Planning Commission Agenda Packet 05-15-1979•
y �Qry
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING C(X4MISSION
Tuesday, May 15, 1979 - 7:30 P.M.
Members: James Ridgeway, Fred Topel, Dave Bauer, Fd Schaffer, Dick Martie.
(Loren Klein, ex -officio)
1. Review of Minutes - May 1, 1979 special meeting.
2. Continuation of Public Hearing on James Maus's "The Meadows" Subdivi-
sion Plat.
2-A. Public Hearing on Rezoning Blocks 11 and 21, in Upper Monticello from R-3
to R-2, and Consideration of Recommendation of Approval of these Blocks,
along with Block 10 of Upper Monticello, from R-3 to R-2.
3. Public Hearing on Ordinance Amendment to Require all Driveways and Parking
Areae to be Hardsurfaced for a Single Family and Two Family Dwelling.
4. Consideration of Proposed Ordinance Amendments.
5. Consideration of a Variance Request on Hardsurfacing Parking Area -
Trinity Lutheran Church.
6. Consideration of Ordinance Amendment to Allow a Mixture of Residential
and Commercial Uses in a B-3 and/or B-4 Zone.
7. Consideration of a Variance to Allow an Apartmont/Comm rcial Use within
a B-4 Zone.
8. Consideration of a Subdivision of Lots - Ralph Kiffmoyer.
9. Consideration of Sidayard Setback variance Request - James Fuller.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 1, 1979 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Fred Topel, Ed Schaffer, Dick Martie.
Loren Klein (ex -officio)
Members Absent, Dave Bauer
1. Approval of Minutes.
A motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Fred Topol and unanimously
carried to approve the Minutes of April 17, 1979 as presented.
Z. Consideration of a Variance on a Sidevard Setback and Subdivision of
a Parcel - Mr. S Kra. Harry Benson.
Mr. a Kra. Harry Benson, owners of Lots 6 c 7 in Block 11 in Lower
Monticello, are requesting the followings
A. Variance from sideyard setback requirements of 10' to allow an
existing garage to have its drip line right up to the abutting
property lino to the west.
B. Subdivision of parcel to allow a garage to be entirely on their own
property.
Currently, there it) an oxiating garage that straddles the property
lino between that of Mr. 6 Mrs. Harry Benson and that of Kevin Olson.
Apparently, thio garage wan built before a permit was required noveral
years ago, and now the situation is trying to be rectified in light of
a potential talo that Mr. 6 Mrs. Harry Benson have of their property to
Mr. Gone Carloon. Mr. c Mrs. Boneon are negotiating to purchase a otrip
of land that will be 10' wide and 135' deep from Kr. C Mrs. Kevin Oloon
to allow their garage to be entirely on their own parcel. In exchange
for thio parcel, Mr. c Kra. Bonn= will give Mr. Kevin Oloon a strip
that will he 30' x 66' towarda the southerly rear end of their property.
A motion wao made by Dick Kartio, occondod by Fred Topol and unanimously
carried to approve the subdivision so indicated above.
A motion wao made by Dick Martio, aocondod by Prod Topol and unanimously
carried to approve of the cideyard notback variance.
A motion wao made by Dick Mortio, seconded by Prod Topol and unanimously
carried to recommend to the City Council that they go on record as approving
a oidoyard aotback variance from the oast property line for Mr. a Mra.
Kevin Oloon or o oubsoquent owner of their parcel. Thio variance would
apply to the p000tbility of a future garage being built on the parcel
owned by Mr. c Mro. Kevin Oloon, and also the motion wao contingont upon
all cafoty procautiono being taken caro of at the time. Purp000 of thio
motion waD to catiofy Mr. c Kra. Kevin Olson for their concern in allowing
10' of their cootorly property line to be deeded over to Mr. s Mrs). Harry Bencon
i
and what effects this may have on a future garage if they were to build
one on their parcel or a subsequent owner were to build one. it is
further understood that if the Council ultimately decides to accept the
recommendation, that one council cannot bind another.
3. Consideration of a Variance Request on a Rear Yard Setback - Mr. s Mrs.
Ed Klein.
