Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 07-12-1988 . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 12, 1988 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Richard Carlson, Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Mori Malone, Dan McConnon. Members Absent: None Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill. 1. Meeting called to order by Chairman Richard Carlson at 7:33 p.m. 2. Motion by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Richard Martie to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held June 14, 1988. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Simple subdivision request to subdivide three residential lots into two residential lots. Applicant, Don Bauer. zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, explained to Planning Commission members Mr. Bauer's request to subdivide three existing platted lots of the original plat of the City of Monticello into two residential lots. The existing three lots are currently 66 feet by 165 feet. Mr. Bauer is proposing to subdivide the lots the other way in an east/west direction to accomodate a size of 82 1/2 feet by 198 feet in depth. The newly subdivided lots would meet the minimum lot width, 80 feet, and meet the minimum lot square footage, 12,000 square feet. . Chairman Richard Carlson then opened up any input from the public, with no input from the public he turned it over to the Planning Commission members for any questions they might have. Mori Malone questioned Mr. Bauer as to what type of housing he is proposing to use on these two lots. Mr. Bauer indicated he would like to construct two single family homes on these lots. With no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Dan McConnon to approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide three residential lots into two residential lots. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Public Hearing - Variance Request to allow erection of a pylon excess of the maximum height allow and to be allowed to place sign within the minimum set-back from a public right of way. Coast to Coast Store. sign in a Pylon Applicant, . Zoning Administrator, Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members Mr. Larson, owner of the Coast to Coast Store, request to be allowed to place a pylon sign within the set-back from public right of way also to be allowed to exceed the maximum height and square footage allowed by ordinance. Mr. Larson is proposing to construct the Pylon sign within 10 feet of a public right of way and to be allowed to construct a Pylon sign of 20 feet in height, which the sign square footage would be 64 total square feet. 1 Planning Minutes 7/12/88 . With no further input from the city Staff, chairman Richard Carlson opened up any input from the public. There was no input from the public, therefore Chairman, Richard Carlson opened up for any questions from Planning Commission members. Mr. Richard Martie questioned Mr. Larson as to if the pylon sign to be erected would be lighted and to what hours the sign would remain lite. Mr. Larson indicated, yes the sign would be lighted and it would be put on a time clock to corne on at dark and shut off approximately 45 minutes to an hour after the store closes in the evening, similar to his exterior parking lights. Dan McConnon questioned the set-back in regards to how far the sign would be set back from the actual travel portion of the road. zoning Administrator, Anderson indicated to Mr. McConnon and Planning Commission members that the public street is platted with an 80 foot platted street. From the center of the street to the curb we have approximately 16 to 18 feet of asphalt, therefore, from the face of the curb to the end of the public right of way or front lot line of Mr. Larson's lot, we would have approximately 22 to 24 feet of boulevard or green space. Mr. Larson is proposing to place the pylon sign post in the center of two parking spaces which are together. . Chairman Richard Carlson questioned the need to go with the additional height in the sign. Mr. Larson countered that the additional height of the sign was needed to get the exposure that would be needed from Walnut Street and Highway 25 or pine Street for the view of the public traveling on portions of these streets. Another reason for the additional height is that the sign, when constructed as it's proposed height, would allow a vehicle to travel underneath the sign and not incur any damage to the sign. In reality, looking at the proposed sight of this pylon sign the elevation of the center of the street which the sign would get it's major exposure, to the elevation of the sign, is a possible 2 foot differential. Therefore, the sign itself would probably only need a 2 foot variance instead of a 4 foot variance. Mr. Dan McConnon questioned how Mr. Larson's sign would receive visability with all the trees that are planted along Third Street in the Boulevard area. Mr. Larson indicated that they would still be able to get the exposure needed on this pylon sign from people traveling on Highway 25 or Walnut Street with the visual contact to be before they get to the Third street intersection. . With no further input from the planning Commission members, motion by Dan McConnon, seconded by Mori Malone to approve the variance request to allow erection of a pylon sign in excess of the maximum height and square footage allowed and to be allowed to place a pylon sign within the minimum set-back from a public right of way. Motion carried unanimously. Dan McConnon indicated the reason for granting of the variance is that there would be no encroachment in the green area and the extra sign height and square footage would be needed to receive exposure from the public right of way streets of Walnut and pine Street/Highway 25. 