 38, contingent upon providing a certificate of survey and proof
of recording the same.
9. Consideration of Setback Variance Request - James Fuller.
Mr. James Fuller requested a variance of 3'9" to build a 20' addition
on the east side of his home at 800 W. Broadway.
His home is currently located 36'3" away from the east property line and
a corner lot such as his requires a minimum of 20' setback, thus requiring
the variance of 3'9" if the addition is built.
The Planning Commission felt that a 16'3" setback from the east property
line would be sufficient, and the motion was made by Fred Topel, seconded
by Dick Martie and unanimously carried to approve the variance request
of 3'9" to Mr. James Fuller.
Motion was made by Dick Martie, seconded by Fred Topel and unanimously
carried to adjourn.
RW/ns
- 6 -