Planning Commission Minutes 09-08-1987
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
~ Tuesday, September 8, 1987 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Joyce Dowling, RiChard Martie, Cindy Lemm,
Jim Ridgeway
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Ollie Koropchak
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Carlson at
7:32 p.m.
2. Motion by RiChard Martie, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve the
minutes of the August 11, 1987, meeting. Motion carried unanimously with
Cindy Lemm abstaining.
3. Consideration of Modifying the Finance Plan for Tax Increment
Redevelopment District #6. Applicant, City of Monticello.
Ollie Koropchak was present to explain to Planning Commission members the
modification to the finance plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment
District #6.
~
A brief explanation as to the reason for modifying was that some cost
overruns had occurred in the excavation of the building site. With no
input from the public, motion was made by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Cindy
Lemm, to approve the modification of the finance plan for Tax Increment
Redevelopment Distict #6. Motion carried unanimously. See planning
Commission Resolution 87-3.
4.
Sketch Plan Review of a Planned Unit Development to be known as Highland
Heights One. Applicant, Rivera Financial and Development Corporation.
Mr. George Rivera was present to propose a sketch plan for a planned unit
development to be known as Highland Heights One.
Mr. Rivera explained the intent of the proposed business uses which he
was intending to put in and the intention of the multiple family housing
to be put in on Blocks 2 and 3.
Mr. Rivera explained the proposed commercial development going from the
south end along Marvin Road to the north beginning with Block 1, Lot 1,
to have a drive-in fast food business; Block 1, Lot 2, to have a two
story office complex; and Block 1, Lot 3, to have a family type
restaurant; and Block 1, Lot 4, to have a one-story office complex.
~
Block 2 would have four 4-unit townhouses built on the entire block.
Block 3 would have 12 4-unit townhouses built on it. Mr. Rivera
indicated he had a substantial amount of local interest from local
builders and possibly local investors for this proposed type of
commercial/residential development.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/8/87
page 2
Mr. Carlson then opened the meeting for any input from the Planning
Commission members. Mr. Jim Ridgeway questioned where his other
developments were that his firm has been or has worked on in the past.
Mr. Rivera answered that the other developments have taken place in
Brooklyn park, St. Michael, and Maple Grove areas. Mr. Ridgeway again
questioned as to who the local builders would be. Mr. Rivera answered
that there are local builders, which he would not mention by name, that
were interested in the townhouse part of his project and there was also
interest from local investors on the proposed commercial developments.
Mr. Ridgeway also questioned the proposed project time table. Mr. Rivera
countered that, subject to everything being approved by planning
Commission members and City Cbuncil, he hoped to be underway with some
part of his project on or about Thanksgiving time in November.
Chairperson Richard Carlson questioned as to what area is being set aside
for park dedication. Zoning Administrator Anderson countered that the
park dedication part of this proposed planned unit development is being
worked out with the developer in a much larger scope but is in
relationship to this project.
With no further input from planning Commission members, motion was made
by Richard Martie, seconded by Joyce DoWling, to approve the sketch plan
as submitted for a planned unit development to be known as Highland
Heights One. Motion carried unanimously.
5.
Public Hearing - A variance request to allow a public right-of-way to be
used for off-street parking. Applicant, Glenette properties.
Mr. Glen Ertel was present to explain to Planning Commission members his
intent to expand his existing parking lots at the two 8-unit apartments
on West Third Street. Mr. Ertel explained to Planning Commission members
the problem he has when the parking ordinance ban goes into effect from
November 15 to April 15 with the number of apartment renters having more
vehicles than the number of spaces which he can accommodate in his
parking lots.
Commission members felt very uneasy with allowing Mr. Ertel to develop
into a public right-of-way when there was more than sufficient land on
his own property to develop additional off-street parking. Mr. Ertel was
questioned if he knew any additional conditions that were to be placed
with it subject to approval of his parking lot expansion. Mr. Ertel said
that he was aware of the additional conditions which may be attached
should a variance be approved this evening for his parking lot
expansion.