2 . . . Planning Minutes - 7/12/88 5. Public Hearing - Variance request to allow a detached garage within the front yard set-back requirement. Applicant, Merrill Busch. Merrill Busch was present to propose his construction of a detached garage within the front yard set-back requirements. Busch indicated to the planning Commission members the location of his proposed garage would be within 3 feet of the front property line and 5 feet of the side property line. Mr. Busch asked consideration for the placement of this detached garage in this location because it is were the old Carriage House which stood for many year before it was distroyed. Also the house is on the National Historical Register and if he is allowed to construct the garage in the location proposed the garage would be recreated to resemble the old carriage House. Chairman Richard Carlson opened up any input from the public, with no input from the public he then opened up any questions from the Planning Commission members. Richard Carlson questioned if we have received any input from the public or the ajoining property owner to the south. zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson indicated to Mr. Carlson that he had talked to the adjoining property owners, the Malones, and had no problem with the location of the garage as proposed. Dan McConnon questioned Mr. Busch to indicate on his site plan were the existing natural tree cover is around the garage. Mr. Busch indicated in driving up to the site, that the proposed location of the garage would be placed in amoung the existing lilac bushes which are on the west side of the property and existing trees which are to the east of the proposed garage site in along the south lot line of the existing site, you will find many trees which are located in this area. With no further input from the public a motion by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Richard Martie to approve the variance request to allow a detached garage within the front yard set-back requirement. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Public Hearing - Replatting request to replat an existing lot into eight (8) townhouse lots and one (1) common area lot. Applicant, Jay Miller. Mr. Jay Miller was present before the Planning Commission members to explain his proposed replatting request to replat an existing residential lot into eight townhouse lots and one common area lot. Mr. Miller indicated this is the fourth such time he has been before Planning Commission members to request a replatting an existing platted lot. Mr. Miller indicated the reason for starting the project and replatting the project of the proposed townhouse project is that they cannot establish actual lot lines for each additional townhouse until the foundations are in and constructed. Chairman Richard Carlson opened up any input from the public. Mr. Doug Dehmer questioned why Mr. Miller is comming in to replat the existing lot into eight townhouse lots and one common area lot if he has already been issued a building permit to start construction. The zoning Administrator, Anderson indicated to Mr. Dehmer that the certificate of survey was required of the developer prior to the construction of the 3 . . . Planning Minutes - 7/12/88 actual townhouses. The requirement of the cerificate of survey basicly sets the placement of the building on the lot. Before Mr. Miller can come before the Planning Commission members, he had to have the property resurveyed again to show the actual locations of the foundations of each townhouse on this particular lot. That is the reason Mr. Miller is coming before the Planning Commission after he started the construction of the townhouses. Mr. Dehmer also questioned the off street parking which is occuring out there and who is responsible for the removal of the snow now that there are three townhouses occupied with potential of the fourth one being occupied by snowfall of this year. Zoning Administrator, Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members that each of the townhouses as a minimum requirement prior to them being built are required to have at least two off street parking, which one space can be enclosed and one opened, both spaces enclosed, or both spaces open. In regards to Mr. Dehmer's question on the parking, the public street which goes by the townhouse on Jerry Liefert Drive is for the intended use of off street parking of all residents and non-residents of the city. We cannot dictate to the public were they can or cannot park on the city street. Mr. Dehmer was quite concerned with the residences of the townhouses with the people that come to visit them, and parking their vehicles in front of their house. As to the snow removal, when the snow becomes a significate amount and has to be removed off the driveway and cannot be stack anYmOre, it has to be loaded and hauled away from the townhouses. It is the responsibility of the townhouse association within their restrictive convenants are responsible to contact someone for the removal of the snow from each of the driveways and sidewalks in the eight unit townhouse