Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 07-14-1987 . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 14, 1987 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Richard Carlson, Richard Martie, Jim Ridgeway, Barbara Koropchak. Members Absent: Joyce Dowling. Staff Present: Gary Anderson 1 . The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Carlson at 7:31 p.m. 2. Motion by Barbara Koropchak, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the minutes of the June 9, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow a deck to be constructed within the sideyard setback requirement. Applicant, Tom Lindquist. Mr. Lindquist was present to propose his variance request to have the already completed deck placed within the sideyard setback requirement. Mr. Lindquist indicated he wasn't aware a building permit would be needed since the deck could be removed along with the above-ground swimming pool which this deck surrounds. Mr. Lindquist also questioned if he even needed a variance request when the lot line could conceivablY be further north of his existing property next to the adjoining property owner. This exact lot line was only determined by the zoning Administrator when he was at the job site when he found that the deck was nearly completed. In site observation, the Building Official made the determination that the deck which surrounds the pool is approximately six feet from the property line, therefore needing a four foot variance. Mr. Roger Rehkamp, the adjoining property owner north of the Lindquist property, was present to indicate he had no problems with the Lindquist's request, only that he was also unsure where the property line is located. Planning Commission member, Barb Koropchak, questioned why a building permit was not taken out by the applicant in this case. zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Ms. Koropchak that it is common for the building contractor, not the applicant, to secure a building permit prior to commencing with construction of work. Commission member Jim Ridgeway questioned what the procedure was for taking out a building permit and if the Building Official was aware of the contractor why he wouldn't be familiar with the zoning Ordinance within the City of Monticello. Commission member's consensus was that the builder is in error on the Lindquist's request and a letter should be sent to the builder, Paul Becker, dba Paul Becker Construction, to make him aware of procedures needed and when to apply for a building permit. Commission member Barb Koropchak asked for a clarification of staff recommendation that the building permit fee for this be at least doubled. zoning Administrator Anderson -1- . . . p~anning Commission Minutes - 7/14/87 indicated that he, a~ong with John simola, Pub~ic Works Director, Thomas Eidem, former City Administrator, and Rick Wo~fsteller, new City Administrator, comprised the City staff which made this recommendation. When work is done without first obtaining a bui~ding permit, the fees are by Ordinance doub~ed when the permit is fina~lY obtained. Motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Barbara Koropchak, to tab~e the variance request to allow a deck to be constructed within the sideyard setback requirement. The fo~~owing were attached as conditions: 1) The Lindquists contact a registered ~and surveyor to have a Certificate of Survey done on their property. Once the survey is done, they can then determine where the new~y constructed deck around the existing swimming poo~ does lie in relationship to their side ~ot line. 2) That a letter is sent to the builder, Paul Becker, dba Paul Becker Construction, indicating to him when building permits are required and what procedures it takes to apply for a building permit and the fine or penalty which is levied against the builder if he doesn't first secure a building permit prior to commencing with construction. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow placement of a pylon sign within the pylon sign setback requirement. Applicant, Wayne Brinkman. Mr. Brinkman was present to propose his request to place a pylon sign within the pylon sign setback requirement. Mr. Brinkman indicated the proposed location for the pylon sign in relationship to his lot. Mr. Brinkman indicated the placement of this sign is to be adjacent to the second parking stall as you come in the south entrance to his parking lot. Mr. Brinkman chose that location to get the best exposure for his new business relocation. Commission member Jim Ridgeway questioned what the minimum setback requirements were. Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, indicated the minimum setback was 15 feet from a public right-of-way. Mr. Brinkman's request is to be within 9 feet of the public right-of-way with the placement of his sign. Commission member Barb Koropchak then questioned what would be the hardship in this case for the variance. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated the hardship is with the low placement of the building. Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing. Motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Jim Ridgeway, to approve the variance request to allow placement of a pylon sign within the pylon sign setback requirement. Motion carried unanimously. -2- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 7/14/87 5. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow construction of a swimming pool within the rear yard setback requirement. Applicant, Bob Weiman. Mr. Bob Weiman was present to propose a variance request to allow him to place an inground swimming pool within the 50-foot rear yard setback requirement. Mr. Weiman showed Commission members the location of his pool in relationship to his house and the Mississippi River. zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, explained to Planning Commission members his discussion with Dale Homuth, Area Hydrologist, Water Division, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Cloud Division, in which Mr. Homuth indicated that he had no problems with Mr. Weiman's variance request to allow placement of the swimming pool within the rear yard setback requirement. He also indicated that the City of Monticello is more restrictive by zoning ordinance than the Wright and Sherburne county zoning Ordinances. Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. Motion by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Barbara Koropchak, to approve the variance request to allow construction of a swimming pool within the rear yard setback requirement. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow construction of a house and garage within the sideyard setback requirement. Applicant, Janette Leerssen. Mr. John Leerssen, son of the applicant, was present to propose a lot split of existing lots to allow for construction of a new house and garage on the split off lot. Mr. Leerssen explained the location of the proposed house and garage would meet the minimum sideyard, front yard, and rear yard setback requirements. Mr. Leerssen explained the variance request that is needed in allowing a house and garage to be placed on this lot would encounter only 18 feet on the west side of this lot and only 14 feet on the east side of this lot of distance between structures. He indicated the minimum distance between structures by ordinance is 20 feet, therefore the reason for his variance request. Mr. Ridgeway felt uncomfortable with the applicant's request to place a house and garage there and meet the minimum setback requirements, except he saw no need for the variance request if he would shorten up or redirect the location of his house and garage on this lot to allow for 20 feet of distance between structures on both the east and west side of this lot. With no further input from the pUblic, Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. Motion by Barbara Koropchak, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the variance request to allow construction of a house and garage within the sideyard setback requirement. Voting in favor: Richard Carlson, Richard Martie, Barbara Koropchak. Voting in opposition: Jim Ridgeway. -3- Planning Commission Minutes - 7/14/87 . 7. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow a curb cut within 40 feet of a street right-ot-way, and to allow a street right-of-way to be used for a parking lot driving lane, and to allow a parking lot to be constructed without a 5-foot green area around its perimeter. Applicant, Al Jones. . Mr. Al Jones was present to propose his request to construct a parking lot on the south side of his building, the former Figs-it-Shop. If allowed to construct a parking lot on the south side of the building, Mr. Jones would be looking at a variance to allow the existing curb cut to be left in place within 40 feet of a public right-of-way, and to allow a street right-of-way to be used for a parking lot driving lane, and also to allow the parking lot to be constructed without a five foot green area around its perimeter. A main question raised by Commission members was the misunderstanding of the five foot green area between the to-be-constructed parking lot on the south side of the building and the existing West Fourth Street. Zoning Administrator indicated as per their drawings the green area which is to be created between West Fourth Street and the parking lot to be constructed on the south side of Mr. Jones's building. Commission members were also concerned with the proposed driving circulation route within the new parking lot to be created on the south side of the building and the existing gravel parking lot to the west of Mr. Jones's building. Mr. Jones indicated that the driving entrances from Walnut Street, the one on the north side and south side of his building, would be used as enter only, with the driveway entrance off of Fourth Street in the southwest corner of his lot to be used as an enter/exit. Commission members also questioned Mr. Jones if he was aware of the conditions as to the snow removal on the Fourth Street public right-of-way and also should any utility work be needed in the public right-of-way portion of West Fourth Street that he would have to pay for the restoration after the work is done. Mr. Jones indicated that he was fully aware of those two conditions which would occur if he was allowed to construct the parking lot on the south side of his building. Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. . Motion by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the variance request to allow a curb cut within 40 feet of a street right-Of-way, to allow a street right-of-way to be used for a parking lot driving lane, and also to allow a parking lot to be constructed without a five foot green area around its perimeter with the following conditions: A) Any maintenance, snow removal, resurfacing, etc., of the street right-of-way portion which Mr. Jones is going to use for a driving lane for his parking lot, be at Mr. Jones's expense; B) Should any utility work be done within the street right-of-way portion which Mr. Jones is using for a parking lot driveway, restoration expenses for this be at Mr. Jones's expense; C) Both driveway entrances off of Walnut Street be signed and used as an enter only; D) The driveway entrance off of West Fourth Street can be used for both entering and exiting. E) The parking lot be striped and signed appropriately to indicate conditions under C and D. Motion carried unanimously. -4- Planning Commission Minutes - 7/14/87 . 8. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow a portion of a parking lot curbing to be omitted. Applicant, Al Joyner. No one was present from Joyner Lanes, Mr. Al Joyner, applicant, to propose their variance request to allow no curbing in certain areas of their to-be-expanded parking lot. zoning Administrator Anderson did indicate to Planning Commission members Mr. Joyner's request, and if they chose to act on Mr. Joyner's request they could do so. Mr. Joyner was proposing to have only curbing in the area on the north side of his new addition which is under construction, and also a little curbing near the northeast corner of his parking lot around the garbage dumpster enclosure area. Mr. Joyner was requesting that in the rest of the parking lot area and driveway entrance area no curbing be installed. Planning Commission members felt that Mr. Joyner was allowed to put in the curbing for his parking lot when his new building was built; however, now that he is building an addition onto his building, the entire parking lot and driveway entrances be curbed as per minimum requirements of the Monticello City Ordinance. Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing. Motion by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Richard Martie, to deny the variance request to allow a portion of a parking lot curbing to be omitted. Motion carried unanimously. Additional Information Items . 1. Conditional use request to allow more than 12 apartment units in a downtown commercial building. Variance request to allow five existing apartments to remain on the first floor of a downtown commercial building as a non-conforming use. Applicant, Gary Hammer. Applicant requests Planning Commission to table his request for a period of one year, as he has now entered into a lease agreement for the restaurant portion of his building. Commission members acknowledged Mr. Hammer's request. 2. A variance request to allow construction of a garage/porch addition within the sideyard setback requirement. Applicant, Max and Sue LaVelle. Planning Commission's variance approval stands approved, as there were no appeals. 3. Consideration of approval of final platting of a replatted lot to be known as Colony by the Greens Third Addition. Applicant, Jay and Vivian Miller. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. . 4. A proposed subdivision to be known as Highland Heights Addition. Applicant, Rivera Financial and Development Company. The preliminary plat request will be coming before the Planning Commission at its August 11, 1987, meeting. -5- . . . P1anning Commission Minutes - 7/14/87 zoning Administrator Anderson indicated that the pre1iminary p1at is due into the City office on or about Ju1y 23 for their review. If it 100ks 1ike the pre1iminary p1at is in its entirety except for a coup1e of corrections here and there, we then wi11 have the pub1ic hearing notice fi1ed on Ju1y 27, 1987, for the next regu1ar1y schedu1ed P1anning Commission meeting date of August 11, 1987, 7:30 p.m. However, if the preliminary p1at is not ready in acceptab1e form, the pre1iminary p1at request will not be pub1ished for public hearing on July 27, 1987. 5. Commission members were not aware that the former Char1ie's West property, now known as West Side Market, was given a Certificate of Occupancy to be open for business. We did not get a request in time for the public hearing dead1ine for this Ju1y 14, 1987, P1anning Commission meeting on the deve1oper's request to a110w the driveways which are currently in to be wider than the 24-foot maximum driveway width. The deve1oper's request wi1l come forth as a public hearing at the next regular1y schedu1ed Montice11o P1anning Commission meeting on August 11, 1987, 7:30 p.m. The Certificate of Occupancy was issued with a Letter of Credit from the Wright county State Bank in the deve1oper's beha1f to a110w up unti1 October 8 to comp1ete the f011owing: 1) the right turn 1ane off of West County Road 75; 2) the Otter Creek Road realignment; 3) the enc10sed area around the garbage dumpster; 4) the trees and hedging to be p1anted sometime on or about September 1 to september 15, 1987; 5) the proposed screening fence on the east side of their property has been omitted and rep1aced with intermixing of tree plantings as per agreement between the deve1oper, affected property owners, and the City of Montice1lo. 6. Motion by Barbara Koropchak, seconded by Richard Martie, to set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission for Tuesday, August 11, 1987, 7:30 p.m. 7. Motion by Barbara Koropchak, seconded by Richard Martie, to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~AAIff/ Gary derson zoning Administrator -6-