Mr. 6 Mrs. Ed Klein, who owns lots 1 6 2 of Block 37, Upper Monticello,
propose to divide their lots in order to have the length run east and
west instead of north and south.
With the change of lot line, it is necessary to request a variance
because the rear yard setback for the existing house on Lot 2 would
only be 26' instead of the required 30'
Motion was made by Fred Topel, seconded by Ed Schaffer and unanimously
carried to approve of the variance request.
4. Consideration of a Variance Request on Sidevard Setback - 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 E. 4th Street.
Ms. Irvine has presented a letter from the abutting property owner stating
no objection to the proposed 24' x 24' garage. A motion was made by
Ed Schaffer, seconded by Fred Topel and unanimously carried to approve
of the variance request.
S. Consideration of a Variance Request for Two Accessory Buildinqs -
John Kiebel.
Mr. John Kiebol is requesting a variance to build a double garage on his
property at 424 East 4th Street (Lots 3 6 B, and W % of 2 i 9, Block 36
Lower Monticello). A variance is necessary because the Monticello
Ordinance dodo not allow more than one garage or accessory building
per lot.
Presently, Mr. Kiebol has one single garage on hin property setting
on permanent footings, and is proposing to make an accessory building out
of it if he builds his now garage.
A motion was made by Dick Martio, seconded by Ed Schaffer and unanimously
carried to approve of the variance request.
6. Consideration of Variance Request from Minimum First Floor Square Foot-
age Requirements - Marvin George - Ralboul Estates.
Marvin George Builders has made an application for a variance from
Monticello Ordinances requiring a one-story dwelling to be a minimum
of 1,000 cquaro feet on the first floor.
- 2 -
5
•
Minutes - Planning Comm. - 5/1/79
Mr. Marvin George presented information at the meeting indicating tt.at
he would like to have a variance to build homes that would be 24' x 38',
or 912 square feet. These h would be three bedroom. Purpose for
the variance request according to Mr. George is as follows:
A. Mr. Georc;efelt a good mixture of split entries and ramblers makes
an area more aesthetic in appearance than an area with all split
entries. Mr. George indicated if a variance weren't granted, that
he would have to build all split entries in Balboul Estates.
B. By having a smaller minimum requirement for square footage or granting
a variance to Mr. Marvin George, he felt that the cost of homes
would be reduced and would make it more accessible to the person
in a lower income bracket.
C. If the variance were granted, split entry homesand the ramblers
he intends to build in Balboul Estates would cost about the same
amount of money.
Mr. George further indicated that similar homes of the same size are
being built Lin Elk River, Clearwater and Buffalo.
Following is testimony received from residents opposed to the variance
Don Christopher - Opposed to the variance, and felt that a home the size
of 28' x 421, or 1,176 square foot was about as small as the City
should allow.
Paul Lindblad - fools the variance would change the quality of the
community, and was opposed.
Daryl Tindle - Opposed as it would devalue homes in the area.
Motion was mudo by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Dick Martie and unanimously
carried to ro commend to the Council that they deny the variance roqueo t.
7. Consideration of Variances Relative to the Use of a Mobilo flow as
a Salon office in a B-3 Zone - Scott Potato Company.
Scott Potato Company, which operates a potato brokerage office during
the rotato on anon south of Montieollo Ford on a parcel owned by
Larry Flake, io requesting the following variances,
A. Variance from building coda provioiono. Mobilo home door not meet
building code, and would have boon considered as grandfatherod in;
howover, it has boon moved to a different location and this would Ix
subject to the building code.
B. Variance from hardourfaca parking requirements for an office.
C. Variance from landscaping requirements.
:W=
M1nuLlS - 11dt1:I1 RiJ '.�Gmm. - �/ L/ o 1
Mr. Myron Jensen spoke in favor of the variance and indicated that it
was his understanding that Scott Potato Company is only asking for a
one year variance.
A representative from Scott Potato Company was not at the meeting;
however, a motion was made by Fred Topel, seconded by Ed Schaffer and
unanimously carried to grant a one-year variance to allow Scott
Potato Company to use the mobile home at the present site without
any improvements.