association project. Michelle Dehmer reinterated the question of parking in front of the residences. Zoning Administrator, Anderson indicated to Mrs. Dehmer that we cannot distinguish within pUblic right of way which of the public mayor may not park their vehicles, as long as they are parked off to the side of the road within the public right of way. Anderson also indicated to the developer, Mr. Miller, that he contact the three townhouse associations, COlony by the Greens 1st Addition, Colony by the Greens 2nd Addition, and Colony by the Greens 3rd Addition, and notify them of the problem they are currently having with the off street parking. Each of the individual owners of the existing 24 townhouses could encourage their visitors to utilize the driveway areas of their townhouses for the off street parking as much as possible. With no further input from the public, public hearing portion closed. With no further input from the Planning Commission members a motion by Dan MCConnon, seconded by Richard Martie to approve the replatting request to replat an existing lot into eight townhouse lots and one common area lot. Motion carried unanimously. 7. Tabled Conditional used request to allow more than twelve (12) apartment units in a downtown commerical building. A variance request to allow five (5) existing apartments to remain on the first floor of a downtown commercial building as a non-conforming use. Applicant, Gary Hammer. 4 Planning Minutes - 7/12/88 . Mr. Gary Hammer was present to proposed to Planning commission members that he be allowed to remove the resturant business portion of his building and be allowed to convert it into other office/retail type of rental space. The resturant business in this location has a very poor track record in that the original owner, which was his father, lost several hundreds of dollars trying to run a resturant. Mr. Hammer also siting increase of $300 per month insurance only has to be past onto the leasee or renter of this portion of the building. . Chairman Richard Carlson opened up any input from the public, with no input from the public, opened up for any questions from the planning Commission members. Mr. Richard Carlson asked zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson to indicate the background to this becoming a use allowing the resturant in the front and the five apartment units in the rear portion of this building. Anderson indicated to Mr. Carlson that the building was allowed to be used in that way through the conditional use process. Renovation of this existing building started in late fall of 1982 with a permit issued to revonate the upstairs portion of this building into 10 efficiancy apartments. Then Mr. Hammer came back with a separate permit to renovate the front portion of this building into a resturant business. Mr. Hammer then applied for a permit to renovate the rear portion of this building into five (5) additional apartment units. His building permits were denied on the grounds that we do not allow apartment units on the main floor of a retail business building. Mr. Hammer then sought legal council and his attorney advised him to contact the city if they could amend the ordinance to allow this type of use as a boarding house. The proposed ordinance amendment was approved by the Monticello planning Commission and the Monticello City Council in 1983 allowing additional apartment units on the main floor of a business building. After the ordinance amendment, Mr. Hammer obtained his building permit to renovate the rear portion of this building into five apartment units. That had remained and still remains as his current use accept with the front most portion of the building having lost it's leasee or renter for the resturant portion. Jeff O'Neil questioned Mr. Hammer if he had a retail outlet planned for this former space occupied by the resturant portion. Mr. Hammer responded that he had no renter or lea see in mind for the front portion of his building and he has not tried to market it without first getting approval to do some other type of use with it other than a resturant use from the Monticello City planning Commission and/or City Council first. Mr. Dan McConnon questioned the reality of renting out the front portion of his building for retail space when there currently exists many vacant retail spaces already. Mr. Hammer felt with the current retail being approximately $8 to $10 per square foot which he is currently charging $4 per square foot for resturant space, he felt with some improvements, he would be able to secure a possible tenant or tenants for the portion of the old resturant. . Mr. Richard Carlson responded that he felt sympathetic to Mr. Hammer in that if you look at the track record of the resturant business in this portion of the building not being very good with renters trying to make a go of a resturant business. Cindy Lemm commented that she felt very uncomfortable with the resturant portion being removed, because the city 5 planning Minutes - 7/12/88 . went through a specific ordinance amendment to adopt this type of use within the downtown area and Mr. Hammer should try everything he can to keep the resturant portion in his building. Mr. Richard Carlson reinterated that if another commercial use does go into this portion of the building that the actual parking requirements would be lessened considerably as a result. Mr. Jeff O'Neill questioned Mr. Hammer if the five units in the lower level are