Planning Commission Agenda Packet 05-01-1979 SpecialF
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 1, 1979 - 7:30 P.M.
p81
�
Members: Jim Ridgeway, Fred Tel,d Schaffer, Dave Bauer, Dick Martie.
Loren Klein (ex -officio).
-/1. Approval of Minutes - April 17, 1979 Regular Meeting.
✓2. Consideration of Variance on Sideyard Setback and Subdivision of Par-
/ cel - Mr. 6 Mrs. Harry Benson.
+3. Consideration of a Variance Request - Ed Klein.
%A//Consideration of a Variance Request - Janet Irvine.
./5. Consideration of a Variance Request - John Kiebel.
16. Consideration of Variance Request - Marvin George.
Consideration of Variances Relative to the Use of a Mobile Homo as a
1 Sales Office in a B-3 Zone - Scott Potato Company.
Unfinished Business -
Rezoning of Block 10.
.J�.�.w....,. .. Ai.
Now Businceo -
• /
5 ��
�j v
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING CO'•LMISSION
Tuesday, April 17, 1979 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Jim Ridqeway, Dave Bauer, Dick Martie, Ed Schaffer.
:lumbers Absent: Fred Topel
1. Approval of Minutes.
A motion was made by Dave Bauer, seconded by Ed Schaffer and Unanimously
carried to approve the Minutes of March 20, 1979, as presented. A
motion was made by Dave Bauer, seconded by Fd Schaffer and unanimously
carried to approve the Minutes of April 3, 1979.
2. Public llearinq - Reroninq of Block 10 of Original Monticello Plat
from R-3 to R-1 or R-2.
At their March 26, 1979 meeting, the City Council of Monticello was approached
by a group of citizens in Block 10 of Monticello and the surroundinq arca
expressing concern over the possible development of an apartment house in
Block 10. At the time of the request, the Monticello City Council did Inform
the concerned citizens that there was no specific zoning action that the
Council could take that evening relative to rezoning; however, they did
take the following action:
A. Requested the Planning Commission hold a hearing to rezoning Block 10.
B. Put a moratorium on any building permit approvals for multiple family
dwalling units in Block 10 until the recommendation of the Planning
Commission came back to the City Council and the City Council took
final action.
As a result of this action, a public hearing has been properly published and
notice has been given to property owners within 350' of Block 10, to consider
rezoning the Block from R-3 (Medium Density Residential) to r.-1 (S:nolo ramily
Reoidential) or R-2 (Single and Two -Family Residential).
At the outcot, Gary Wioher, City Adminintrator wan roquented h; thr 'airman
to xploin the history behind the zoning of Block 10. Mr. Wich r ,$)lein,d
that the zoning of Block 10 han been R-3 nincu 1972. Ile furtLur cxilainvd
that in contacts with the City Planner and City Attorney, then, wan concern
relative to rezoning the property to R-1 or R-2 in order to avoid a )articular
prup000d development. Mr. Wisher did explain that the Planninq Commi:cicn
may want to consider rezoning the south half of Block 10 to R-1 or F-2 to
protect property owners in that area from future multiple famt Iy dwrlling
units. The particular proposed development at this point wan lo.atod on the
north half of Block 10, specifically, Lots 0, 9 6 10 of Block 10.
At this point, the meeting was opened for the public hogrinq {'ol:non, .0 d
the following co:moento worn recoived,
Minutes - Planning Comm. - 4/17/79
Darwin Straw - owner of property on south half of Block 10, would like
to see the entire Block stay as an R-3 zone. Mr. Straw indicated that
although he had no immediate plans for multiple family dwelling unit,
he would like to leave this option open for himself or a subsequent
buyer of his land.
Jim Murray - owner of Lots 8, 9 0 10 of Block 10. Mr. Murray owns the site
that is proposed for a seven -unit apartment house by Ron White. Mr. Murray
indicated he bought the property for apartments, and would be very much
opposed to rezoning at this time.
Ron White - Developer who has the option on Lots B. 9 6 10 of Block 10,
indicated that he had an option to buy the property specifically because
it was zoned as R-3, and if it is rezoned, he simply would not purchase
it.
