Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 10-14-1980 . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 14, 1980 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, John Bondhus, Bill Burke, Ed Schaffer. Members Absent: Dick Martie, Loren Klein. I-A. Approval of Minutes - September 17, 1980 Meeting which was Continued to September 22, 1980. Motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by John Bondhus and unanimously carried to approve the above minutes, as presented. 1. Public Hearing - Consideration of Rezoning - Kermit Lindberg. Mr. Kermit Lindberg, who owns Lot 1, Block 2, Riverwood Estates, ~s requesting rezoning of that lot from R-I to B-3. Mr. Lindberg feels that this lot, Lot 1, which lies between Dino's Other World and the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant, is more suited to B-3 zoning than it is to R-l zoning. Since the zoning was consistent with the parcels to the east and west of this property and the only other adjoining property would be the Lindberg residence itself to the north, a motion was made by John Bondhus, seconded by Ed Schaffer and unanimously carried to recommend approval of the rezoning. 2. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use - Terry Mick and Erv Radunz. Terry Mick and Erv Radunz, as partners in this project, are applying for a conditional use permit to develop two IS-unit apartment buildings on Lot 5, Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrace. Of those items to be addressed on this project would be that the required lot area for this development should be 95,000 square feet; however, only 81,600 square feet of land is available, thereby the land requirement is 14% short of what it should be. However, in the future, these two gentle- men are considering the possibility of developing a total of 100 apartment units. If that were the case, upon completion of that entire development, there would be adequate land available for the square footage requirements if the entire project were taken as a whole, rather than considering each individual lot and its individual lot square footage requirements. Another item which should be considered is the square footage of the apart- ment units. Although the square footage of the one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments exceed the square footage required per each, one efficiency unit is proposed within one of the buildings which will be approximately 28% short of what the ordinance requires. Ordinance requirement for an efficiency . - 1 - Planning Commission - 10/14/80 . apartment is 500 square feet. However, in reviewing these plans with the proposed developers, the Building Inspector has determined that it would be difficult to increase that efficiency unit to anything much larger than it is already being proposed, and not using that space for an efficiency unit would constitute a waste of expensive floor space. Another item for consideration is that Monticello Ordinances required that whenever an R-3 zone such as this zone is abuts an R-2 zone, that the rear parking lot setback should be 15'. However, in this case, the proposed parking lot is only 5' from the rear property line. One item for consideration in this request for a 5' rear property line is that the R-3 zone, although it abuts an R-2 zone, has an 80' wide buffer between the R-3 and R-2 zones, that buffer being the railroad property. Although the plan for the drainage has been submitted to OSM for their review, at the time of the meeting no comments have been returned. However, any recommendation for approval of this project would be contingent upon a recommendation from OSM, prior to the Council's consideration. The following is general information: . A. There are two basic buildings. B. Each building contains 18 dwelling units and contains 15,600 sq.ft. each. C. There will be 24 two-bedroom units of 720 sq.ft. each, and 12 one-bedroom apartment units of 600 sq.ft. each, and one efficiency unit of 360 sq. ft. D. There will be two parking spaces per unit available, and of the two parking spaces available for each unit, eighteen of these spaces will be within garages, as required by ordinance. At the public hearing portion of the agenda item, no comments were heard in opposition to the proposed project. Additionally, the present owner of the property, Roy Lauring, indicated that he felt that since the project at this point is proposed to be non-subsidized and that there is a need for this type of housing in Monticello, he would strongly recommend approval by the Planning Commission. A motion was made by Bill Burke, seconded by John Bondhus and unanimously carried to approve the conditional use for the apartment complex, along with the three variances indicated above. Reason for the approval of the variances was in the case of the rear parking lot setback, this abutted up against the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks, and in effect, there was an additional 80' buffer between the property which is zoned R-3 and the property to the north of the railroad tracks which is zoned R-2. The variance for the square footage requirement of the efficiency apartment was approved in light of the fact that all the remaining units more than exceeded the minimum requirements. Additionally, the variance on the square footage requirement for the total land area was approved in light of the fact that additional land costs might discourage conventional financing, and this is one of the few conventially financed apartment projects to be proposed in Monticello in quite a while. . - 2 - . . . Planning Commission - 10/14"s0 3. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Rezoning Request - Vic Hellman. Vic Hellman, who is proposing to buy Lots 9 & lO, Block 4, Lower Monticello, is proposing to rezone that property from R-l to R-2. This request is being made so that now the unoccupied single family home could be converted to a duplex. This home is located directly across the street to the east from the Monticello Laundromat on East Broadway. The current zoning across the street to the west where the Laundromat is on Block 5 and extending from there into the downtown area is zoned B-4, and Mr. Hellman contends that changing the R-l zoning to R-2 zoning would provide an adequate buffer area between the B-4 and R-l zonings, and would be conducive to a duplex. Presently and for the past several months, the existing dwelling has been vacant and been maintained in somewhat less than desirable conditions. Possibly granting a rezoning of this type could lead to an upgrading of the property to a somewhat better standard than has been maintained in the past. vic Hellman indicated that he would be making improvements to the interior of the building which would include bringing the building up to code, and additionally, the exterior would be scraped and painted. Based on the fact that there was no opposition to the proposal and the fact that if the rezoning would be approved, improvements would be made to this property, a motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Bill Burke and unanimously carried to recommend approval of the rezoning request. 