Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 10-14-1980AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 14, 1980 - 7:30 P.M. Members: Jim Ridgeway, John Bondhus, Bill Burke, Dick Mitie, Schaffer, Loren Klein (ex -officio) L " 46.rt 1-A. Approval of Minutes - September 17, 1980 Meeting which was continued until September 22, 1980 at 5:00 P.M. 651y Se+! 1WC, 1. Public Hearing - Consideration of RezoningLoi 1, Block 2, Rivervood Estates - Kermit Lindberg. 3$ w 65 w"! . 4A C 2. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use for Two 18 -Unit Apartment Buildings - Terry Mic�nd Ery Raduna. U) is "j JB •wc 3. Public Hearing - Consideration of Rezoning Request for Lots 9 6 10, Block 4, laver Monticello - Vic Hellman , 6sp� WSJ 4. Consideration of a Variance Request from Hardsurfaced Parking and Curbing Requirements - Dade Sieckert. 2ydKt %6" � 1%0&14*�N � v, L 5. Consideration of a Vareiance any''SSimple Subdivision Request - Chuck Stumpf. 1A7 Q� �• s O.y f,s. 6. Miscellaneous - Letter from John Bondhus. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, September 17, 1980 - 7:30 P.M. NOTE: Because of a lack of a quorum, this meeting was continued until Monday, September 22, 1980 at 5:00 P.M., at which time, . . . . MEMBERS PRESENT WERE: Jim Ridgeway, John Bondhus, Ed Schaffer, Loren Klein (ex -officio). MEMBERS ABSENT: Dick Martic. 1. Approval of Minutes. On a motion by John Bondhus, seconded by Ed Schaffer, all voted in favor of the approval of the Minutes of the August 12, 1980 Planning Commis- sion meeting. 2. Variance Request - Vera Diedrich. This item was withdrawn by Me. Diedrich prior to meeting. 3. Consideration of a Variance Request for Richard Lembke. ec Richard Lembke, who owns Lots 2, 3 b Part of 4, Block 7, Lover Monticello, requested a variance for a newly created lot of less than 80' in width, and also a variance of less than 10' for a sideyard setback. Mr. Lembkc proposed to divide Lot 3 into two parcels, and attach the easterly 35.34' of Lot 3 to Lot 2 to create one lot of 101.34' in width. Ne then proposed to take the remaining 30.66' of Lot 3 and attach that to the 44.34' of Lot 4, and create one new 75' lot. However, in providing that new lot, it was necessary that the newly created property line come within 7' of the existing home. That 7' setback would be from the new Line to a porch which is attached to the house. The Planning Commission felt that that porch was an unneconsary item to the house, and before approval could be given to grant a 7' oetback, the owner should consider removal of that porch to create a 10' setback. On a motion by John Bondhus, seconded by Ed Schaffer, all voted in favor of recommending denial of thio request. 4. Consideration of a Variance for St. Michael b All the Anrtols Episcopal Church. At a previous Planning Commiaoion meeting, a representative of St. Michael'o Church woo present to discuco a variance request to allow an off-premioe directional sign somewhere in the area of Palm 6 E. Broadway, and also in the area of 4th St. and highway 25. Planning Commission Min. - 9/17 b 22/80 The new sign would be approximately 18" x 24", and would give directions to the Church. At a previous Planning Commission meeting, it was recom- mended that prior to the Planning Commission making a recommendation to the Council on this request, that the applicant go to the respective pro- perty owners where they were proposing to put the signs, and get permis- sion and have that permission relayed to the City Hall. Since that time, Mr. Clifford Olson, who owns the lot on the SE corner of the intersection of 4th St. b Hwy. 25,had contacted the City Hall and stated he had no objections to the sign being located on his property provided that it does not block a driveway entrance. The sign would have to be located on private property rather than on public property. it was a motion by John Bondhus, seconded by Ed Schaffer and approved unanimously to recommend this sign be allowed only at the 4th St. 4 Hwy. 25 location, and that if a sign were going to be erected in the vicinity of East Broadway d Palm Ste. that this request would have to come back to the Planning Commission on its own merit. 5. Consideration of a Variance Request for Wayne Mayer. Wayne Mayer, who lives at 110 Marvin Elwood Road (Lot 6, Blk. 2, Anders - Wilhelm Estates, has made an applicatio nfor a variance to build a garage within 26' of the property line, rather than 90' as required by Monticello ordinance. Mr. Mayer's request was based on his desire to build a garage which is a little bit deeper than the depth of his home, and he felt that his need would be better suited if the garage would be projected forward from the ` house, rather than into the rear yard. On a motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded by John Bondhus, all voted to recommend approval of this request. 6. Consideration of a Variance Request for John Praught. John Praught, who lives at Lot 9, Block 2, Ritte Manor, made an applica- tion to allow more than one garage per dwelling, pursuant to Monticello Ordinance 10-1-2-0-5. According to Monticello ordinance, as described above, whenever a accond garage in built on a parcel of property, that garage needu a variance. Mr. Praught presently has a tvo-stall }garage attached on his home. Mr. Praught made this same application approximately one-year ago, with this name variance request, and also at that time asked that the occond garage be allowed to be built closer than 30' to the front property lino. However, at the time of this request, Hr. Praught is only requesting permission to build the second garage, and no setback variances would be required. Mr. Praught hoo stated that his new garage would be of wood framing and otuccued, similar to his home. — 1— Planning Commission Min. - 9/17 b 22/80 A concern of the members of the Planning Commission was that Mr. Fraught discontinue using the ditch for a driveway coming from Hwy. 75 onto hie property, and that instead, he use the driveway on the front of his lot which comes off of Craig Lane within Ritze Manor. Mr. Fraught agreed that he would discontinue the use of the driveway through the ditch, regardless of the result of this variance request. A motion was made by John Bondhus, seconded by Ed Schaffer, and all voted in favor of recommending this variance request for approval, provided that Mr. Fraught assuredly discontinues use of the ditch between his lot and Highway 75, as a driveway. 7. Consideration of a Variance Request for the Cummins Auction Company. The Cummins Auction Company,of Omaha, Nebraska, made an application for a variance to allow them to hold an auction in the American Legion Hall on Tuesday, November 11, 1980, in order that they might have an auction to sell new tools. This auction variance request came about because it would be held as a professional sales facility within an RB sone, and auction sales are not allowed within an RB zone unless it were the property owners themselves who were holding an auction on a one-time basis. Auction sales facilities are allowed as a conditional use within a B-3 zone within the City of Monticello. On a motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded by John Bondbus,all voted to recommend denial of this variance request based upon the RB type toning in which the Legion Hall is located, and also based on the fact that there is a consignment auction facility within the community at which an auction ouch as the purpose of Cummins request could be hold. 8. Consideration of a Variance Request - Owen Bateman. Gwen Bateman had applied for a variance to build a 24' x 34' rambler on Lot 23, Block 2, Ritso Manor. Thio hone would have 816 square feet, rather than the 1,000 sq. ft. minimum required by Monticello ordinance. The reason for this variance request is that Gwen Bateman currently owna Lot 23, Block 2, Ritse Manor, and has applied through the Farmers Home Administration for a loan to build a new home. The Farmers Home Adminis- tration regulations require that a family of one (1), ao in Gwen's case, is only allowed to build a one or two-bedroom rambler of 24' x 34' maximum, or a maximum of 816 square feet, and that it must be a rambler typo home rather than a split entry or some other similar style. Owen has asked the Farmers Homo Administration if she could build a 24' x 34' split entry ( which is considered a two-story home) that would meet the City requirements, but Farmers Home Administration has ssid that this would be considered a four-bedroom home which is not allowed in a single persons cooe. - 3 - Planning Commission Min. - 9/17 b 22/80 Based on testimony from the surrounding neighbors who felt that a small home within the area would devalue the property around it, a motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by John Bondhus brought unanimous approval to recommend denial of this variance request. 9. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat Approval for Riverwood Estates. Floyd Kruse and Kermit Lindberg have jointly proposed a subdivision of their two properties, which would be called Riverwood Estates. This property is located directly to the east of Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant, and is adjacent to Dino's Other World. The Riverwood Estates proposal was reviewed by the City Engineer, John Badalich, of O.S.M., and he recommended that his concern was that Mississippi Drive not be deadended on the vest end of the Riverwood Estates, but that Mississippi Drive loop to an outlet either to Hart Boulevard, or an emergency access possibly be provided through the Wastewater Treatment Plant property. Another item Mr. 13adalich pointed out of concern to him was that the City has a 60' roadway and utility easement extending through the Kruse and Lindberg properties, and that these easements not be vacated and buildings be placed upon them. Mr. Martin Weber was present repre- senting Mr. Kruse and Mr. Lindberg and their proposed subdivision, and presented a new subdivision plan that provided looping of Mississippi Drive to Hart Blvd. and also left -room that an emergency exit could be provided from the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant. Mr. Gary Gault was present and concerned that none of the cost of street or improvements through the Riverwood Estates be assessed to his pro- perty which is east of Lot 4 , Block 2 of the proposed Riverwood Estates. Upon motion by John Bondhue, seconded by Ed Schaffer, all voted in favor of recommending this Rivervo od Estates Plat for approval contingent upon recommendation be forthcoming from the City Engineer, and recommending that no indirect costo of this project be assessed against Mr. Gault's property. 10. Consideration of a Variance Request for Wrightco and the United Methodist Church. A request was received by the United Methodist Church, on behalf of Wrightro Products, to have a parking lot completed to the south of the Methodist Church without the necessity of requiring continuous concrete curbing around the perimeter of the yarking lot. This parking lot was to be used in conjunction with Wrightco Products, who would utilize the parkinIB lot during the week, and the United Methodist Church, who would utiliso tho parking lot on Sundays and for other services. Wrightco Products hoc indicated that it would be their obligation to pay for the completion of the parkins lot and the continued maintenance of that parking lot. - 4 - J Planning Commission Min. - 9/17 6 22/80 One of the reasons for the necessity of eliminating the continuous concrete r_ curb would be to allow drainage from the Church and the School adjacent to the Church to flow to the street without being obstructed. If there was a continuous curb barrier, it appears that the drainage would pond up between the Church and the School and the curb and not make it to the street because of the configuration of the construction. On motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded by John Bondhus, it was voted to recommend approval of this variance request. Jim Ridgeway abstained from voting. 11. Consideration of Rezoning and Conditional Use for a Proposed Medical Clinic East of the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital. The Monticello -Big Lake Hospital, on behalf of the developer of a proposed new clinic, made an application for rezoning of Lots 1 S 13, and the West 33' of Lot 2 of Block 22, Lower Monticello, and the east half of Oak Street lying between Blocks 22 6 23, from R-1 to R -B. In addition to the rezoning request, an application was also made for a conditional use for a medical clinic. This rezoning would then make the present R -B zoning adjacent to the Hospital large enough to accommodate this proposed medical clinic. This request at this time is only for a conditional use for the proposed medical clinic and the necessary rezoning, and does not include any request for an extension of River Street to serve the parking lot proposed to the North of the new medical clinic building. At this time, the developer of the medical clinic is looking at the feasibility of entering the parking lot proposed to the north of the medical clinic facility directly from Hart Blvd. If this is not feasible, the developer may, at some time in the future, approach the City for an extension of River Street; however, it is not part of the request that River Street be extended at the time of this consideration. Previously, the City received correspondence from the neigh- bors in the Ellison Park area expressing their concerns with the possible extension of River Street to accommodate a parking lot to the rear of the medical clinic. Dr. Kasper, a property owner in the area, expressed come concern with the rezoning portion of the request. Dr. Kasper is not