Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11-22-1983V AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING OOMMISSION November 22, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. Members: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Ed Schaffer, Richard Carlson, Don Cochran. 7:30 P.X. 1. Call to Order. 7:32 P.H. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular November 8, 1983, Planning Commission Meeting. 7:35 P.M. 3. Continuance of Public Hearing - John Sandberg - Rezoning Request to Rezone from R-1 to B-3. 7:50 P.M. 4. Public Hearing - Gus IAF romboise - Conditional Use Request to Allow more than the Maximum Allowed 12 - Unit Apartment Building, and Variance Request on , Minimum Lot Size Requirement. �. 8:05 P.M. 5. Planning Commission Review - Monticello Country Club - Proposed Country View Terrace Subdivision. Additional Information Itemo 8,20 P.M. 1. Next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission Meeting will be on December G, 1983, 7:30 P.M. 2. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELL.O PLANNING COMMISSION November 8, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Joyce Dowling, Richard Carlson, Don Cochran and Ed Schaffer. Members Absent: President Jim Ridgeway Staff Present: Thomas Eidem, Rick Wolfsteller, Gary Anderson. The meeting was called to order by acting Chairperson Don Cochran at 7:46 P.M. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Reqular October 4, 1983, Planninq Commission Mectinq. Motion was made by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Ed Schaffer, to approve the minutes of the regular Monticello Planning Commission Meeting of October 4, 1983. 3. Public Hoarinq - Marvin Scherer - Variance Request to Build a Garage in Excess of 1,000 sq. ft. Mr. Scherer was present to discuss his proposed building of a storage building on property currently owned south of County Road 39, Golf Course Road. Mr. Scherer explained that he purchased the property approximately 20 years ago and at that time had obtained a permit to build a shed there in which to store his vehicles, etc. At that Limo he didn't go ahead with his building project because he had also built a now house in the Cities and planned to pay that one off before he built a ahed here in Monticello. Mr. Scherer also indicated tie had been uunt two blight notices from the City and one from the City Attorney's office to clean up his blighted area on his lot. Mr. Scherer indicated by putting up the building he would Iw getting the earn in under storage and cleaning up the tntiro lot area. it would be a definite improvement to the area than what currently exists there. Acting Chairperuun Don Cochran asked for any public input. Mr. Bruce Wachter, representing Griefnow Plunbing and )testing, the adjacent property owner next to Mr. Scheter'n property, wan in objection to having any buildings built in an arca that is eom d H -l. Mr. Wachter indicated Lhat the Grictnow building itself can Lu, ut n peed out in the intcn or and convuttod into a huun.r and that wan the original intent of the building when it war; built. At thin point the - 1 - Planning Commission Minutes - 11/8/83 Chairperson recognized the opinion of the City staff. The City staff's suggestion was to approve the variance F.equest and that would eliminate the blight notice area and add more taut base to the current project area than what exists. Motion was made by Fd Schaffer with no second to deny the Variance Request. Motion died for lack of second. Motion by Richard Carlson, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve the Variance of the storage building to be built in excess of 1,000 sq. ft. and that the building would be a non -conforming building in an R-1 Zone. Motion carried in a 3 to 1 margin with Richard Carlson, Joyce Dowling, and Don Cochran voting in favor, Ed Schaffer voting in opposition. 4. Public Clearing - Marilyn Lanz - Variance Request, Simple Subdivision Variance Minimum lot Size and sideyard '.arianee. Marilyn Lanz vds present to propoce but simple sultdivision of the existing lot: and give some background tnLo the two properties. Shu indicated due to the size of the small house and tl,eru not Lxnng enough room to expand, she would like- to have the property subdivided, therefore, being able to sell off both portions of the property as two separate parcels. In doing so it would Ix a more marketable property than it would be if sold all as one property. Also, within her subdivision request she is requesting a sideyard variance on the cast tilde. The building currently is set 8.4 feet from the property lot line, and the current garage on the other parcel is within 15 feet of the proposed new suLdivision lot line. Chairman Ixan Cochran asked if any conditions should be attached to this simple subdivision request. 'Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to him that no conditions would Iw needed in that if the property was destroyed another house could he built on the same property as long as it stayed within the variance setbacks that arc requ-isted to be appruvcd. Motion was made by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Richard Carlson, to approve the simple subdivision request and also to approve the sideyard variance as presented, the house to be sot within 8.4 feet of the cost side lot line and the garage to In located within 1S feet of the east side now proposed subdivision lot line. Motion carried unanimously. S. Public Ilearinq - Murfin landscaping - Variance Request, Hozoninq Conditional Usc, Pvzono R-1 to D-4, Rozoninq to Allow Outdoor Salon in a 11-4 Zone, Screening and (lard Surfaced Parking Variances. 