Planning Commission Agenda Packet 02-10-1987AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - 14ONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 10, 1987 - 7:30 p.m.
Members: Richard Carlson, Joyce Dowling, Richard Martie, Barbara
Koropchak, Jim Ridgeway.
7:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order.
7:32 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held
January 13, 1987.
7:34 p.m. 3. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow an addition
to be built onto an exi9ting house to allow the occupancy
of applicant -s family members. Applicant, Ronald
6 Hannah Zimmerman.
7:54 p.m. 4. Simple Subdivision Request to subdivide an existing
residential lot into two residential lots. Applicant,
Nick Kampa.
8:14 p.m. 5. Simple Subdivision Request to subdivide existing residential
lots into two residential lots. Applicant, Russell
Lovegran.
Additional Information Items
8:34 p.m. 1. Simple Subdivision Request, Nick Kampa, request not
brought before City Council.
8:36 p.m. 2. Conditional Use Request, Tom Holthaus, request continued
to March 23, 1987, City Council meeting.
8:38 p.m. 3. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commiesion meeting for March 10, 1987, 7:30 p.m.
8:40 p.m. 4. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELL.O PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, January 13, 1987 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Richard Martie, Joyce Dowling,
Barbara Koropchak, Jim Ridgeway.
Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Thomas Eidem, Gary Anderson.
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Carlson at
7:35 p.m.
2. Motion by Barbara Koropchak, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve
the minutes of the November 12, 1986, regular Planning Commission
meeting. Motion carried unanimously with Jim Ridgeway abstaining.
3. A consensus of Planninq Commission members for a Planning Commission
Chairperson.
it was the consensus of the Planning Commission members present that
Richard Carlson v,rve another term as 1987 Planning Commission Chairperson.
<. A consensus o:•_P Anning Commission members for a Planning Commission
Vice-Chairpe•.�
It was th•, of the Planning Commission members present that
Mr. Jim Ri•;, / serve as the 1987 Planning Commission vice-Chairperoon.
5. Public Nearing - A variance request to allow a proposed subdivided
residential lot to have lees than the minimum lot front footage at
the property line and lees than the minimum lot front footage at
the front setback Line. Applicant, Nick Kampa.
Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, indicated to Planning Commiosion
members Mr. Kampala request. In explaining to Planning Commission
memboro, Anderson noted the two variancon which would be needed on
the enclosed Oita plan as presented. Chairperoon Richard Carloon
than opened the meeting for any input from the public. Mr. Joe Schanon,
residential property owner in Kampa Estates on the lot immediately
west of the propoaed subdivided lot, Questioned why the need to create
two smaller Iota and request variances that would be from the minimum
requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Schanen indicated he thought
the whole intent of the ordinance was to follow it no close so posoible,
therefore not needing any variances.
City Administrator, Thomas Eidem, suggested an alternative of the proposed
splitting of the lot east and vast rather than to split the lot north
and south. By splitting the lots north and south would take care
1
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/13/87
of no accesses off of west County Road 39 and would also create a
building lot immediately fronting west County Road 39. Mr. Bill
Pair questioned from the public's safety standpoint the access to
the existing lot with the newly created lot on the proposed site
plan.
Notion by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Richard Martie, to deny the variance
request to allow a proposed subdivided residential lot to have leas
than the minimum lot front footage at the property line and lees
than the minimum lot front footage at the front setback line. Motion
carried unanimously. The reason for denial was proposing to create
a new lot with a variance request for lees than the minimum lot front
footage as required by ordinance. Also, if this lot was created,
one of the variance requests would be in direct violation of our
Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
6. Public Rearing - A conditional use request to allow the dispensing
of motor fuels incidental to a conforming use, a convenience store,
in an R-1 Zone. Applicant. Tom Nolthaus.
Thomas Eidem, City Administrator, explained to the public that was
present and the Planning Commission members the City Attorney's opinion
of the conditional use request. The question at hand is, is the
dispensing of motor fuels incidental to the principal use, a convenience
store. He further explained that the convenience store is a lees
non -conforming use than the previous use, a liquor/food establishment.
Mr. Eidem emphasized a lot of the information from this was referred
to right out of the Monticello City Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3,
Section I. (P], and it reads as follows:
A lawful, non -conforming use of a structure or a
parcel of land may be changed to lessen the non -conformity
of use. Once a non -conforming structure or parcel
of land has been changed, it shall not thereafter
so be altered to increase tho non -conformity.