opposed to the medical clinic, but did express opposition to the possibility of any retail establish- ment which could be built in conjunction with the medical clinic. For example, a pharmacy. A motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded by John Bondhus was unanimous in its approval to recommend the rezoning and conditional use requests provided that the parking lot at this time not be allowed to open onto any extended River Street until ouch time no a hearing might be held on that subject, and that the concerned neighbors in the Ellison Park area have an opportunity to spook their concerno. -S- Planning Commiesion Min. — 9/17 S 22/80 12. Simple Subdivision Request - Decorative Services.. 1 Hr. Bill Shackor of Decorative Services proposed a simple subdivision of the easterly one-half of Lot 1, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park. The northerly created lot would be approximately 88,650 sq. ft., and the southerly lot would be approximately 110,250 sq. ft. Both lots which were proposed would exceed the minimum lot size of 20,000 sq. ft., which is required in an I-1 sone, by several times. John Badalich, the City Engineer, recommended that the right-of—way from Oakwood Drive to the southerly created lot be 36' wide and that the road- way to the southerly lot be no less than 24' in width. He also suggested that a manhole be installed every 300' along the sewer line, keeping with good engineering practices. A motion by John Bondhus, seconded by Ed Schaffer brought unanimous approval to recommend this simple subdivision contingent upon the proper certificate of survey being presented for each new lot, and that the engineer's recommendations be considered as part of the request The meeting adjourned upon a motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded by John Bondhus and unanimous approval of those present. Lorhn Klein Zoning Administrator LDK/ns - 6 - Y September 29, 1980 City Administrator Wieber, This letter deals with reasons why we desire a permanent variance from the required hardsurfacing and curbing of property zoned "B-7." We are in the process of selling our home located 8 miles west of Monticello. Our plan is to purchase Cary Corrow's home, a parcel of land just under 1 acre in size located west of the Silver Fox Inn and south of Tom Thumb. Part of this land has been rezoned to B-] due to Corrow'o efforts to sell'the barn and existing driveway. The house and property to the north of it still remain toned residential. Zoning rules indicate hardsurfacing and curbing to be installed on commercial property. Our future use of the barn and existing driveway, however, do not fit this category. My family and I desire to become active with the youth of this community. We want to use Corrow's barn to establish an informal meeting place. People may come without feeling pressure to join or pay dues to us or any organization, society, etc. As Christians we desire to become involved in this way in order to casually show kids that we care for them. The remodeled barn would include facilities for a lounge, kitchen, and bathrooms, as well as apace for ping pong, badminton, basketball, and volleyball. Loren Klein has visited the building and indicated that it is possible to bring this structure up to safety codes. The specific reasons for requesting this variance are: 1. Corrow's present driveway is in good condition, composed of hard packed gravel with no grade. Duot is not a problem and the esthetic value of a country driveway and parking area in a town atmosphere is Important to us. 2. We cannot afford tarring and curbing. We are a one - salaried family of five, having boon employed for the past 11 years in Kantieello as an elementary teacher. 1. This variance would be Immediately void should the above objectives for the barn change. -2 - Enclosed is a preliminary sketch of the main floor plan for the barn. Also a drawing of the plot with parking possibilities is included. Please keep: i n mind that a key factor to thi s property 1s its central location. Many students will walk from tum without needing vehicles. We sincerely appreci ate your considerations and/or suggestions. Yo rs Truly. c. le 21 Dave Sieckcr. t and family 5Z`ALE I`ClkM- VE FEET.. W, is10\ 32' 1 L.1 �y SC^LZ v ONC Voor I 14 363' C September 17, 1980 CHUCK STUMPF PROPOSAL Create one Lot 80 feet by 363 feet consisting of the Southerly 80 feet of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, of Block 1, Barbur's Addition to the Town of Monticello, Subject to Survey thereof. 