4. Consideration of a Variance Request - Dave Sieckert. Mr. Dave Sieckert, the applicant, is selling his home west of Monticello and plans to purchase Gary Corrow's home, which is directly to the west of the Silver Fox Inn. Mr. Sieckert is planning to use the barn on that property to establish an informal meeting place. He feels that he would like to have a place where people may go without feeling pressure to join or pay dues to any organi- zation, society, etc. Mr. Sieckert feels that he has a desire to become involved in this way in order that he may be able to casually show youth that he has a concern for them. His intention would be to remodel the barn to include facilities for a lounge, kitchen and bathrooms, as well as space for a ping pong table, badminton, basketball or volleyball, whatever space would allow. However, in order that Mr. Sieckert might develop this plan of his, it is necessary that he would have to have a variance from the required hardsurfacing and - 3 - . . . Planning Commission - 10/14180 Mr. Stumpf is proposing this garage as a facility to get his semi trucks and a few personal vehicles enclosed, rather than allow them to set outside in the weather. Currently, Mr. Stumpf does park his semis in the same location in which he is proposing to build this garage, and he just feels that if he were able to enclose his vehicles within a building, it would be better on the vehicles by exposing them less to the weather, especially during the winter months. When notice of this hearing was sent out, two individuals who received notices contacted the City Hall to gain information about this proposed building, and they stated that although they might come to the hearing, that if this building were going to be used to store personal vehicles, such as Mr. Stumpf is proposing, rather than to expand the junkyard business, that they would be in favor of granting this variance. A neighboring property owner, Frank Auringer, had a question on the type of building that was proposed. Mr. Chuck Stumpf indicated that the building would be a colored steel building. Mr. Stumpf also indicated that it would be for cold storage and for such items as a tractor, semi- trailer, mowers, etc. Based on this information, Mr. Auringer had no objections to the proposal. A motion was made by Bill Burke, seconded by John Bondhus and unanimously carried to approve of the variance request and the simple subdivision based upon specific and accurate surveys which would be recognized by the County Recorder's office. 6. Discussion on Scope and Purpose of Planning Commission. John Bondhus, who had previously written a letter that was sent out to Planning Commission Members on October 3, 1980, indicated a concern with the purpose and duties of the Planning Commission. Specifically, he felt that in some areas there might be some redundancy for reviewing variances, etc. He felt an effort should be made to streamline some of these duties, and wondered if some of these matters could not be taken directly to the City Council. Administrator Wieber explained that because of legal requirements contained in the Minnesota State Statutes, it was necessary for a City to have a Board of Appeals that was separate from the governing body itself, or the City Council. However, Gary Wieber indicated that he would look into the possibility of having less members serve on a board of appeals specifically for variance requests in order that this might be able to streamline some of the work done by the Planning Commission. Additionally, other areas were discussed on how the Planning Commission could better serve. Various members felt that the Planning Commission was already serving its assigned function, but felt that Mr. Bondhus's comments were worth considering and in the future, at the end of each agenda, a particular area would be discussed to see how it could be streamlined. For example, one possibility was discussed to take each section of the Ordinance - 5 - . . . Planning Commission - 10/14180 curbing of the parking lot. For a community center or private club such as he is proposing, the required number of parking spaces would be ten (10). Mr. Sieckert feels that he has room for more parking spaces than that; however, for the reasons which he has outlined in his letter requesting this variance, he would like to have the hardsurfacing and curb- ing requirement for this property become a permanent variance. Although Mr. Sieckert did say, and has stated in his letter, that this variance would become immediately void should the objectives for the barn and its use ever be changed. There was some concern expressed by the Planning Commission members of the possible future change in scope of Mr. Sieckert's plans. Specifically, there was concern relative to the serving of food and if any fee would be charged for this. Mr. Sieckert indicated that he may have vending machines such as pop machine, but his intentions would not be to make a profit and sell food. There was some concern expressed that the number of vending machines should be limited and additionally, the conditions expressed in the September 29, 1980 letter from Dave Sieckert would have to be adhered to. Since the real question before the Planning Commission was only one of hardsurfaced requirements, however, motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Bill Burke and unanimously carried to approve of the variance request contingent upon the scope of the proposed community room being consistent with the September 29, 1980 letter by Mr. Dave Sieckert. A two-year provision was attached to this since this would give the City some further control if the scope of the project changed in addition to the regular enforcement procedures of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Sieckert felt that he could live with the variance as recommended. 5. Consideration of a Variance and Simple Subdivision - Chuck Stumpf. Chuck Stumpf, who owns Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5, of the Barbur Addition, is proposing a simple subdivision of those lots. Basically, what Mr. Stumpf would like to do is take the southerly 80' of each of those five lots and create one new lot of 353' x 80'. This would leave Lots 1 thru 5 then being 167.5' in depth, and 72~' in width. The existing City maps do not show the Barbur Addition as such, but indicate that at one time it did exist within the Township. Before any final approval could be given to a simple subdivision of this property, it would have to be contingent upon providing specific and accurate surveys which would be recognized by the County Recorder's office. Also part of this request 1S a variance to build a 40' x 75' garage in approximately the center of this property. The reason a variance would be required is that any time a garage of over 1,000 square feet is built in an R-l zone, it requires a variance, and this garage would be approximately 3,000 square feet. - 4 - . . . Planning Commission - 10/14,80 and review it 1n detail to see if any changes should be made. A motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Bill Burke and unanimously carried to adjourn. w u:6-- GW/ns - 6 -