With no further input from the public or from the Planning Commission
members, motion was made by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to
deny the variance request to allow public right-of-way to be used for
off-street parking. Motion carried unanimously. The reason for
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/8/87
page 3
denial is that Planning Commission members fail to see the hardship as
submitted by the applicant in that there is sufficient land area to
develop additional off-street parking on his own property and not use the
public right-of-way. Motion by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Richard Martie,
to allow parking lot expansion up to the public right-of-way adjacent to
Hennepin Street to allow expansion of an existing parking lot with the
following conditions.
a. The owner is responsible for the relocation of the two garbage
dumpsters, which must go into an enclosed area.
b. The owner is responsible for the striping of the entire parking lot.
c. The owner is responsible for the placement of a handicapped sign and
post for his parking lot.
d. The owner is allowed to create a maximum number of three compact car
spaces in his expanded parking lot.
The motion carried unanimously.
6.
Public Hearing - A simple subdivision request to resubdivide two
residential lots. A variance request to allow the placement of a house
within the sideyard setback of a resubdivided lot line, and a variance
request to allow two residential lots, when subdivided, to be less than
the minimum lot square footage. Applicant, Dan Frie.
Mr. Dan Frie was present to propose his simple subdivision request of two
existing residential lots. Mr. Frie indicated they would like to split
the lots east and west versus the current north and south layout of these
existing two residential lots.
Mr. Frie indicated the type of house that would be built on this newly
created vacant residential lot would be a front to back split level type
of home; and with the newly created subdivided side lot line, there would
be a minimum of 20 feet between structures on that side only.
With no further explanation from the applicant, Chairperson Richard
Carlson then opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Marvin Woolhouse
questioned the need for an additional house to be placed on his lot when
the previous owner of this property built the house on the center of the
two existing platted lots. Mr. Kenneth Link had no objection to the
proposed subdivision as long as the lots aren't subdivided the way they
are presented on the enclosed site plan. Mr. Tom Wintz opposed the
proposed lot subdivision due to the small size of the lot that would be
created. With no further input from the public, Chairperson Richard
Carlson then opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission.
.
.
8.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/8/87
Page 4
Mr. Richard Martie questioned the slzlng of a proposed house on this
lot. Chairperson Richard Carlson questioned the City staff's
recommendation for approval of this proposed subdivision, knowing the
current house would be within 7.6 feet of the newly created side property
line. Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, explained to Planning
Commission members that a restrictive sideyard setback could be
established as a condition to approval of this subdivision request, that
there be a minimum of 20 feet between structures on the north side of the
property. They could also establish a sideyard setback on the south side
of the proposed house on this lot.
With no further input from the public, motion was made by Richard Martie,
seconded by Cindy Lemm, to deny the simple subdivision request to
resubdivide two residential lots; and denied the variance request to
allow the placement of a house within the sideyard setback of a
resubdivided lot line; and denied the variance request to allow two
residential lots, when subdivided, to be less than the minimum lot square
footage. Motion carried unanimously. The reason for denial is that the
property, when subdivided, is too close to an existing house and it is
too small a lot in that it doesn't meet the minimum lot square footage
requirements.
7.
Public Hearing - A simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing
residential lot with an existing duplex house on it into two zero lot
line duplex residential lots. A variance request to allow a residential
lot to be split into two residential lots with either lot having less
than the minimum lot square footage. Applicant, Leola Backstrom.
Leola Backstrom was present to propose her simple subdivision request to
allow her to subdivide her existing duplex on a single residential lot
into a zero lot line duplex creating two lots. Planning Commission
members felt uneasy with Mrs. Backstrom's request in that there wasn't
sufficient land area to accommodate the zero lot line duplex. With no
further input from the public or the Commission members, motion was made
by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Richard ~1artie, to deny the simple
subdivision request to subdivide an existing residential lot with an
existing duplex house on it into a zero lot line duplex residential lot.