8. Consideration of Approval of a Subdivision of land - Mr. Ed Rivers.
Mr. Ed Rivers would like approval to sell 15' of his property on the
west side to his neighbor, Mr. Dick Frie. Legal description of this
parcel is Lot 1, Block 1 of ramps Estates.
In selling this property, Mr. Rivers would be reducing his present
lot from 16,875 square feet down to 14,850 square feet, which would
still leave the lot 2,850 square feet larger than is necessary in
that zoning, which is R-1.
Motion was made by Dick Martie, seconded by Ed Schaffer and unanimously
carried to approve of the variance request contingent upon a certificate
of survey being presented to the City before final approval.
9. Consideration of Schodulinq hearing on Ordinance Amondment for
Blacktop or Concrete Driveways.
City Administrator, Gary Wiober, informed the Planning Commission
that the Council previously had deleted a building coda section provi-
sion within the Ordinances which had required that all driveways,
including single and two family residences, to have blacktop or
concrete driveways. With the deletion of the ordinance in the building
code section, the only provision the City now has relative to driveways
is in the zoning ordinance section, which requires all driveways to be
hardaurfaced with concrete or blacktop, except for single and two family
dwellings.
An a result of some of the concerns expressed at the meeting of the
Planning Commission, it vas felt that this ordinance certainly
deserves consideration, and it vas decided to advertise an ordinance
amendmont for the Planning Commission's next mooting, May 15, 1979,
to consider the ordinance amendment which would require all driveways
to be hardsurfaced with concrete or blacktop, including single and
two-family residences. This provision would he required for all
now residences.
A motion wan made by Cd Schaffer, seconded by Dick Martie and unani-
mouoly carried to adjourn the meeting.
Gary'a;ia6l)k, City Administrator
GW/ns
- 4 -
i
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
J -/;--�-�
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
1. Review of Minutes.
Review and approve minutes from May 1, 1979 special meeting.
_. Continuation of Public Hearing on James Maus's "The Meadows" Subdivision
Plat.
At the Commission's April 3, 1979 meeting, a subdivision plat entitled
The Meadows was proposed by James Maus. At that time, it was decided to
defer action on the item which was subject to a hearing and to continue the
hearing to a later date until such time as the City's engineer could
adequately review the proposed development.
It should be noted that since that time, the plat has been changed in the
following manner:
A. Initial plat indicated a ponding area to satisfy the storm sewer and
water runoff requirements, and the revised preliminary plat indicates
permanent storm sewer underground would be utilized to resolve this
problem. It should be noted that this was a major item of concern to
the developer and was discussed quite thoroughly at a meeting with the
developer, James Maus, his engineer, the City's engineer, Planning
Commission Chairman, and the Mayor of Monticello and Gary Wiener,
It was decided at that time that a permanent storm sewer would to
necessary to adequately drain the area in light of future development:.
` surrounding the area, as pereulation by itself and water ponds would not
adequately handle the storm water runoff.
D. Plat is proponed to be developed in two stages - Phase 1 and Phase 2.
It should be noted that at the preliminary stage, the developer in
requesting the entire plat be approved and nubject to the hearing.
On the final plat, Phase 1 will he apolled out and subject to approval,
and at a later date, Phase 2 would be presented to the City of Monticello
for approval of the final plat. Reason for thin change in that the
devolopnr wrnhou to develop all Lho lots that border Prairie Road, except.
the moot weoterly lot bordering Prairie Road, in Phase 1. An a result of
having thte plat subject to final plat approval itmnodiat-oly, he would 1.'
able to got building permit.n for these lots as newer and water in etth"r
available or would only take a very short extension of i-wer and water
to make these buildable.
C. On the initial plat, there wan a proposal for 64 lots, and on the n,viced
plat, there in a proposal for 70 Iota. Primary reanon for thin in Llic
elimination of the ponding area previously mentioned and the dedication
of park land within the plats itself. It is proposer] that a cash dedi-
.7ation Ir nulmitted to the City for approval. According to ordinance,;,
it would Ir 10» of the entimatnd market value of thin Iand.
It should In noted that there have t,ven name concerns oxprenoed by rost&ntc
of the Hillcrest Area regarding the otorm sewer that in propnnod to alle-
viato thin arean storm water runoff. Thin storm cower follown the recom-
mendation of our engineer on the comprehennivo storm cower plan for the
.tty of Monticello. Thin storm cower would run in a northoar,torly la,hion
- I -
Planning Commission - 5/15/79
from the Maus Subdivision, underneath the railroad tracks and County Road 75,
to the Hillcrest park area and into the creek behind Hillcrest Addition.
The concern among some of the residents of the Iiillcrest area is for the
potential harmful effects that the storm water runoff may have to th,e creek.
Apparently, this creek is a very slow moving and spring -fed creek, and as a
result, they feel that it could become pol'uted quite easily. I have asked
John Badalich to study the possibility of extending the storm sewer in such
a fashion as it would run toward Otter Creek instead of the creek behind
Hillcrest Addition. There would be some savings because you woul.l not have
to go underneath the railroad tracks and underneath a County hiohw•ay, but
John feels that the cost savings would not be substantial in light of the
extra distance required by going to Otter Creek.
It should be noted that this subdivision plat which was revised was just
received on Thursday, May 10, 1979, at which time I delivered it to
John Badalich who was in the City at that time. I have asked John to
review this plat and call in his recommendations so that they could be
available for Tuesday night's meeting. I have also asked him to present
the figures on the alternative methods of a storm sewer going to Otter
Creek as opposed to the creek behind Hillcrest area.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of recommendation of approval or denial
of subdivision plat of James Maus entitled "The Meadows".
REFERENCES: Enclosed copy of the preliminary plat.
2-A. Public Hearinq on Rezoning Blocks 11 and 21, in Upper Monticello from P.-3
to R-2, and Consideration of Recommendation of Approval of these Blocks,
along with Block 10 of Upper Monticello from R-3 to R-2.
As you recall, the Planning Commission ban previously held a hearing on the
rezoning of Block 10 from R-3 (Medium Density Residential) to R-2 (Single
and Two -Family Residential). This hearing took place at the Commission's
April 17, 1979 meeting, and you may want to refer to the agenda supplement
and minutes for that meeting for review.
When the Planning Commmieeion's recommendation came forward to the City
Council, the Council did decide to lift a previous moratorium it had
imposed on Lots B, 9 s 10 of Block for a multiple family dwallinq unit.
This moratorium was lifted to allow the developer, Ron White, to continue
with his plans for an apartment in that area. However, the Council decided
not to cake any opocific action on the rezoning request, but rather requented
the Planning Commission hold a hearing on two surrounding blocks of Block 10,
that is Block 21 to the north &croon the Burlington Northern railroad tracks,
and Block 11 to the east across Maple Street.
Rcanon for the act. -fon by the Council to hold a hearing on the additional
blocks and slue have the Planning Comminufon reconoider their recommendation
on Block 10, in an followni
A. Current une of the blocko is primarily ningle-family residential.
Block 10 contains three older homes and one nowor hon) nituated en
Lots 1 throuqh 7. Additionally, there in an older home on Lott, H
through 10 which would be proponrd to lel moved in light of the 7 -unit
apartment complex. Block 11 containn five single-family older h,mes.
- 2 -
Planning Commission - 5/15/79
Block 21 contains one older single-family residence, and one residence
that houses the Christian Social Service of Monticello, and additionally,
Block 21 contains about an acre -and -a -half that is devoted to parking for
St. Henry's Catholic Church, which is situated across the street in Block 28.
B. Rezoning would still leave a large area within the district for R-3 zoning.
C. There was concern due to the number of apartments in the area for future
traffic flow and congestion.
C. Primary reason was to review the rationale behind this area initially
being zoned as R-3. This area has been zoned R-3 since 1972, and it was
felt that rather than the Council just to fall back on the fact that
it was previously zoned that way, it did decide to look into the ad-
vantages and disadvantages of having this area zoned as R-3.
John Uban, of Howard Dahlgren 6 Associates, will be at Tuesday night's meeting
to review this item with the Planning Commission. It should be noted that
John Uban came down and personally reviewed the Blocks in question, and will
be preparing a planning report that will be included with your agenda if
if arrives in time, otherwise will be available for Tuesday night's meeting.