Planning Commission Chairperson, Richard Carlson, reiterated the
Intent of the public hearing was to consider, as a conditional use,
the dispensing of motor fuel incidental to the principal non -conforming
use, a convenience store. Mr. Carlson than opened the meeting for
any input from the public, and the following commants were submitted.
Mrs. Colleen Nelson opposed the gas station being too close to their
property.
Mr. Myron Naldy is opposed to the project for the following reasons:
1) It's not a compatible use with the existing use that was there;
1) The proposed location of the gas pumps in relationship to the
intersection of west County Road 75 and Otter Creek Road; 3) An
Increased amount of congestion; 4) The hours of operation; 9) He
fait it would decrease their property values; 6) Additional theft
and vandalism, and he felt there was no mood for a convenience •tore,
as there are already five or so existing in the city of Monticello.
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/13/87
The following comments were made by David Kapok. He questioned the
need of a convenience store/self-service gas station wh6n there is
an existing one, the Monticello Pump N Munch, approximately eight
blocks from this site.
Mr. Jeff Nelson also was opposed, and he asked in what zones motor
fuels are allowed to be in. City Administrator Thomas Eidem indicated
that it is allowed only as a conditional use in a B-3 (Highway Business)
Zone.
Sherrie Peters questioned that this would be de -valuing their
residential properties.
Planning Commission member, Jim Ridgeway, asked the applicant to
explain his plat, as many of the questions which were brought up
by concerned members of the public could be addressed by the applicant
explaining his proposed convenience store/self-service gas station
on this proposed site. City Administrator, Thomas Eidem, explained
the site plan of the applicant for the Planning Commissioners and
the public.
some additional questions which were brought up ware the hours of
operation. The applicant explained the hours would probably be from
9:00 a.m. until 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. Another question brought up was
the insurance question if, with a motor fuel station, surrounding
properties- insurance would be increased. Also questions were brought
up about the lighting, and Thomas Eidem, City Administrator, explained
the locations of the proposed lighting.
Myron Haldy explained that even with a 6 -foot privacy, there still
wouldn't be privacy for some of the existing homes there, as they
are split entry homes, and the upstairs part of the split can still
overlook this 6 -foot high screening fence.
Mrs. Diane Peters indicated that they have been living at their residence
for approximately 16-17 years and were one of the first residents
in this particular area of town, and felt that the proposed use of
the applicant -a would be much better than what was previously there,
a liquor/toot establishment.
Mr. Roger Hedtke questioned as to why the dispensing of motor fuels
would be allowed in this residential single family zone.
Mr. Richard Kolb is definitely opposed to it because of the lighto from the
cars and all the noise created by such an activity at this site.
Mr. Dave Kapok questioned the applicant if he had researched a need
for such an activity at this particular site.
Two petitions ware submitted by Colleen Nelson to Planning Commission
Chairperson, Richard Carlson, and vers read aloud by Mr. Carlson.
-1-
('�
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/13/87
Mr. Jim Ridgeway questioned the applicant the hours of his operation.
He indicated they would more than likely be between 5:00 a.m. or
6:00 a.m. to 10:00 P.M. or 11:00 P.M.
Motion by Jim Ridgeway to approve the conditional use request to
allow the dispensing of motor fuels incidental to a conforming use,
a convenience store, in an R-1 Zone with the following conditions:
1. An approved lardacaping/screening plan be submitted prior to
application for building permit.
2. A hard surfaced parking lot with curb and gutter be constructed.
3. Prior to granting a Certificate of Occupancy, money be escrowed
for complotion of landscaping needed to meet the approved landscaping
plan; and money also be escrowed for the construction of the
hard surfaced parking lot with curb and gutter if these should
not be in by the time they would like to open for business.
d. The hours of operation will be from no more, but could be less,
than from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
5. There be a maximum of four fuel pumps.
6. The dispensing of motor fuels be allowed for automobiles and
trucks not exceeding 15 tons.
Motion seconded by Richard Hartie, and was approved unanimously.
Additional Information Items
1. The 1987 Planning Conference Update.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated that it would be held on
Wednesday, the 21st of January, and that either himself or Tom f;idom
would be going with the Planning Commission Chairperson, Richard
Carlson. If the now Planning Commission member, Jim Ridgeway, would
like to go, he would be more than welcome to go.
2. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members to set the
next tentative data for the Monticello Planning Commission for February 10,
1987, 7:30 p.m.
3. motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Richard Martie, to adjourn the
meeting. Keating adjourned at 9:21 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
easy ddr on
Zoning Administrator
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/10/87
3. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow an addition to be built
onto an existing house to allow the occupancy of applicant's family
members. Applicant. Ronald 6 Hannah Zimmerman. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Upon further research of the applicant's request, we did find in
the definition section of our ordinance where the definition
for family is one or more persons, each related to the other by blood,
marriage, adoption, and/or foster care. In the applicant's case,
the applicant is requesting to be allowed their parents to live in
the addition they would propose to build to their home. In R-1 zoning,
this is an allowable use as long as it is the applicant's family
that intends to live there. Therefore, the applicant's public hearing
request was not needed in this case.
We are, however, going one step further in that we are requiring
the applicant. prior to issuance of a building permit, to have a
legal document prepared by our City Attorney and recorded at the
Wright County Recorder's Office with the applicant acknowledging
that they will only be able to rent the proposed addition to one
of their own family members. When this use has been discontinued,
they will no longer be able to use this addition for a rental to
anyone other than one of their family members. In other words, in
no way, shape, or form could they be allowed to rent out this addition
as a rental unit.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
There are no alternative actions.
C. STAFF RECOKKENDATION:
The staff recommendation would be that we have talked to the applicant
and have informed them of the legal document which we are going to
have prepared, and they have agreed to the conditions that will be
attached on this legal document to be recorded.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the definition section of the ordinance under family.
ME
(DM)
DWELLING. MULTIPLE (APARTMENT): A building designed
with three (3) or more dvelling unite exclusively for
occupancy by three (3) or more families living independently
of each other but sharing hallways and main entrances
and exits.
(DN)
DWELLING, SINGLE-FAMILY: A detached dwelling unit designed
exclusively for occupancy by one (1) family.
(DO)
DWELLING, TWO-FAMILY: A dwelling designed exclusively
for occupancy by two (2) families living independently
of each other.
1. DOUBLE BUNGALOW: A tvo-family dwelling with two (2)
units side by side.
2. DUPLEX: A two-family dwelling with one (1) unit above
' the other.
(DP)
DWELLING UNIT: A residential building or portion thereof
intended for occupancy by a family but not including
hotels, motels, nursing homes, seasonal cabins, boarding
or rooming houses, tourist homes or trailers.
IEA)
ELDERLY (SENIOR CITIZEN) HOUSING: A public agency owned.
controlled or financod multiple dwelling building with
open occupancy limited to persons over fifty-five (55).
t
- (EB)
EFFICIENCY APARTMENT: A dwelling unit consisting of
-one (1) principal room exclusive of bathroom, hallway,
closets, or dining alcove, and has Limited provisions
for cooking (kitchenette).
(EC)
ESSENTIAL SERVICES: The erection, construction, alteration,
or maintenance of underground or overhead gas, electrical,
steam, or water tranamioalon or distribution systems,
collection, communication, supply or disposal systems
by public utilities, municipal or other governmental
agencies, but not including buildings.
(ED)
EQUAL DEGREE OF ENCROACHMENT: A method of determining
the location of encroachment linoo so that floodvatero
flow. This is determined by concidoring the effect
of encroachment on the hydraulic efficiency of the flood
plain along both sides of a stream for a significant
roach.
(FAJ
FAMILY: One (1) or more persona each related to the
other by blood, marriage, adoption, or tooter care,
or a group of not more than five (5) persons not so
related maintaining a common household and using common
cooking and kitchen facilities.
a (FB)
FAMILY OF ORIGIN - Mother, father, brother, sister,
son, daughter, grandmother, grandfather.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/10/87
6. Simple Subdivision Request to subdivide an existing residential lot
into two residential lots. Applicant, Nick Ramp&. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Nick Kampa will be back before you with a simple subdivision request
to subdivide an existing lot into two residential lots. As you will
note on the enclosed site plan, the lots have not been split the
way the Planning Commission members had suggested to Mr. Kampa at
the Jeivary 13 Planning Commission meeting. The proposed simple
subdivision request does meet the minimum requirements of our ordinance
as presented. A couple of questions that do come to mind are the
showing for Parcel B an ingress and egress easement for the existing
gravel driveway; and secondly, they are proposing a future driveway
to service Parcel A with a driveway coming off of County Road 39.
This proposed future driveway for the house on Parcel A could be
in conflict with the distance of an existing driveway immediately
south of this Parcel A. Also enclosed in your supplement you will
find a copy of comments from Public Works Director, John Simola,
from his conversation with gentlemen from the Wright County Engineer's
Department. we will, however, have written comments back from the
Wright County Engineer on this proposed simple subdivision request.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the simple subdivision request as presented.