Jack Maxwell - Realtor - He had indicated this puts Mr. Murray in a very
bad position since he purchased another home with no contingency due to
the fact that he had an option to sell Mr. White his property.
Ron Peters - owner of property on the south half of Block 10, indicated
that the neighborhood would probably have to accept the current proposal
of Ron White's for an apartment, but would request rezoning the rest of the
Block to R-1 or R-2. He indicated he did not realize the area was R-3 when
he purchased his property. Mr. Peters went on to say that he took
exception with Darwin Straw's initial opposition to an accessory building
that was being planned at one time by Mr. Murray, but now Mr. Straw
apparently is 1n favor of multiple family housing in the area. Mr. Peters
felt that Mr. Straw was not being consistent since he had previously
opposed the accessory building and now was in favor of multiple family
which Mr. Peters felt would bo more detrimental to the area than the
previous proposal by Mr. Murray.
Karen Hanson - property owner on north half of Block 10 said she was very
concerned with the number of apartments in the area of Block 10 and that
within a very short distance of Block 10 and including Block 10 there would
be approximately 80 apartment units.
Mr. and Mrs. Roqor Chartrand - The following written testimonial was received
by the Planning Commission and signed Chartrand Residence, apparently roforring
to Mr. and Mrs. "or Chartrand. "We aro in agreement with the rezoning of
Block 10 from R-3 to either R-2 or R-1. Rezoning is the only feasible thing
to be donor considering the traffic problem we would have with the additional
cars an apartment building would bring."
Motion was mads by Dave Bauer, seconded by Dick Martio and was unanimously
carried to deny the rezoning roquost. Same of the roaeono for the denial
of the rezoning request are as follows,
A. Area had been R-3 for at least coven (7) years.
B. Comprehensive Plan ahowu this specific area as multiple family and
it was felt that consistency should bo maintained with the Comprehunsive
Plan and the area should bo loft as is.
- 2 -
Minutes - Planning Comm. - 4/17/79
C. Intent of zoning ordinance by design is to group multiply family
dwelling units within the same general area.
C_.
A motion was made by Fd Schaffer, seconded by Dick Martie and unanimously
carried to adjourn.
r
Gary 4eber f
City Administrator
GW/ja
T•1euhorr 1952711
Circ o� �/i'�onfice[[o
250 East Broadway
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
MEMDRANDUM
TOR Planning Commissi
FROM Rick Molfeteller
DATER May 1, 1979
SUBJECTr Planning Commission Agenda Item 06 - (Marvin
George variance Reauest)
Agenda Item 16, second paragraph, indicated that the reason
for the variance request from the 1,000 aquas foot minim=
was that the government-sponsored loan program limited the
square footage to 960 square feet on loans that they would
guarantee.
In chocking with Mr. George, it appears that the government
loan program does not sot a square foot limit on new homes
that they guarantee, but rather a dollar amount for the loan.
As a moult, Mr. George feels that he caanot build a house of
more than 960 square fact and still sell it under the govern-
ment mximulm dollar limit.
GM/ns
M.— Lin, 333 57P
P
W111ninr to �W"Ifli.eff, !/ 1 e mountainIIUU
Planning Commission - May 1, 1979
V AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
1. Approval of Minutes
Consideration of approving the minutes from the Regular Planning Commission
Meeting held April 17, 1979. 'G 5 '=-, F. t•
2. Consideration of Variance on Sidevard Setback and Subdivision of Parcel -
Mr. t Mrs. Harry Benson.
Mr. i Mrs. Harry Benson, owners of Lots 6 6 7 or Block 11 in Lower Monti-
cello, are requesting the following,
A. Variance from sideyard setback requirement of 10' to allow an existing
garage to have its drip -line right up to the abutting property line
to the west.
B. Subdivision of parcel to allow garage to be entirely on their own
property.
Please refer to the copy of a photograph on this property and also a site
layout plan. As you can see by the site layout plan, there is an existing
garage that straddles the property lino between that of Mr. G Kra. Harry
Benson and that of Kevin Olson. Apparently, this garage was built before
a permit was required several years ago, and now the situation is trying to
be rectified in light of a potential sale that Mr. 6 Mrs. Harry Benson have
of their property to Mr. Gana Carlson. Mr. i Mrs. Benson aro negotiating
to purchase a strip of land that would be 10' wide and 135' deep from
Mr. Kevin Olson to allow their garage to be entirely on their own parcel.