It would seem to me that if Block 10 would be recommended for rezoning, that
it would exclude Lots 8, 9 6 10 of Block 10 to allow Ron White's apartment
complex to be a permitted, rather than non -conforming use. Additionally,
I believe there is justification for retaining the zoning on these parcels
since they could not be developed individually as single family homes due
to the fact that there is no access road to lots B e 9 and in effect, they
would be landlocked. It should be further noted that a building permit
application has Men received from Darwin Straw, who owns lots 1 and 2
and the VA of Lot 3 in Block 10, to build an 8 -unit apartment building.,
Mr. Straw has consulted an attorney, since he obviously would prefer to
maintain the present R-3 zoning. It should be noted that Mr. Straw did
come to the Planning Commission in August of 1978 and asked for a variance
request to create a 66' lot out of the above referenced parcel to allow
for the building of a new home. This request was recommended for approval
by the Planning Commisaion and ultimately approved by the City Council.
POSSIBLE ACf1ONo Consideration of recommendation to approve or deny
rezoning of Blocks 10, 11 and 21 0£ Upper Monticello.
REFERENCESe Agenda supplement for 4/17/79 and minutes of 4/17/79
(previously sent out). John Uhan'a report on this
matter, if received in time.
*(Thio buildinq permit application is incomplete, as it lacks any
11ana or 611ecificationa, which are required to issue such o permit).
-3-
A
Planning Commission - 5/15/79
3. Public Hearinq on Ordinance Amendment toFoequlre all Driveways and Parkinq
Areas to be Hardsurfaced for a Sinqle Family and Two Family Dwellinq.
Currently, Monticello Ordinance Section 10 -3 -5 -(D) -(8)-(k) requires all
parking areas, including driveways to be hardsurfaced with concrete or
bituminous, except in the case of single family and two-family dwellings.
As you recall at the last meeting, the Planning Commission received
favorable input from a group of citizens that this ordinance be instituted.
You may also recall that it was brought to light that the City Council
deleted this provision under the building code section of Monticello
Ordinances.
An ordinance such as this has merit and justification for the following
reasons:
A. Improves aesthetic appearance of the particular property in question.
H. Increases value of particular property in question.
C. improves aesthetic appearance of the neighborhood and the community
as a whole.
D. Improves property values in the noighbonccod and community as a whole.
E. Controls dust.
F. As a result of controlling dust, reduces the City'e coat (tax payers
dollars) regarding street maintenance and street swooping.
All ordinance amendments are subject to a public hearing and proper
publication has taken place in the Monticello Times.
You also may recall their being concerned about landscaping requirements
within rocidential diotricte. However, in reviewing the zoning ordinance
amendment, there is provision right now that currently requires the entire
parcel in all zoning districts to be either in landscaping, that is end.
rood, shrubbery, that is not occupied by the building itself or the drive-
way or parking areas. As a result, the City currently does have a provi-
sion which requires all residential lots to bo landscaped with sod and/or
aced. I have talked to Loren Klein about this, and thin will be brought
to every buildore attention, and additionally. when a home is initially
occupied, a certificate of occupancy will be required and if the land-
ecaping is not finished at that time (duo to weather or for whatever roacon)
it will be pointed out to the property miner that it to the Cityle
ordinance to have this completed.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS Consideration of rocommndation to City Council on
Ordinance Amendment.
2KW
•
•
Planning Commission - 5/15/79
4. Consideration of Proposed Ordinance Amendments.
The following items have been proposed to help provide better documentation
of proposed subdivisions and to better insure their compliance with
county and city regulations.
Proposed Ordinance Amendments:
Section 11-4-1-(C)-(7)
7. A statement of the approximate square footage and
dimensions of the individual lots.
Section 11-/¢2-(A)-(11)
11. An accompanying letter from the County Surveyor's
office stating that the plat or land survey has been
examined and approved.
Section 11-4-2-(C)-(1) Proof of Recording
1. A letter from the County Recorder's office stating
the final plat has been recorded as finally approved
by the City Council shall be received in the Building
Official9s office before any building permits may be
issued.
Section 11 -4r1 -(C)-(7) would, if adopted, be the guide used in '
determining the costs of various improvements, based on footage,
etc. and also be useful to insure minimum lot sizes and dimensions
r are adhered to.
` Section 1 Wr-2-(A)-(11) would, if adopted,inoure that the County
Surveyor has had an opportunity to review the proposed plat and
insure its compliance with Wnnesota Statutes, which may require
items in addition to our local requirements.
Section 11-4-2-(C)-(1) would, if adopted, insure that the proposed
subdivision has been seconded according to its approved form before
any building permits could be issued, thus insuring that buildings
weren't built on proposed, but unrecorded lots. This also would
insure proper records are recorded for aosessment purposes.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration or recommending approval or denial
of these pr mselo, each on an individual basis.
5. Consideration of s Wrianco Reoueot on HardourfncinR Parkins Area -
Trinity Lutheran Church.
{ Last fall, when Trinity Lutheran Church come to their public hearing,
I their roquooto for variances included one that would allow them
to have only approximately � of the noceoaary parking lot hard.
surfaced, with the balance to bo in gross, similar to the "country
• church" concept.
MM
Planning Commission - 5-15-79
Since the time when they were granted their request, they have gone
through the bid letting process, and the bids have come in some
$30,000.00 more than their lender will allow them to spend. Thus in
the process to cut costs, they would like to request that they not be
required to put in any hard surfacing at this time and be allowed
up to 3 years to leave this area in gravel. A representative of
the church should be present at the meeting.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this
request.
REFERENCES: Enclosed map depicting location. An overall map
showing the church plot is available at City Hall
and a copy of the City Council agenda dealing with
matter originally is included.
APPLICANT: Trinity Lutheran Church.
6. Consideration of ordinance Amendment to Allow a Mixture of Residential and
Commercial Uses in a B-3 and/or B-4 Zone.
Members of the City's Planning Commission may recall a previous discussion
the Commission had regarding the possibility of allowing a combination
commercial/ residential use in a B-3 and/or B-4 zone. This discussion was
initiated by request from the Monticello Pot Hospital requesting a variance
to have an apartment above the hospital itself.
At the time of the discussion, Mr. Fred Topel also indicated a desire to
do something of this nature (sea next agenda item). At that time, the
Planning Commission felt there was eomo merit in considering an ordinance
amendment to allow a business to have an apartment complex within the same
structure oinco the Monticello ordinance currently did not allow such a
mixture.
since that time. I have had various lottero of corroopondence with
our planner, John Uban of Howard Dahlgren Associaten, and they are
enclosed and listed as followas
A. Letter dated February 8, 1979 explaining City Planning Commiosion'o
request to consider thio matter.
B. February 19, 1979 lottor from John Uban indicating that ouch a uao
could be conoidorod within a B-1, B-2 or R -B Zone.
C. February 27, 1979 letter from Crary Wiobor to John Uban requesting
John Uban'o opinion an allowing such a use within a 9-3 or B-4 cone.
D. March 12, 1979 memo from Gary Wtobor regarding phone eonvoroation with
John Uban relative to Mr. Wiaber'o February 27, 1979 letter.
The above corroepondonce pretty well highlighto the issue, and an you
can coo from the March 12, 1979 memo, there in oomo concern for allowing
a combination of comooreial/reoidential ontabliehment, and among the
concorno aro the following,
- 6 -
Planning Commission - 5/15/79
A. Such a use should be close to a park area in order to allow the
inhabitants of the apartment adequate facilities for recreation, etc.
B. Adequate provisions should be provided to meet the off-street parking
requirements. One aspect of this, if a retail establishment were to be
combined with a residential use, a specific portion of the parking should
be set aside for the residential space to insure that residents of the
apartment had adequate parking. For example, if the commercial
establishment's parking lot were entirely filled, the people utilizing
the residence would have no place within close walking distance to
park.
C. A general statement as to being compatible with the surrounding pro-
perty should probably be required. By this, it is meant that some uses
may be compatible with certain commercial uses, but in other cases,
such as a filling station, it might not be compatible to mix the two
uses. Additionally, there may be a certain distance factor that such
a mixed use should be from certain uses ouch as a filling station or
a liquor store, for example. This would be to provide less noise, etc.