necessary cash flow to meet the actual expenditures of this building complex. Mr. Hammer responded that, yes the upstairs portion pays for a good share of the rent but, he does need the lower level ones also to make all expenses. Mr. Hammer indicated he is currently experiencing six vacancies within his building complex. Mr. Hammer indicated it is traditional throughout the summer months to encounter some type of vacancy, but when it gets into late fall and winter months, he experiences no vacancies whatsoever. Also, Mr. Hammer felt that the rent he is charging for these units is far below what it would cost to get into an apartment building and also he charges on a month by month renters agreement. . A suggestion by zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, that Mr. Hammer should come in and meet with the City Staff to possibly work out a developers agreement that would facilitate this type of use of the former resturant portion of the building and look into the possibility of developing the rest of the lower level apartments into some type of office retail rental space. In doing so, it would bring his building back into zoning comforments and not needing a conditional use. Having heard that, it is the consensus of the Planning Commission members present, Richard Carlson, Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Mori Malone, and Dan McConnon, to report back to them with suggested development plan at their next scheduled meeting. ADDITIONAL ITEMS: 1. Review the proposed ordinance amendment on landscaping requirements. Jeff O'Neill reported that due to time constraints, he was unable to have a proposed ordinance amendment on the landscaping requirements. However, he did reiterate what became of the joint City Council, Planning Commission, IDC, and HRA, meeting on what they were looking for in landscaping requirements. This was a possible reduction of the minimum requirements and possible phasing in of the landscaping requirements, and possible reduction of commercial and industrial landscaping requirements, the use of tax increment financing to pay for landscaping requirements, and also the maintenance ,agreement for landscaping once it is installed. Also, possibly defering the actual installation of landscaping until later years. . It was the suggestion of City Staff, to report back to planning Commission members at their next regular scheduled meeting in August with a possible ordinance amendment on the landscaping requirements. upon favorable review of the Monticello planning Commission, they could then set a public hearing for the ordinance amendment on landscaping requirement. 6 . . . Planning Minutes - 7/12/88 2. Review the proposed ordinance amendment regulating type of exterior building construction. Jeff O'Neill indicated that what is before them was a copy of the City of Waconia ordinance regulating exterior types. Planning Commission members felt uncomfortable with them being put in position of the final authority on the site plan for the type of building activity. Planning Commission members felt that the applicant should have the alternative to appeal a decision of the Planning Commission members to the City Council. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members present to have the City Staff review the proposed ordinance amendment change and make a recommendation to them at their next regularly scheduled August meeting. 3. Planning Commission Applicant Interviews. Council action approved as per Planning Commission recommendations. 4. Tabled conditional use request to allow construction of more than one apartment building on an unplatted lot, a tabled conditional use request to allow construction of two apartment buildings in access of the maximum number of units allowed, a tabled conditional use request to allow construction of five apartment buildings in two phases. Applicant, David Hornig. Council action. Approved as per Planning Commission recommendations with conditions. 5. A preliminary plat request for a mobile home park expansion. Applicant, Don Heikes. Council action. Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. Jeff O'Neill updated to the Commission that Mr. Heikes withdrew his request for final plat approval of the preliminary plat for a mobile home park expansion. 6. Variance request to allow construction of a garage addition within the side yard set-back requirements. Applicant, Rick Wolfsteller. Council action. No action needed as variance was not appealed. 7. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting for August 9, 1988, 7:30 p.m. Jeff O'Neill commented to the Planning Commission members that we are running into a problem with being able to get both the Planning Commission and the City Council agendas out on the same date. He asked the Planning Commission members if they would consider meeting on the first or third Tuesday of every month or if another day in the week would work better in their schedule. It was the consensus of the four Planning Commission members present, as Cindy Lemm left at 10:02 p.m., to set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission for the first Tuesday in August, August 2, 1988, 7:30 p.m. 7 . . . planning Minutes - 7/12/88 8. Motion by the Dan Mcconnon, seconded by Mori Malone to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously, with Cindy Lemm absent. Meeting adjourned at 10:23 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ zoning Administrator 8