In oxchango for this parcel, Mr. c Kra. Boncon will give Mr. Kovin Olson
a strip that will be 30' by 66' towards the southerly or roar end of their
property.
Approval on two issues is necessary from the City of Monticello on the
subdivision of land that is occuring and also to grant a variance on the
oidoyard setback minimma requirement of 101. This is necessary since the
garage still will infringe upon the 10' setback roquiremant. Obviously,
the situation that will be created relative to the setback will be better
than it currently is, as the garage currently otraddloo the proporty lino.
According to John Sandberg, roaltor for Mr. c Mrs. Harry Benson, Kevin Olson
is agreeable to the exchange of the property with the provision that the
City of Monticello go on record as indicating they would not be opposed
if some day Mr. Olson or a subsequent property owner of his parcel would
build a garage that would need a sidoyard setback variance to the oast.
Reason for this request is that Mr. Olson'e lot becomes rather narrow,
561, as a result of doeding over 10' of his property to Mr. 6 Mrs. Harry
Denson. While it Is realised that one City Council cannot bind another one,
Mr. Olson would fool more comfortable with the situation if, at least at
a minimum, the currant City Council went on record indicating that they
a would not oppose the variance. As a result of having this in the minutes
of the City Council, Mr. Olson fools that he or a subsequent buyer of his
land would have a bettor chance of getting a variance in the future if it
becomes noconsary.
- 1 -
Planning Commission Agenda - May 1, 1979
It would seem that the request of the sideyard setback variance and the
subdivision are reasonable. However, there is some concern with the City
Council going on record as not opposing a variance in regard to a future
garage to be built by Mr. Kevin Olson or a subsequent property owner of
the parcel. Reason for this as you can see by the enclosed site layout is
that if a garage were built in the same area of the other garage, there
could be the possibility of these two garages almost touching each other
and of course, there would be concern relative to a fire hazard. There
might be some consideration for stipulating that the City of Monticello
would go on record supporting such a variance if the garage on the Olson
parcel were set back further to the South so as not to be adjacent to
the Benson garage. You might recall a situation somewhat like this
where there were two existing garages adjacent to each other, and the
City of Monticello did grant a variance for a new garage to be built in
the same area. However, this case differs in the fact that there is
only one existing garage at the present time. Other alternatives are
as follows:
1. Instead of approving the subdivision and variance, a recommendation
could be that Mr. 6 Mrs. Harry Benson obtain an easement from Mr.
Kevin Olson for a stated period of time to allow their garage to
exist. After the stated period of time. the garage would have to
be taken down. Whether this would be acceptable is not known; however,
at least it would not complicate a future variance request.
2. Grant the variance setback and the subdivision, and rather than go
on record indicating that the City Council would be in favor of a
variance, it may go on record saying that it would be in favor of
a variance provided that any future garage on the Olson property was
as least 5' from the Benson garage, or that any future garage to be
built on the Olson proporty would be built south of the Benson garage.
,tJ
POSSIBLE ACTION, Consideration oft .9N 1: ItI t ut•
�
� 1. Recommendation of approval of subdivision of land.
vpev F,� ; u ,. 2. Recommendation to approve of sideyard eotback variance.
6's-1,Ne 3. Recommendation to City Council relative to any future
V variances for possible garage to be built on the
Olson p operty.
54
REPERENCE t Enclosed copy of a picture, site layout p an and map depicting
location.
3. Consideration of a Variance Request - Ed Klein.
Mr, c Mrs. Ed Klein, who own Lots 1 6 2 of Block 37, Upper. Monticello,
are proposing to divide their lots as shown on the enclosed plot plan.
In order to change the lot line, they have to have Council approval not
only for the change, but also for the variance that would be required becauao
the rear yard setback would only be 26' instead of the 30' required by
Ordinance.
- 2 -
Planning Commission Agenda - May 1, 1979
As you can see by the enclosed plat plan, no other variances would be
required even though the garage site on the northern lot line, compliance
for the setback cannot be achieved in any case.
POSSIBLE ACTION, Recommend approval or denial of this variance revest.
Ft F S •Q[.