7.uning Adminxt.tratur Gaty /u.doraun prviwnt, A to the planning Cumrnit•alun momlero Lhe proposed layout of Muifin landreaping outdoor nalou uito, indicating to Commiusion memlcru the different layout of the pioput.ed raloo lot. At this time quet,tdunn —ro dlrectod to Mr. Murf in. Mnrfin �� 1 Planning Commission Minutes - 11/8/83 Landscaping, for his input into his proposed outdoor sales lot. Mr. Murfin indicated that this would be just a seasonal lot, and the business actually would be primarily operated as a display lot to show the different services and the products which his company does offer. At his proposed site, not being used for anything at the present and due to the size of the proposed lot, the actuality of the building being proposed there would be very minute due to the setbacks required off of Highway 75 and Hart Boulevard. Mr. John Bondhus, owner of the property, also eluded to the fact it would definitely be improving the area that is in existence already and that the lot would always be kept in the utmost neat array, which Lite business is oriented to. Mr. Bondhus referred to the rezoning request as a buffer zone to separate two zones rather than spot zoning to suit an outdoor sales lot business as Mr. Murfin has proposed. At this time Chairperson Don Cochran opened the discussion to public input. Mr. John Kasper was present to discuss his opposition to the proposed development of the property due to the viewing and the allowing of a B-4, a business, strictly in an R-1 Zone. Mr. Kasper also presented the Planning Commission ttrembero a letter from his neighbors, Dan and Betty McConnon, which was read to the Planning Commission and the people in attendance. The McConnons voiced their opposition to the potential project as suffering from significant problems already in existence without O adding another problem to a strictly residential zone. Mr. Larry Muohlbauer, resident of the City but not an affected property owner, also expressed his opposition strictly from the residential standpoint that an area that is zoned residential should strictly be residential and not be allowed to have a business within a residential area. City staff, taking no position at thio time on the project, indicated to Planning Commission members strictly to view it as a rezoning request and then go from there. Looking at it strictly from the rezoning request, it would definitely be spot zoning, which is not recommunded in the Comprehensive Plan which wan adopted some years ago. Staff alto indicated to Planning Commiusiun members that the area propobud would be a definite improvement to thu area, especially during the summer months when the foliage in on the trecu. But then, again, it in strictly a seasonal business and could Ito here today and gune tomorrow. Planning Commission mcmbaru took the above otatementn into consideration. Motion wan made by Richard Carlson, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to deny Mr. Murfin'u rezoning requruL to rozone 11-1 to 0-4 to allow an outdoor ualeu lot. Motioned carried unanimously. G. Public Iloarinq - John Sandlcrq - Rozoninq keq UeOL, 11-1 Zone to It -3 Zona, Mr. Sandtx•ry wan precent to present his proposal request to rezone R-1 to H-3 Zuning. Within the iezuniny ruyueut Mr. Sandlrry intendn to build up to a 20 -unit aloitment or cundominium complex, proterrably condominium complex, on Lho propoacd site. Mr. Sandlarg related - 3 - c� Planning Commission Minutes - 11/8/83 back in time to before the property was originally purchased up to the present on the options that he has available in the purchase of the property. Mr. Sandberg indicated to all members present that condominiums are a housing concern of the present, and right now, due to the lack of available housing, housing on precious property next to the river has become a very high commodity in the real estate market. He is intending to build choice quality condominium units in hopes of attracting elderly retired people to relocate into hie proposed condominium unit. Mr. Sandberg's architect was also present to present a proposed building layout and the amenities to go with it. Mr. Thompson indicated some of the amenities planned for Mr. Sandberg's proposed condominiums were very similar to the one which he just completed in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, the main emphasis on character and quality to combine with residential living standards of a single family home combining it into a one unit complex. Commission members asked Mr. Thompson regarding Mr. Sandberg's proposed construction time table. He indicated possibly getting started in the summer with completion by early/lato fall next year primarily depending on what the market analysis is