Commission members also denied the variance request to allow a
residential lot to be split into two residential lots with either lot
having less than the minimum lot square footage. Motion carried
unanimously. The reason for denial was creating the zero lot line duplex
with each lot having less than the minimum lot square footage.
Public Hearing - An amendment to a certain area in the Monticello Zoning
Map. Applicant, City of Monticello.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members
that the City Administrator, Rick Wolfsteller, would like to request the
Planning Commission members to table this rezoning request until the next
regularly scheduled planning Commission meeting.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/8/87
page 5
The Planning Commission members acknowledged the City Administrator's
request for tabling it, but they felt time was of the essence in that
public hearing notices had been sent, the public hearing notification had
been met, and they felt now was the time to get on with it and apply some
new type of zoning to this affected area. Planning Commission member Jim
Ridgeway questioned applying B-2 zoning in the two middle sections of
this rezoning request. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated we put
B-2 zoning in to allow flexibility of some type of residential multiple
family to occur in and near the school district, the northwesterly most
portion of the school's property; and also by allowing B-2 in the area,
there would be the possibility of having some type of multiple family
next to the freeway. Mr. Ridgeway indicated he thought the best use for
the area next to the freeway would be for some type of highway business.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for any input from
the public. Mr. Shelley Johnson, Superintendent of Monticello Schools,
was present to indicate the Monticello School District had no problems
with the proposed zoning as indicated on the site plan. He did indicate,
however, that we might at some point in time look at some type of B-3
zoning in the northern one-half of this middle section.
With no further input from the pUblic or Commission members, motion was
made by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to amend a certain area
of the Monticello Zoning Map with the only change going from B-2 (limited
business) to B-3 (highway business) in the north one-half of the center
section of this zoning map area. Motion carried unanimously.
9.
Public Hearing - An amendment to the Monticello Sign Ordinance that a
Minimum of one (1) address sign shall be required on each building in all
zoning districts. Applicant, City of Monticello.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members
the intent of the amendment to the zoning ordinance attaching address
numbers to all bUildings and/or dwellings in the City of Monticello. The
initial request stemmed from requests from first responders, the
Monticello-Big Lake Hospital District Ambulance Group, and also from the
Wright County Sheriff's Department indicating it would be easier to
identify properties if all properties had address numbers that were
visible from a public street.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members
that they could add or delete any sections to the proposed sign ordinance
amendment.
With no further input from the public or Commission members, a motion was
made by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Cindy Lernm, to approve the amendment
to the Monticello Sign Ordinance that a minimum of one address sign shall
be required on each building in all zoning districts. Motion carried
unanimously.
.
.
.
planning Commission Minutes - 9/8/87
Page 6
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
1. A tabled variance request to allow a deck to be constructed within the
sideyard setback requirement. Applicant, Tom Lindquist. Planning
commission's variance approval stands approved, as there were no appeals.
2. A variance request to allow a driveway curb cut in excess of the maximum
curb cut driveway width allowed. Applicant, Westside Market. Planning
Commission's variance approval stands approved, as there were no appeals.
3. A conditional use request to allow major auto repair in a 8-4 (regional
business) zone. Applicant, Fred and Patricia Culp. Oouncil Action:
Approved as per planning Commission recommendation.
4. A variance request to allow construction of an attached garage within the
sideyard setback requirement. Applicant, William Sparrow. Planning
Commission's variance approval stands approved, as there were no appeals.
5. A variance request to allow construction of a detached garage, front
entry, and front open porch within the front yard setback requirement.
Applicant, Daniel Anderson. Applicant withdrew his variance request.
6.
A conditional use request to allow a beauty shop as a home occupation in
an R-l (single family residential) zone. Applicant, Joanne Hoerchler.
Oouncil Action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
7. Consideration of a new Planning Commission member. Council Action:
Approved as per majority vote of the Monticello Planning Commission
members.
8. The general consensus was to set the next tentative date for the
Monticello Planning Commission meeting for Wednesday, October 14, 1987,
7:30 p.m.
9. Motion by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Richard Martie, to adjourn the
meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at
10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
4f!!1~
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator