Planning Commission Minutes 11-07-2002
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICli:LLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Thursday - November 7, 2002
8:00 P.M.
Memhers Present:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Richard Carlson, Lloyd l-lilgart and Council
Liaison Clint Herbst
Rod Dragsten
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, and Steve Grittman
Absent:
Staff:
] . Call to order.
Chair frie ca1Jed the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. and declared a quorum.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held October 1.2002.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE MINUTI.:S OF 'fIlE
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINeJ HELD OCTOBER 1,2002.
RICIIARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
ALmrovaJ of the minutes of the special PlanninQ Commission rneeting held October 14.
2002.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF TilE
SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HI.:IJ) OCTOBER ]4,2002. IJ,OYD
HILGART SECONDED TilE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Approval of the minutes of the special Planning Commission meetinQ held October 28.
2002.
A MUflON WAS MADE BY RICI lARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
TlIE SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELl) OCTOBER 28,2002.
ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED TIll.: MCYTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Chair Frie noted he would not he available for tbe Decemher meeting
Chair Frie asked to address handicap parking on West Broadway hetween Walnut and
Locust. This was placed as item 9 on the agenda.
4. Citizens comments. None
- 1-
.
.
.
Planning Commissioll Minutes - 11/07/02
5.
Public IlcarinQ - Consideration of a re(]LIest for a conditional use permit and variance
allowing construction of accessorv structure in excess of 1200 square feet. Applicant:
Craig and Naomi Schihonski
Fred Patch, Building Official, provided the staff report advising of the applicant's request
for conditional use permit and variances. Patch advised thc Planning Commission of
conditions that staff felt should he included for both the conditional use permit and the
varIances.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Naomi Schibonski, applicant, stated several reasons
for their requests such as parking for a fourth vehicle, the length of their truck being 23 feet
long which is longer then the existing garage, as well as wanting a shop area for personal
use. She added that they felt the request for an additional driveway would add to the
neighborhood as tbey would not be driving over their grass to get to the accessory structure
which would preserve their lawn, and stated that there are 2 other corner lots in their
neighborhood that have 2 driveways. Their plan includes matching siding, windows of the
same dimension as their house, as well as shingles, stating it would be aesthetically pleasing.
They would like this to be a nice addition for storing equipment and cars versus storing in
the driveway or backyard. Chair Frie asked Schihonski if when she came in f()r the building
permit was she advised of the tbings that were not allowed hy ordinance and she stated she
was but that they needed the additional size of the accessory structure due to the length of
their truck and the driveway was again due to not wanting to ruin their yard. She also noted
that the placement of the proposed structure is due to thc house initially being constructed
on the wTong side of the property by previous owners. They had already had their plans
drawn up by the builder prior to coming in Cor a permit and hearing of the conditional use
permit and variances necessary.
Rohhie Smith asked about the truck and she again stated it's size and type, and that they
wish to have it enclosed. She noted they have no other detached buildings on thcir property.
Lloyd Hilgart asked O'Neill f()r clarification of the ordinance's intent for accessory
structures and were they intended for storage or for vehicles to be entering/exiting from.
O'Neill advised that it was not necessarily defined in the ordinance, hut that the intent was
f(Jr existing driveways to be used for entering/exiting storage structures. He did slate also
that in the applicant's case that would not be possible.
Paul Zemke, 107 Hillcrest Road, next door to the proposed oversized garage, advised that he
sent a previous letter to the City in regard to this matter stating they are very opposed to this
structure. He also ITlentioned that this whole process has been stressful as they have lived in
the Hillcrcst Addition for many ycars and are now having to come and defend their property.
Thc garage would he within 10 feet of their bedroom, the variance for the driveway would
place it right past their hedroom and he noted that the applicant likes to work in his garage
late into the evenings whieh will cause noise right by their bedroom window. He also stated
the proposed structure would obstruct their view to the east and they would he "boxed" in.
-2-
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/07/02
.
He felt also it would be a value loss to their property. Ilis opinion is that the ordinances are in
place to protect the property owners and this has a significant impact on them.
Fred Patch stated he also received a phone call from the neighbor at 102 Ilillcrest Road which
is to the south of the applicant, registering an objection to the structure as well.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, addressed the commission providing a possible alternative. He
stated one of the problems is definition of front yard. lIe stated that staff could have
discretion as to defining this which would allow the applicant to construct within 10 feet of
the sidewalk and build out to the rear, although it would not be as large as they had wanted.
Grittman advised that the applicant could do this by building permit process and no variance
would be needed. hie stated that if everything was in compliance this would be within their
right. This addition, along with the existing garage, would be close to the 1200 sq. ft.
allowable.
.
Craig Schibonski then addressed the commission and stated that hc would not be able to get
the large truck in where the current garage door is and that they would have to park the
vehicles back to back as they would only have one entrance. Grittlnan stated that was true in
this case and that would be the down side to this alternative. lie also added that it may be
possible to build out to the side, but it would not be very effective. Frie asked the Zemke's
if from this option do they have any concerns and they stated they were not opposed to this
alternativc.
Clint lIerbst asked what size the new building would have to be to fit into compliance and
(Jrittn1an stated 634 sq. fto, or approximately 20 x 32. Patch advised Ci-rittman of another
zoning aspect in that the R-l district allows for a 6 ft. setback on the garage side and it may
also be possible to build a 3,d stall garage as they would have slightly more buildable area.
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing and it was clarifIed that if the Planning Commission
denied one of the requests, the others would also be denied.
Action 1:
ConditionallJsc Permit
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO TABLE AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
IIEARING TO THE DECEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
.
There was further discussion regarding thc applicant's options if the Planning Commission
were to deny the requests. Also, if the applicant wcre to comply with the ordinance it would
not be necessary to come back to the Planning Commission. Fred Patch stated that the
structure could possibly be moved in closer to the house as wcll, but did not know how that
would affect the neighbor. Patch felt that Grittman' s options were good as well, somewhat
more expcnsive but may add valuc in the long run. ] lilgart recommended that they keep the
structure to the 1200 sq. ft. maximum. Robbie Smith comlnented that the neighborhood is
"
-j-
Planning Commission Minutcs - 11/07/02
.
quaint and he felt this proposed structure would have an adverse affect. He added that their
property is a beautiful piece ofland and perhaps they could look at other options as stated by
Grittman and Patch. Frie again stated that if they felt comfortable, Planning Commission
could continue the public hearing if the applicant wanted to meet with staff in regard to other
options. He stated he felt the intent of the ordinance for conllmning, detached garages, was
for indoor storage.
Naomi Schibonski stated their preference would be to have a vote on the detached accessory
structure and then consider the other options. Chair Frie then rescinded his motion.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF A
CONDITIONAL, USE PERMIT' ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE IN EXCESS OF 1200 SQUARE FEET. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
.
Clint Herbst asked for clarification by stail whether they wanted the appl icant to build within
1200 sq. n. There was further discussion again as to the dellnition of side yard and rear yard,
and that the Planning Commission would have to determine that. They also discussed that
the side yard/rear yard has already been determined. Smith asked Mr. Schibonski how he
would feel if his neighbor was proposing this structure instead of him and he stated that he
would feel that it was their property and could do whatever they want with it. O'Neill added
that the applicant does have the option to build to a smaller size but would still need the
variance fl)r a curb cut. Patch added that the curb cut was not a necessity, but rather
sorncthing thcy desire.
.10 Ann Zemke statcd that no matter how it is determined as far as hont or rear, the structure
is still going to be in the samc spot and out of place.
Action 2:
Variance - Second Curb Cut
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO DENY A VARIANCE PROVIDING
FOR A SECOND RESIDENTIAL CURB CUT. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
Action 3:
Variance -Front Yard Accessory Structure
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO DENY A VARIANCE ALLOWING
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE FRONT YARD OF TIlE
SUBJECT PARCEL. LLOYD llTLGART SECONI)ED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
.
Chair Frie added that he fclt there is still an opportunity fiJr the applicant to work something
out, possibly with the other options as presented.
~4-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/07/02
6.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for preliminary plat approval Il11' Monticello
Business Center 2nd Addition. Applieanl: Michael Krutzig: and Darvl Krutzig
Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the stall report advising of the applicant's rcquest for
preliminary plat approval and also that since the time he wrote the staff report the owner of
the property advised that he has decided to retain Outlot A and would not be selling to the
applicant. Grittman stated that in lieu of this information, stafT would then alter their
recommendation with a condition that the owner of Outlot A continuc to work with the City
on the alignment of the property with Cedar Street.
Chair Frie opened thc public hearing. Shawn Weinand, property owner, clarified that during
the process of negotiations with the applicant, it was determined that it would not be feasiblc
for the applicant to purchase and develop the cntirc property. Weinand did ask that the City
dedicate a ROW to Cedar Street and allow some t1exibility. lIe states it's an awkward piece
as wcll as expensive. Krutzig added that he agrees with this compromise.
Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Frie askcd what the intent for the purpose of the
propcrty would be, asking if it fit with the intcnt of the Comprehensive Plan. Grittman statcd
that the zoning and lots are fully in compliance. Krutzig added that it would mainly be retail
and professional offices and he would like to start building this spring. Clint Herbst asked if
they would have to bring that road through to Kjellberg's Park, questioning if they arc
allowing enough room f()r this. Weinand stated there would be and that with the present
alignment. Kjcllberg would not lose many units. It was clarified that the cxtension of Cedar
Street would happen prior to Chelsea Road. Grittlnan added that Chclsea will be extcnded
based on development demand and Cedar is ready to go. Weinand stated they havc buyers on
both sides of School Blvd. that are ready to start next Spring. They would like to work out
the alignment soon with staff and City Engineer.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY I J.,OYD HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
TIII-: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MONTICELLO BUSINESS CENTER SECOND
ADDITION, WITH TIlE CONDITION THAT THE OWNER OF OUTLOT A CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH THE CITY ON TIlE ALIGNMEN'r Of THE PROPERTY WITII
CEDAR S-rREET, WITI-I THE APPROPRIATE RICH.IT OF WA Y. MOTION
CONTINGENT ON INTEGRATION OF FUTURE SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT/FINAL
PLAT WITH TilE CITY ENGINEER'S ROAD AND UTILITY PLANS FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF CEDAR STREET RIGHT OF WAY. RICHARD CARLSON
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED lJNANIMOUSLY.
Shawn Weinand requested this move to final plat stage at the City Council meeting in
November and O'Neill stated it would.
-5-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/07/02
7.
Review revised sketch plan for the "Bruge:eman" residential PUD, now referred to as M. W.
Johnson residential pun.
Steve (irittman advised that this item is a review of a revised sketch plan that has been
proposed by Bruggeman, stating the developer is looking at another company to partner with
to construct the hOlnes. They also got a resolution fronl MnDOT regarding the I-94 project
which had been interfering with this project.
Grittman summarized the new proposed sketch plan, stating MnDOT would drop I-94
underneath the railroad bridge rather than go over Co. Rd. 75, but basically the same
aIigmnenL After this is complete, the bulk of the land would still remain. There are some
changes, although general layout is silnilar. access will be from Gillard, which allows for
central access for single family homes in the NW corner, with the NE corner for townhouses,
as well as in the SE corner. The developer is looking at R-2A standards and row townhouses
that are not back to back as previously sketched. These changes as reported by staff would be
more acceptable, giving a more private feel, and small lot single bmily seem to be a good
solution to the twin homes which staff is rnore supportive of. Density is relatively similar.
The developer is asking the Planning Commission if there arc any issues that would interfere
with thern proceeding with preliminary plans, other than annexation.
Mike Gail', MFRA, representative for Bruggeman, as well as Mark Gergen with MW
Johnson, the builder. addressed the Planning Commission. O'Neill stated to (Jail' that there
had becn some concern as to why they were back again since there were no major changes.
Gair stated that they wanted to introduce the builder and advise of the MnDOT plans. lie
noted the two temporary bypass lanes and that previously there was a potential to lose some
of the homes, but this has been resolved.
Gail' advised that in regard to density there will be one less unit. He also stated that
previously thcy were proposing ten 8 unit buildings, back to back, and now they are
proposing row townhomes and 50 n. wide lots for the R-2A. Frie asked if the Parks
Commission had reviewed this and O'Neill stated that happens at development stage. Frie
asked Herbst about a previous comment on the intent of the City Park that is proposed,
stating it was to be both for residents of the development and the public. O'Neill advised that
this project t~llls under the R-I requirements. Frie asked about sale price, and Mark Gergen
stated that possibly in the townhome project they would have two different t100r plans with
different prices, approximately frorn $130,000 to $150,000 for one style, the other style
slightly higher. The small lot single family homes would be higher in value than a twin
home. 'rhey arc proposing splits, ramblers and two stories, with splits selling for under
$200,000 and the two stories in excess of $200,000.