in regard to what the perspectivo buyers in the Monticello area would be looking for in a building of this typo. Commission meabera also asked him the proposed height of the top of the building of this proposed plan. Mr. Thompson indicated it would be just a little more than 28 feet in height, basically about the came height as the maximum height of existing houses in the area. Chairman Don Cochran opened the public hearing for public input. Kra. Larry Kuehlbauer questioned the difference in the traffic pattern of the proposed condominium voreua the apartment living. Mr. Larry Muo hlbauor proaented his views on R-1 toning and that his initial invos tmont was for R-1 zoning of the property and that's what he intended to remain. The following concerned ourrounding residents in the affected area also expressed opposition and aro included bolowm Don and Kay Micolai Don Pitt Jerry Anderson Mika Girko Clarence McCarty,rontal property owner, also expressed hie oppooition. out if Lir. Sandberg's proponal was granted, he would increase the oleo of hie rental unit from one unit to more than one unit. This ended the public tootimony from the concerned residents in the affected area. Mr. Sandberg countered that he has no other intentions to dovolop other properties in the area or in any other part of town 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 11/8/87 in regard to multi -family condominium units. Mr. Sandberg also addressed the proposed traffic problem, indicating that in just taking a random sample of the amount of care in the area now with each family having at least two care, the clientele that would be buying a condominium would be elderly people and may have one car and some may not have any at all. Acting Chairman Don Cochran read three letters from affected property owners in the area of the proposed development and all had expressed no interest in the project being approved. The following are those affected property owners, Alice and Dal R-1 Roger and Jeannette Rost Alice Menzel - letter was sent by the administrator of her estate - Karl Menzel Cochran referred back to staff for their input in regard to Mr. Sandberg's proposal. Mr. Tae Eidom referred to the language in the Comprehensive Plan that essentially both parties involved, the affected property owners in the surrounding area and the applicant or developer, John Sandberg, are right in that in our Comprehensive Plan we do address proposed multi -family dwellings to be built in some R-1 areas. Also, the homeowners are correct in that in other areas it states that we only want R-1 housing and no multi -family dwellings within our R-1 housing. So it is contradictory. Mr. Eidem made a suggestion that a study committee be formed of a Planning Commission member, a Council member, and an adminiotrativa staff mom r, a consulting planner, and the City Attorney. Zoning Administrator Gary Anderson pr000ntod to Planning Commission members a phone convoroation memo from the consulting planner, John Uban, to one of our secretaries. In osacnco, consulting planner John Uban'a concerns were negative to Mr. Sandberg's proposed development. Planning Commission members took into respect the conflict of interest in our originally adopted Comprehensive Plan. Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Richard Carloon, to table the prop000d Sandberg rezoning roquact from R-1 to R-]. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Joyco Dowling, seconded by Richard Carlson, to sot up a special meeting with a study committee formed of Planning Commission member Don Cochran, Councilmembor Fran Pair, Administrative Staff Parson Tom Eidem, Consulting Planner John Uban, City Attorney Gary Pringle, the mooting tentatively cot at C,00 P.M., November 14, 1981. Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Richard Carlson, to sot up a special meeting data to hoar the special study caommittoo'a action, that date being November 22, 1983, 700 P.N. - 9 - v Planning Commission Minutes - 11/8/83 7. Plannino Commission Review - John Sandberg - Proposed Par West 1 Subdivision Plat. •✓ Mr. John Sandberg, along with his engineer, Hob Rohlin of Mayor- Rohlin and Associates, were present to present plans for Planning Commission member's review on a proposed Par West Subdivision Plat. This not being a public hearing and only for Planning Commission member's review, they feel it's a worthy project and set a tentative Planning Commission public hearing date for the hearing of the proposed Per West Subdivision Plat. Acting Chairman Don Cochran asked for staff input in regard to the proposed subdivision plat. Zoning Administrator Anderson responded that the City hes only two problems they see within his proposed subdivision preliminary plat. One would be he has two areas taut he would like zoned to R-3 and the arca there currently is zoned R-1. In a preliminary subdivision plat proposal, this would be looked at as a rezoning of these two lots. If it was looked at as a Planned Unit Development, a PUD project, the two areas proposed to be zoned R-3 wound be looked at to combine different typos of zoning--coamercial. residential, and multi -family --all into one project. Mr. Rohlin responded that they intended to propose it an a subdivision plat with Planning Commission members seriously looking at rezoning of two outlets in a proposed subdivision plat rezoned from R-1 to R-3 with the westerly most proposed cutlot being for a multi -family apartment building and the easterly most portion of the outlet being proposed for approximately a 70 -unit tower house construction along the golf course property. Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Richard Carlson, to sot a tentative dato of December 8, 1983, 7130 P.M., for the proposed preliminary hearing of tho Par West Subdivision Plat. ADDITIONAL 3lM MATIQY ITEMS 1. Tho next tontativo data for the Monticello Planning Commission Heating will be December 6. 1983, 7i 30 P.M. It was presented to the Planning Oomniccion mmboro by ?aping Administrator Gary Andoroon that the data was moved up one weak duo to the Christmas holidayo and also that the City Council would only be mooting onto in Doccabor. Motion by Richard Carlson, accorded by Joyce Dowling, to cot tho next regular Planning Comoiooion Meeting data for December 6, 1983, 7 00 P.M. At this time Planning Commisoien member Ed Schaffor left the meeting at approximately 1003 P.M. Tho following additional items were procented to the Planning Commission mcaboro . 1. Andcrcon prosentod the final plat for Meadow Oak Third Addition. Anderson pointed out to Coamdanion mombora a couple of items that would have to be done prior to setting the dato for the Council public hearing of the final plat approval of Meadow 0" Third Addition. The first item would be that an environmental impact study would have to be made. The -8 G Planning Ccmmiseion Minutes - 11/8/83 second item would be that they have two cul-de-sac areas currently named Red Oak Circle in the Meadow Oak Third Addition, and they would have to rename the cul-de-sac in that area. Motion by Richard Carlson, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to pass on to the City Council to set a tentative date for the public hearing on the final plat approval of the Meadow Oak Third Addition contingent upon the environmental impact study being made and the renaming of the cul-de-sac areas. Gus IaPromboise, Construction 5 Project, presented his now proposal for a 24 -unit apartment building to be built on the corner of Washington Street and lauring Lane. Mr. IaPromhoise requested Planning Commission approval to waive the public hearing process for his Variance Request to build a 24 -unit apartment building with less than the minimum amount of lot size required, therefore, requesting about 3,000 sq. ft. variance. He also asked for granting of a Conditional Use Request to build an apartment building of more than 12 units. Mr. RnPromboico indicated that duo to the latenoos of the construction season, he would like to get oomothing started yet late this fall with possible early spring ccoWlation. Mr. RaPromboiso Indicated he has withdrawn hie request to attempt to purchase the proposed Hennepin Street which the City currently owns. Planning Commicoion snmbere had a few problems with the waiving of the public hearing process and asked Mr. IaPromboiso if he could possibly wait until the spacial Planning Commission mooting tentatively scheduled for November 221 and at that time they would hoar his Variance Request and Conditional Use Request. Mr. la7romboi•o countered that if that is the soonest he could get it done then that is the soonest he could have it done and indicated he would be in agreement with It. Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Richard Carlson, to cot a public hearing data for November 22, 1983, 700 P.M., to hoar Mr. lafromboiso's Conditional Uco bequest and Variance Request. Nation carried unanimouoly. Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Richard Carlson, to adjourn the mooting. The meeting adjourned at 11109 P.M. Rsspectfully submitted, mf Gary • sOn Zoning Administrator 7 - T0, Members of City Council, Planning Ca®leaion, Cary Anderson PR014, Tom Eide� RE: Sandberg Rezoning Request DATES November 18, 3.983 Fran Fair, Rich Carlson, Gary Pringle, City Attorney, John Vban , Consulting Planner, and I met to review the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan that relate to rezoning residential areas. We attempted to discuss the plan in the abstract, not making particular references to any specific project. Our intent was to then present our results to the decision making bodies for them to apply to the specific request. The following is a general summary i 1) Spot zoning is illegal, supported by case law. Pringlo stated that case law indicates that all instances of spot zoning have boon over- turned. Thus the question, is the Sandberg request spot zoning or not. 1) Tho nature of housing demands have changed since the Plan was adopted and perhaps the City should invostigato a zone that would allow multiple dwellings along the [river corridor. Such an investigation needs cotablishing goals and policies, making findings -of -fact, property and structure suzvoys, having public hoaringo, and getting the affected neighborhood(s) involved. 