247.5' 5 n M 0 0 4 0 a e a I W IN �f/ A 3 / N � / {�fo�ose� heu.J bQd� . . �w. L ( 2 1 ------ 801------I ---------------------- 167 . s'-----------------------•--- EIM STREET A ..yl,� ,7a -c -••S tt 'I NIP - Chuck Stumpf to build garage = _ in excess of 1,000 sq. ft. • a�rwr a, y.a,cr •j. - �� ! �e � � rG , y • 1.�} / / �/ill �,! `, 'v/ , ' '.•J-t'�, WAy I I M - ... it l,r� • ;%�• �//y�•, a¢„r S''t I I f sift r�` •r - 4� NO 71 lei `1111 4 4 � J•' y^! ..r � +I S I i • , , t � �V � • / 1 • 1 qBONDHUS == CORPORATION Box 667 1400 E. Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 USA Phone 612/2952162 Sates Phane 612/29555M TWX 910f578-1094 October 3, 1980 To Monticello Planning Committee Members. I would like to propose that the last item on our agenda this month be a discussion of the purpose and duties of the Planning commission. I personally feel some of our duties such as reviewing variances are redundant both for us and for the person applying for the change. I also feel that the time saved could be used in more useful areae such as reviewing and modifying the comprehensive plan -or suggesting ordinunee changes to the Council. Tb: Russel Martie Bill Burke Ed Seha(for Jim Ridgeway Loren Klein Your�ly, JOX Bondhus Mm stacbsers of "Une Sax Tools MEMORANDUM TO: File P-40-2 FROM: Cary Wieber DATE: October 23, 1980 SUBJECT: Streamlining of Activities of Planning Commission As a result of the inquiry by John Bondhus at the Planning Comission's October 14, 1980 meeting, I researched various areas of the statutes, League of Cities handbook, and other applicable regulations, etc ., relative to streamlining the activities of the Planning Commission, mnd significant items are as follows: According to League Handbook, the establishment of a Planning Commis- sion is specifically authorized in State Statutes. The indication is that the cities can, but do not have to, establish a Planning Commis- sion; however, once established, they only may be dissolved by an Ordinance which passes by 2/3's vote of the Council, or in other words, a 4/5's vote in the case of the City of Monticello. A reference to this is given as Minnesota Statute 462.354 Subdiv. 1. According to League Handbook, municipal officials may serve as members of the Planning Commission. In order words, members of the City Council could serve on the Planning Commission as wel 1. The League (landbook indicates that, although not required by Statute, the use of Planning Commissions is generally recommended. The (landbook goes on to say that Planning Commissions are usually composed largely of persons whose sole public reoponsibility is to focus public atten- tion on the planning problem and work towards the preparat ion and imple- mentation of a comprehensive plan. It suggests that Counc it Members should not compose the entire body of the Planning Commisa ion. One of the duties, according to the League Handbook, is not only to prepare the comprehensive plan, but also to periodically review and recommend amendments to the plan as neceosary. The (landbook also indicates on Page 175 that zoning ordinance amendments, �•�' subdivision plata, and official maps must be.. reviewed prior to cnactmentr4 Public Hearings in such canes may be before the Planning C cmmiosion, but the Council must ultimately make the final decision on these legislative matters. According to the Handbook, under most municipal ordinance procedures, all Council determinations have Planning Commi anion implica- tions are first referred to the Planning Commiouion for study and recom- mendation. Memo to File P-40-2 October 23, 1980 Page $2 According to the League Handbook on page 175, and also referenced is Minnesota Statute 462.354 Subdiv. 2, every municipality having a zoning ordinance or official map must establish a board of adjustments and appeals. It goes on to say that the Planning Commission or a committee of the commission may, but need not, be assigned this duty. Since the Board of Adjustment may review decisions and recommendations of the Planning Commission, it is usually better to have a board of adjustments different from the Planning Commission itself. According to the League Handbook on page 176, relative to zoning, the City again must establish a board of adjustment and appeals. This may be a separate board, the Planning Commission, a committee of the Plan- ning Commission, or the Council itself. The board of adjustments and appeals hears requests for variances and appeals from erroneous or arbitrary decisions of administrative officers enforcing the ordinance or map. The ordinance establishing the board may, where the Council does not serve as the board, provide that the board's decisions are final, or subject to appeal to the Council, or are advisory to the Council. A board of adjustments and appeals may not be used to grant special or conditional use permits, or review requests for zoning ordinance or official map amendments. These are functions of the Council and the Planning Commission. In reading the above item, it would appear that the City of Monticello could utilize either the Planning Commission as the sole authority for variances, or this could be done by the Council itself. One other method would be to have the sole authority be the Planning Commission, but still provide a method for appealing the decision of the Planning Commission. It specifically indicates that the board of adjustments and appeals, however, may not be used by grant special or conditional use permits or review requests for zoning ordinance or official map amendments. These are ultimntely the function of the City Council, although recommendations on these items may be forthcoming from the Planning Commission. Zoning Ordinance amendments or changes requesting a rezoning still have to go to the Planning Commission, not the board of appeals, according to Statute 462.357 Subdiv. 4. It goeo on to any that the governing body cannot act on the amendment until the recommendation of the Plan- ning Commission is received, or until 60 days have clapped from the dote of reference of the amendment to the Planning Commission. CW/ns FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH 1330 WEST BROADWAY MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA 55362 (612) 295-3552 PASTOR GERALD OAS November 5, 1980 TO: City of Monticello, Planing Commission and City Council FROM: First Baptist church of Monticello Ir, late summer of 1916 when the First Baptist Church of Monticello was granted a building permit to construct our temporary facility in the form of a "house -church", the City Council allowed us to use the residential b-uilding code with a few modifications, even though the useage was of a commercial nature. We agreed with the Council that with in Sour years of occupancy we would convert the building to a residen -tial use and construct a perranent church - type commercial code building. We have made every of fort to keep thnt ngreement in good faith with the city. Howey er, the attempt to purchanc- the Assembly of God facility in 1979 was thwarted by governmentrtl mnneuvering. We then resumed our effo its to design and build on our present site, subdividing, surveyin_ g, and obtaining the necessary conditional use permit. we were again prevented from keeping our promise to vacate our present fa-cilitien because the, nvailable mortgage money Pvnpornted AS the mom-ey market "dried up." Our plan is to construct a church -type building on our site as soon as money becomes nvailable. In the meantime, we respectfully request An extension of our agreement with the city for up to two more yearn use of our- present facility As we continue to grow toward the erection cif a new building. To eliminate over cr©wding and possible dnneer we have added an ad- ditional worship nerr-ice to accomdate our growt3i. We do need additional- clasaroomn and at present nre making request of the city through 1 -he I'laning Comminnion and Council for a wniver to allow a mobilo home to be situated on our at to for up to two yenro to be vacated cwt tho name time an our te.mlinrnry fneil ity. Both of the above rerjuents nre urgent and critt rnl to our continued growth. I am awnre 'what the Planinf, Comminninn in not neheduled to meet until November 11, but would ask it ponnible ,you connider theso mattera in npecial neooion so that the council could denl with the issue at their November 10 meeting. First Baptist.i hurch ~ : _ • a N, .. 1. •� ,'' � `tel .��� `�� , , r�4 k4a, ?�.j Planning Comission - 10/14/80 AGENDA SUPPLEMENT 1. Public Rearing - Consideration of Rezoning - Kermit Lindberg. Mr. Kermit Lindberg, who owns Lot 1, Block 2, Riverwood Estates, is requesting rezoning of that lot from R-1 to B-3. Mr. Lindberg feels Chat this lot, Lot 1, which lies between D ino's Other World and the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant, is more suited to B-3 zoning than it is to R-1 zoning. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of the request to rezone Lot 1, Block 2, Rivervood Estates from R-1 to B-3. REFERENCES: Map depicting the area, and plat plan of Riverwo od Estates shoving location of proposed rezoning. APPLICANT: Kermit Lindberg. Zf'. Planning Commission - 10/14/80 v 2. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use - Terry Mick and Ery Radunz. Terry Mick and Ery Radunz, as partners in this project, are applying for a conditional use permit to develop two 18 -unit apartment buildings on Lot 5, Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrace. Of those items to be addressed on this project would be that the required ✓ lot area for this development should be 95,000 square feet, however, only V 81,600 square feet of land is available, thereby the land requirement is e� 14% short of what it should be. However, in the future, these two gentlemen are considering the possibility of developing a total of 100 apartment units. If that were the case, upon completion of that entire development, there \v\ would be adequate land available for the square footage requirements if the entire project were taken as a whole, rather than considering each individual lot and its individual lot square footage requirements. Another item which should be considered is the square footage of the apartment J, unite. Although the square footage of the one -bedroom and two-bedroom apartments exceed the square footage required per each, one efficiency unit is proposed within one of the buildings which will be approximately 28% short of what the ordinance requires. Ordinance requirement for an efficiency apartment is 500 square feet. However, in reviewing these plane with the proposed developers, the building inspector has determined that it would be difficult to increase that efficiency unit to anything much larger than it is already being proposed, and not using that space for an efficiency unit would constitute a waste of expensive floor apace. Another item for consideration is that Monticello Ordinances required that 101 whenever an R-3 zone, such as this zone in, abuts an R-2 zone, that the rear parking lot setback should be 15'. However, in this case, the proposed ^�% parking lot is only 5' from the rear property line. One item for consideration I` in this request for n 5' rear property line is that the R-3 zone, although it abuts an R-2 zone, ties an 80' wide buffer between the R-3 and R-2 zones, that buffer being the railroad property. Although the plan for the drainage has been submitted to OSM for their review, at the time this agenda supplement was written, no comments have been returned. However, should you decide to take further action on this project, any approval could be contingent upon a recommendation from OSM, prior to going to the Council for consideration. The following is general information you may wish to know: A. There are two basic buildings. B. Each building contains 18 dwelling units and contains 15,600 sq.ft. each. C. There will be 24 two-bedroom apartment unite of 720 aq.ft. each, and 12 one -bedroom apartment unite of 600 aq.ft, each, and one efficiency unit of 360 oq. ft. ,y 4� - 2 Planning Commission - 10/14/80 D. There will be two parking spaces per unit available, and of the two parking spaces available for each unit, eighteen of these spaces will be within garages, as required by ordinance. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this conditional use request . REFERENCES: Enclosed plat map depicting the area. (A site plan is available at the City Hall and will also be available at the October 14, 1980 meeting . APPLICANT: Terry Mick and Ery Radunz - 3 - Planning Commission - 10/14/80 3. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Rezoning Request - Vic Hellman. Vic Hellman, who is proposing to buy Lots 9 6 10, Block 4, Lower Monticello, is proposing to rezone that property from R-1 to R-2. This request is being made so that now the unoccupied single family home could be converted to a duplex. This home is located directly across the street to the east from the Monticello Laundromat on East Broadway. The current zoning across the street to the west where the Laundromat is on Block 5 and extending from there into the downtown area is zoned B-4, and Mr. Hellman contends that changing the R-1 zoning to R-2 zoning would provide an adequate buffer area between the B-4 and R-1 zonings, and would be conducive to a duplex. Presently and for the past several months, the existing dwelling has been vacant and been maintained in somewhat less than desirable conditions. Possibly granting a rezoning of this type could lead to an upgrading of the property to a somewhat better standard than has been maintained in the past. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this rezoning request. REFERENCES: Map depicting the area which also shows the zoning around the proposed location. APPLICANT: Vic Hellman 114 - 4 - Planning Commission - 10/14/80 4. Consideration of a Variance Request - Dave Siekert. Mr. Dave Siekert, the applicant, is selling his home west of Monticello and plane to purchase Cary Corrow's home, which is directly to the west of the Silver Fos Inn. Mr. Siekert is planning to use the barn on that property to establish an informal meeting place. He feels that he would like to have a place where people may go without feeling pressure to join or pay dues to any organi- zation, society, etc. Mr. Siekert feels that he has a desire to become involved in this way in order that he may be able to casually show youth that he has a concern for them. His intention would be to remodel the barn to include facilities for a lounge, kitchen and bathrooms, as well as space for a pingpong table, badminton, basketball or volleyball, whatever apace would allow. However, in order that Mr. Siekert might develop this plan of his, it is necessary that he would have to have a variance from the required hardsurfacing and curbing of the parking lot. For a community center or private club such as he is proposing, the required number of parking spaces would be ten (10). Mr. Siekert feels that he has room for more parking spaces than that; however, for the reasons which he has outlined in his letter requesting this variance, he would like to have the harsurfacing and curbing requirement for this property become a permanent variance. Although Mr. Siekert did say,and has stated in his letter,thst this variance would become immediately void should the objectives for the barn and its use ever be changed. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this variance request. REFERENCES: Enclosed letter from Mr. Siekert, a plat plan of the property, and a building plan for the first floor of the barn in which he proposes to develop the lounge area. APPLICANT: Dave Siekert. �0y 0 o I� Av _ 5 _ a� Planning Commission - 10/14/80 v 5. Consideration of a Variance and Simple Subdivision - Chuck Stumpf. Chuck Stumpf, who owns Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 b 5 of The Barbur Addition, is pro- posing a simple subdivision of those lots. Basically, what Mr. Stumpf would like to do is take the southerly 80' of each of those five lots and create one new lot of 363' x 80'. That would leave Lots I thru 5 then being 167.5' in depth, and 72k,' in width. The existing City maps do not show the Barbur Addition as such, but indicate that at one time it did exist within the Township. Before any final approval could be given to a simple subdivision of this property, it would have to be contingent upon providing specific and accurate surveys which would be recognized by the County Recorder's office. (Refer to the enclosed area map to find the location of the Barbur Addition). Also part of this request is a variance to build a 40' x 75' garage in approximately the center of this property (see the enclosed plat map). The reason a variance would be required is that any time a garage of over 1,000 square feet is built in an R-1 zone, it requires a variance, and this garage would be approximately 3,000 sq. ft. Mr. Stumpf is proposing this garage as a facility to get his semi trucks and a few personal vehicles enclosed, rather than allow them to act outside in the weather. Currently, Mr. Stumpf does park hiq semis in the some loca- tion in which he is proposing to build this garage, he just feels that if he were able to enclose his vehicles within a building, it would be better on the vehicles by exposing them less to the weather, especially during the winter months. When notice of this hearing was sent out,two individuals who received notices contacted the City Mall to gain information about this proposed building, and they stated that although they might come to the hearing, that if this building were going to be used to store personal vehicles, such as Mr. Stumpf is proposing, rather than to expand the junkyard business, that they would be in favor of granting this variance. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of the simple subdivision and variance requests. REFERENCE'S: Enclosed area map and plat map. APPLICANT: Chuck Stumpf `v e �1 Y - 6 - Planning Commission - 10/14/80 6. Miscellaneous As per a letter from John Bondhus to the Planning Commission Members dated October 3, 1980, John Bondhus would like to discuss reviewing variances that are redundant for both Planning and Council members and for the person applying for the change. This item is for your consideration only, and a copy of the letter from John Bondhus is enclosed. liz - 7 -