Frie stated that his concern is that he feels we have a shortage of single bmily detached
homes. lIe was also concerned with phasing and how quickly there could be sewer and water
to this project, and then extend further cast of town. Herbst stated that the major issue would
be the bypass. O'Neill stated that the new alignment for the interstate will now be a road that
-6-
.
.
.
8.
9.
Planning COll1mission Minutes - 11/07/02
will almost tunne\through and be at grade, and in order to accomplish that design there will
have to be a frontage/bypass road, and the question would be when the freeway is reinstated,
should they leave that bypass road as a collector road f()r properties to the east. Initially
Cillard Avenue will be the primary entrance to the development. He stated in discussions
with MnDOT there would be costs and land acquisitions. MnDOT needs to acquire the land
for ROW now and the City does not know of all the costs at this point. GaiT adviscd that the
meeting in August was with MnDOT and staff, and so the connection with them has been
made. Gair explained the buffcr they propose which will not be a fence but rather a planted
landscaped buller. adding that this is an important part of their project. Thcre was no further
discussion.
A MUrION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH ^CCEPTJNG THE Rr~VISr:[) CONCEPT
PI,AN PRESENTED BY MW JOIINSON ^S BEING CONSISTEnr WrlTI THE
ORIGINAL CONCEPT PL^N SUBMITTED BY BRUGGEMAN HOMES. RJCIIARD
CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION C^RRIEn UNANIMOUSL Y.
It was advised that the developer will now proceed to the preliminary plat/development stage
PUD.
Summary or the Fair Jlousing discussion at the llR^ meeting of October 2. 2002.
Chair Frie asked if everyone had read the sLlmmary provided to thenl by Ollie Koropchak,
Economic Developlnent Director, and it was noted that they had and there were no questions.
No action was needed.
Handicap parking on Wcst Broadway.
Chair Frie advised that he had been approached by a business owner on West Broadway who
stated a conccrn with the lack of parking fiJr their block during the construction of the new
restaurant on the corner of Broadway and J .ocust. I-Ie stated there was no rear entrance to this
particular business and this Inakes it difficult for an employee who is handicapped to get to
the building. It was also noted that this will be even more dill'icult once it snows. fric stated
that this is somewhat of a unique situation in that there are 2 businesses on this block with no
cntrances from the rear of their building.
It was noted that parking on Broadway in front of their business is limited to two hours so the
cmployee could not park in front to get access to thcir building during business hours. It was
discussed that this should be brought to the attention of John Simola and Roger Mack with
the Public Works Department to see ifthere is a solution for this. O'Neill advised that he
would contact thenl.
1 ().
Robbie Smith asked about the I Jolthaus proposal, which is scheduled to be on the next
agenda, in regard to a letter received from Ed Solberg and his comment that the applicant had
previously slated that he would not ask for re-zoning.
-7-
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/07/02
.
It was noted that this statelnent was made a number of years ago, in f~lct it was prior to some
staff members who have been employed for 15 years. Herbst added that it is hard to hold
someone to a statement like that from so long ago as there have been Inany changes. Ilerbst
also stated that his perception is that the residents aren't opposed to honles, just the density
and where driveways and yard areas were placed, and felt these were legitimate concerns.
Fric also stated that hom comments from the residents they would be happy if nothing
happened on that property but that would not be good f(x the City. Frie added that with the
conditions previously stated for this proposal this could be a nice project and I lerbst added
that this is a unique property.
O'Neill added that referring to the roadway in the back as an alley really is not that, it is just a
private drive to one side of the home. Carlson stated he 1ert possi bly putting driveways in the
front and pushing the units l<.}[ward to allow for a nice rear yard would make more sense.
O'Neill added that the proposed 1100r plan is 1,400 sq. ft. and that these would be nice units.
II. Adiourn
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO ADJOURN TilE MEETING AT
9:40 P.M. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED.
.
.
-8-