REFERENCES, Nap depicting the lot location and a plat plan.
4. Consideration of a Variance Request - Janet Irvine.
Janet Irvine would like to build a garage on her property (Lot 5, Block E
Riggs Addition) within 6' of the sideyard property line. Address is 325
East 4th Street. Zoned R-2.
She has presented a letter from the abutting property owner stating
no objection to the proposed 24' x 24' garage.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS Consider recommending approval or denial of this variance
request.
REFERENCESt Enclosed map depicting the lot and a plat plan, ;attar
from abutting property owner. fs,�' r- f" t�( .
5. Consideration of a Variance Request - John Riebel.
Pursuant to Monticello Ordinance Section 10-3-2-(D)-(5) which does not
_ allow more than one garage or accessory building per lot, Mr. John Riebel
is requesting a variance to build a double garage on his property at
424 East 4th Street (Lots 3 6 8 and A of 2 6 9, Block 36, Lower Monticello.
Zoned R-2.
Presently, Mr. Kiebel has one single garage on his property setting on
permanent footings and is proposing to make an accessory building out of
it if he builds his new garage.
No setback variancoo would be required. �r!� CS�� aNC .
POSSIBLE ACTIONi Consider recommending approval or denial of this request.
REFERENCES, Enclosed map depicting location.
6. Consideration of Variance Request - Marvin Goorqo.
Marvin George Buildera has made an application for a variance from
Monticello Ordinance 10-3-4-(G)-(1) which requires a ono -story dwolling
to be a minimum of 1,000 square foot of firet-floor arca.
Mr. Goorgo's application is based on a requirement from the government-
sponsored lending program which has sot a maximum of 960 square foot
for a dwelling if they are to guarantee the loan.
Mr. George's request for this typo of variance would apply only to housce
he proposed to build in the Balboul Estates, Zoned R-1.
.L
3 -
Planning Commission Agenda - May 1, 1979
As a matter of policy, the so-called "splits", where the basement area is
far enough out of the ground to provide for development of habitable
space, is considered as a two-story building and allowed as long as the
first floor is over 750 square feet and also this policy is used where
a rambler of 750 square feet has a walk -out basement and there is
developmental potential in the basement for at least 250 square feet of
habitable space. However, where a rambler is less than 1,000 square feet,
and no habitable space can be provided in the basement, a variance would be
necessary.
For your information, the Building Code defines habitable space as -
"space in a structure for living, sleeping, eating and cooking." Bath-
rooms, toilet compartments, closets, halls, storage, or utility spaces,
and similar areas are not considered habitable space.
One very important requirement of habitable space is the window require-
ment which says "all habitable rooms within a dwelling unit shall be
provided with natural light by means of exterior glazed openings with
an area not less than 1/10th of the floor area with a minimum of
10 square feet per room. windows shall have a minimum net clear opening
of 5.7 square feet with a net clear height of no less than 24' and a
net clear width of no less than 20'"(i.e., a window 24" high would have
to be 34.2" wide to obtain the required 5.7 square foot net clear opening).
It should be noted that the City Administrator feels the minimum require-
ment for square footage is not an attempt to legislate safety, but
to protect property values. He points out that a rambler could
be over 1,000 square feet, but the lower level could not still be
developed for habitable space, unless it met the building code.
He feels the rationale for recommendation of approval or denial
should then be based on the theory of protecting property values,
not safety.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of recommending approval or denial of
this variance request. r a
�SREFERENCES: Enclosed map depicting area.
7. Consideration of Variances Relative to the Use of a Mobile Home an a
Salon Office in a B-3 Zone - Scotto Potato Company.
Scott Potato Company, which operates a potato brokerage office during
the potato season south of Monticello Ford on a parcel owned by
Larry Flake, in requesting the following varianceoi
A. Variance from building code provision. Mobile home does not meet
building code, and It would have been considered as grandfathored
inj however, it has been moved to a different location on their
parcel and thus would be subject to the building code.
,I B. Variance from hardourfaced parking requirements for an office.