3) Tho investigation mentioned above ohould be part of the overall Plan review and rovieion that is scheduled for early 1984, rather than be a separate investigation. 4) Any investigation ohould include discussions of the poocibility of a new mono which would integrate typos and densities of rooidontial dovolopmont. Ezteaeivo performance otrandards would be required. 8) With any rezoning roquoot items 1.9, pas 78 i 79 of the Cmaprohonnivo Plan muot be answered. Those have not yet been fully addrescod. 6) Mhilo the Plan io vary general the thrust is counter to spot zoning or oven creating conflicting land uses . Pringle and Man both agreed that Comprehensive Plane aro carrying substantially more weight in -i- legal proceedings, even though it is the ordinance which is the lar. The Comprehensive Plan is the legal foundation for a zoning ordinance. 7) Amending the Comprehensive Plan is essential, but a particular procedure must be followed. The Sandberg Requests Either it is spot zoning Or it isn't. If it is, then it is illegal - supported by case law. if this type of project has general support, must re -investigate the entire Plan and area, hold hearings, etc., and rezone the appropriate area, not a single parcel. If it is not spot zoning, must still address the nine items referenced above, than make findings that this rezoning is good for the community, not just the applicant. lastly, must be aware of precedent setting. If this is found not to be spot zoning, must have a rationale or criteria that can be equally applied to other requests. This then is a basic sugary. Pringle and Uban feel the Plan mono clearly prohibits the request, in spite of apparent conflicts and generalities. F If you have other questions you may contact directlys Tom Eidem 295-2711 Cary Pringle 295-2107 John Uban 377-3536 (Mple) Planning Commission Agenda - 11/22/83 4. Public Hearin - Gus LaFromboise - Conditional Use Request to Allow more than the Maximum Allowed 12 -Unit Apartment Buildinq, and Variance Request on Minimum Lot Size Requirement. A. REFERENCE ANC BACKGROUND: As you recall, Mr. LaFromboise was at our last Planning Commission Meeting on November 8, 1981, to submit his proposal for Planning Commission review. Mr. LaFromboise is proposing to build a 24 - unit apartment building on the corner lot located at the corner of Lauring Lane and Washington Street. First of all, Mr. LaFromboise is asking for a Conditional Use Request to build an apartment building over the maximum allowed 12 units. He is proposing to build a 24 -unit apartment building consisting of 17 two-bedroom units, six one -bedroom units, and one one - bedroom handicapped unit. Also, Mr. LaFromboise is requesting a Variance to allow a variance of 2,559 eq. ft. from the minimum amount of rsquare feet allowed for a 24 -unit apartment building. According to his proposed plan, the total amount of lot area needed would be 62,500 aq. ft., therefore, needing a 2,559 eq. ft. variance. Mr. IAFIomboine aloo owns the property just west of the proposed vacated Hennepin Street. If Mr. �rromboiso did purchase the vacated Hennepin Street for the City's appraised, agreed upon price, Mr. LaFromboise would plan to build an additional 24 -unit apartment building on this property. Therefore, within proposing to build the additional 24 -unit apartment building he would make up the difference of the 2,559 oq. ft, in which he was ohort in with the firot 24 -unit building. However, if Mr. LaFromboibe d000 not purchanu the proposed vacated atroot from the Ci ty, he would build a 12 -unit apartment building on the lot juut wont of the proposed vacated Hennepin Street. In hin proposed plan to build the 12 -unit apartment building, he would have enough square footage to allow for the 2,559 eq. ft. of which lie in short here. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION, 1. Approve Mr. LaFromboiac'n requaat to build a 24 -unit apartment building, which requirea a Conditional Uoo Requeut for apartments in exceos of 12 unito. Alae approve hin Variance Request to allow construction of a 24 -unit apartment building with a variance of 2,559 uq. ft. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/22/83 14 2. Deny Mr. LaFromboise's request for a Conditional Use Request to build a 24 -unit apartment building wherein the maximum allowed is a 12 -unit apartment building. Also deny his request for a Variance of 2,559 sq. ft, of the minimum lot size. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of Mr. LaFromboise's Conditional Use Request to build a 24 -unit apartment building where the maximum allowed is 12 units. Also staff recommends to approve his Variance Request of 2,559 sq. ft. from the minimum amount of 62,500 sq. ft., which is required. Also as part of our recommendation we may roquire,as one condition to the Conditional Use and Variance Request approval, that Mr. LaFromboise make up the 2,559 sq. ft. for which he would be allowed a Variance in the adjacent lot which he owns just west of the proposed vacated Hennepin Street whether or not he buys the proposed vacated street from the City. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Plans of Mr. LaFromboise's new proposed 24 -unit apartment building; Location of Mr. LaFromboise's building on the existing lot. - 2 -