Purpose of this item being on the agenda for Tuesday night is to review
with the planner, John Uban, the concept of allowing a mixture of residen-
tial uses and commercial uses to be allowed within the same structure,
and also, a procedure for implementation of ouch an ordinance amendment.
One method would be to allow ouch a mixture as a conditional use within a
B-3 and/or B -a sone and stipulate various conditions addressing the
concerns above and any other conditions that the Planning Commission may
fool pertinent to the issue. Mr. Uban could then go back and draft up
a sample ordinance addressing these issues for the Planning Commission to
consider at a hearing at the next meeting. It should be noted that any
ordinance amendment does require a public hearing and it is necessary to
know exactly the provisions of the ordinance amendment proposed so that
it can be advertised in writing in the paper.
POSSIBLE ACTION, Consideration of having John Uban draft proposed ordinance
amendment to allow a mixturo of residential/commercial
use within the same structure within a B-3 and/or B-0 zone.
REFERENCES& Correspondence between Gary Wisbor and John Vban as indicated above.
7. Consideration of a Variance to Allow an Amartmont/Comm rcial Use within a
B -d Zone.
Mr. Fred Topol, owner of the Mini -Mall complex in downtown Monticello, is
requesting a variance to add on a 2,600 square foot apartment. This
property is currently zoned as 8-4.
It should be noted that this apartment would become the dwelling of
Mr. i Mrs. Fred Topel. Mr. Topel indicates that because of another bumi-
note venture, the antique business, they oftentimes aro travelling and
there would be security provided for their dwelling since it would be
above the Mini -Mall complex. There is concern for the valuable antiques
that aro stored within the dwelling itself, and because of the nature of
their business having to be on the road for periods of time, this would
be added protection to secure their dwelling.
- 7 -
Planning Caamnission - 5/15/79
It should be noted that the size of this dwelling is quits large, but it
wound only house one apartment unit.
Mr. Topel asked that his request be considered as a variance, rather than
wait for the Planning n-4sslon and the Oouncil to amend the ordinance to
allow such a use as a conditional or permitted use since he would like to
start construction as soon as possible.
The Planning Commission may want to review this variance request in light
of any decision it makes regarding the previous agenda item, although as
previously stated, it would not be possible for Mr. Topel now to request a
conditional use permit, since no ordinance amendment has been adopted. One
of the concerns in Mr. Topel's case would be the allowance of provision for
parking for the residential dwelling itself. I believe this could be
accomplished since there is room in the rear of this facility for off-street
parking, and one of the requirements of any approval could be that these be
properly designated for the residential use only. Additionally, Mr. Topel
has a set of plane and schematic designs which he will probably be bringing
to Tuesday night's meeting.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS Consideration of recommending approval of variance request
with any provisions attached.
REPERENCES, Previous agenda item regarding ordinance amendment as to allowing
a commercial/residential use within a 8-1 or B-4 zone.
-B-
Planning Commission - 5/15/79
S. Consideration of a Subdivision of Lots - Ralph &iffineyer.
Ralph &iffineyer is requesting that he be able to subdivide has lots
(West } Lot 3, and Lots 4 & 5, Block 38, at 412 Ramsey St.) to
make two 13,613 square foot lots.
If this proposal were granted, he would have two lots 3,613 square
feet -larger then the 10,000 required in a R-2 zone.
Also, no variances would be required since the setbacks on his
buildings would exceed the required by almost double.
Any action on this matter towards approval should be contingent
upon providing City Hall with a Certificate of Survey and Proof of
Recording.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval of this request.
REFERENCES: Enclosed plot plan, map depicting area.
APPLICANT: Ralph Siffineyer.
9. Consideration of Sideyard Setback Variance Request - James Puller.
Nr. James Fuller would like a variance of 3'9" to build a 2010"
addition on the east side of his home at 800 West Broadway (Lot 69
Block 42). This property is zoned Ei-2.
His home is 3613" away from the east property line and a corner lot
such as his requires a 2010" setback, thus the need for a variance
to build a 2010" addition.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval of this request.
REFERMCES: Ehclosed copy of a Certificate of Survey, and
location of property.
APPLICANTi James Puller.
- 9 .
F9