C. Variance from landscaping requirements.
- 4 -
�L_
u
Planning Commission Agenda - May 1, 1979
Currently, the parcel that Scott Potato Company is situated on is owned
by Larry Flake and leased to Scott Potato Company. The Monticello Ford
site is a different parcel and is in the name of the Monticello Ford
Corporation. It should be pointed out that when Larry Flake was
initially issued a temporary certificate of occupancy for the Monticello
Ford site, that it was agreed upon that he, Larry Flake, would no longer
allow Scott Potato to lease the parcel from him relative to the mobile
home site after 1978.
It should be further pointed out that there is no previous record that
this mobile home site was approved initially when it was in the Township
of Monticello.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of recommendation of approval or denial
of variances requested.
REFERENCES: Map depicting area.
5
ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEM
(New Business)
Mr. Ed rivers would like approval to sell 151-0^ off from
the west side of his property to his neighbor, Mr Dick Frie. Mr.
Kampas property is Lot 1 - Blk 1, of Kampa Estates.
In selling his property, Mr. Kampa would be reducing his
present lot from 16,875 square feet down to 14,850 square feet,
which would still leave the lot 2850 square feet larger
than is necessary in that zoning, which is R-1.
Any action which would reselt in this proposed change
should be contingent upon a Certificate of Survey being presented
to the City before final approval.
Actions Consider recommending denial or approval of this
subdivision request.
Applicants Mr. Ed Rivera
hkq
` \
?�Slut-
04
Into
IR
�o kp.M,
' PA
�t�... ��L•._ Jai=ytotl�,otY f' 4� e � �n��� ♦o �� ,
V
rk
11 �1� Yt't►. la... ; � yhy � � s'=•J � ` �s_ ` � � j � . i
•►..�y'yOst.@.G. '�} ,' C j t jiwSE NWSfi i
.' . %�"' _�y,.r " au'C." 1 �.C..` - .. � Gca�ot,��'t'� `"i/','-•'1�..lCs "': 1s�� tic,. 3
C . v5 !o w ub
L+t.N.►.�sG.!►��.st..'tt3J OS�'.�Otd[:'�r+A.'['i
caGtEr W�m�ti.ti.o, �6�Y,l�UC
hA.+UPJ Msput"tGfl ►,, t
B=4
c. �a iw .0 t. F 4 t.�1.yisi►. G. M t?�� v
��) t4 --
6c--)
r
3
IL• �� �d * _J,t„ "" ASN PROPEiYCY f` u�`
HIGHWAY
•+� � t�.`,_•„ ti.- �_ '' 'EKY • t. r %D.� +; -• "^'i' i ' �' �S , ' .,
SNE PSP t , • u,1 ~�I• .t p ' r• r ,'^ ..�,�� i`
-- t,,J' , . {,. �•�., „ter _. �
is »•�
t r NO 9..
5C� S,OZ,ATO CO.
- j
(
f
I
Htvt -
' 3
C,
A
w
r
i
'1
30
1
R,*
14VAS :
2y,xyi,
q;L,
E- tv' ---4
7
Gentlemen:
--0-
This is to inform you that I, as owner of Lot 6, Block 3, A. C. Has
Addition to the Town of Lower Mouticello, do give my consent to Janet
Irvine,. owner of Lot S. Block 3, A. C. Riggs Additiou to the ,own of
Lower Monticello. to build a 24 foot by 24 foot garare 6 feet fron our
ajolniag lot line. I realize this requires a variance to the building
code and do this day agree to the granting of such a variance.
Signed�c1J - �iGh.�
Date
y
I
T, ,m 7952711
6.ty of uloAIt«ello
250 East Broadway
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
T01 Planning Oommiesi
P"S Rick 1bIfstellez P
DATS1 May 1, 1979
MWECT, Planning Commission Agenda Item 16 - (Marvin
George Variance Request)
Agenda Item 06, seoond paragraph, indicated that the reason
for the variance request from the 1,000 square foot minimum
was that the government-sponsored loan program limited the
square footage to 960 square feet on loans that they would
guarantee.
In checking with Mr. George, it appearo that tho government
loan program does net set a square foot limit on new homes
that they guarantee, but rather a dollar amount for the loan.
As a result, Mr. George feels that he cannot build a house of
more than 960 square feet and still sell it under the govern-
ment maximum dollar limit.
GN/ns
M.— L... 7]]-6779
��R/o�rnmv to r7/�nnlrra��n /ill/s+ n,.,anlnrn � ,