2. Deny the simple subdivision request as presented.
3. Approve the simple subdivision request of dividing an existing
residential lot into two residential Iota with the following
conditions:
a. The proposed ingress and agrees easement going across Parcel B
to service the garage on Parcel A be eliminated.
b. That the proposed future driveway to service the house on
Parcel A be set at a distance as recommended by Wright County
Engineer's Office.
c. That the future services for the existing house on Parcel A
be installed prior to the reconstruction of west County Road 39
during the spring of 1987.
C. STAFF RF.MMENDATION:
Staff rocommondo the approval of the simple subdivision request to
subdivide an existing residential lot into two residential Iota.
Staff recommends that no ingress/ogress easement be granted to Parcel A
going across Parcel 8 to service the existing garage on Parcel A.
min
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/10/87
�l Also City staff would like to recommend a distance for the proposed
future driveway in Parcel A at a distance recommended by the Wright
County Engineer. We would like to see the services run into the
existing house on Parcel A put in at some time during the reconstruction
of West County Road 39 in the spring of 1987.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the Certificate of Survey; Copy of comments from the Public
Works Director.
r
IN
I N aI. ob S4 E -�,■,
i t` d pn, vc�.v.1Y
�-y,bRf
y
a y
�"� h vu1Z��E sanor�cd� � � �• N C �4
s •r
o• -� N
O
z
O m
Ilk n a oqa a ii a
0
1 r- so
' q MSfwlfi IM+i ✓s .ir i�T..11..Y'-+" ."r-
vi P
14'9 011
!! '
S 8° Is, 22" W ,n
6to a IcAsr LONE or Lor d
•A
.k'�4MPi4 ci�CLE '
k
i
_
(..its o� l�ontice110
�y
MONTICELLO, MN 65M .9245
Ph1ra lel 2) ZM2711
MEMO
M e" IB 12) 333-6739
TO: Gary Anderson, Toning Administrator
FROM: Jahn Simola, public Works Director 4-SIr
G..
RE: Subdivision of Lot Z, Block 1, Eampa Estates
6. —"10-
C=—"10-
F= Par
DATE: February 6, 1987
Waim Per
Jock MWnw2
I have reviewed the proposed subdivision and make only the following
comments.
AeflkaweW
Ton Elden
Farce Dtocmr
1. Services should be established to the existing home prior
Makroa4wMr
to the sale of the new lot.
Pubic WIN :
Jfh Sknob
Z. The easement to the old garage not be recorded as such and
o.Pip Od &z `
access be discontinued with construction on the new lot.
0, - - nla DMMopernt
Of Koropchek
I have contacted Wright County about the subdivision and driveway
relocation on County Road 39. Their review will be completed
next week. The one concern noted was the separation between
1
the relocated driveway and the existing driveway on the next
lot to the west be adequate for maintenance.
QEO fut -0245
�;.M92nweob
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/10/87
r 5. Simple Subdivision Request to subdivide exiatinq residential lots
into two residential Iota. Applicant, Russell Lovegren. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Russell and Carol Lovegren are proposing to subdivide their residential
lots to create two residential lots. The lots which the Lovegrens
are proposing to subdivide are of existing iota that were platted
as part of the original platting in the City of Monticello. These
lots were platted with a lot width of 66 feet and a depth of 165
feet for a total lot square footage of 10,890 square feet. In looking
at the applicant•a request. I think we should look at this as subdividing
residential Iota that were of a different lot width and lot square
footage than what the minimum lot width and square footage that is
required today. In the proposed lot split as shown on Parcel A.
that lot would meet the minimum requirements of a residential lot
at that time, 10,890 square feet. With the creation of the new lot
which is called Parcel B, this lot would be well in excess of the
minimum requirements of the existing original lots and also of existing
lots as they are platted today. In looking at this request, I think
we should look at the existing square footage and lot sires that
were in effect when the lots were platted. Keeping that in mind
with the request as submitted, the simple subdivision of these residential
iota would meet the minimum requirements of the ordinance.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide residential
iota into two residential lots.
2. Deny the simple subdivision request to subdivide existing lots
into two residential late.
C. STAFP RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of subdividing the existing lots into two
residential lots. In reviewing the applicant's requeot and looking
at the land that was available with this. and this being part of
the original platting of the City of Monticello, we base our recommendation
on the existing applicant's request.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the simple subdivision request; Copy of the
site plan for the simple subdivision request.
-4-