Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11-11-1980AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, November 11, 1980 - 7:30 P. M.
Members: Jim Ridgeway, John Bondhus, Bill Burke, Dick Martic,
Ed schaffer, Loren Klein (ex -officio).
1. Approval of Minutes - October 14 , 1980 meeting.
2. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use-
Rivercrest Christian School. U(,
3. Consideration of a Variance Request and Extending a
Conditional Use - First Baptist Church of Monticello.
4. Consideration of Rezoning Lots of Riverwoud Estatea -
Floyd Kruse and Kermit Lindberg.
5. Consideration of Ordinance Amend—CALa to Simplify Permit
Process.
d
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING — MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, October 14, 1980 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, John Bondhus, Bill Burke, Ed Schaffer.
Members Absent: Dick Martie, Loren Klein.
1-A. Approval of Minutes - September 17, 1980 Meeting which was Continued to
September 22, 1980.
Motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by John Bondhus and unanimously
carried to approve the above minutes, as presented.
1 . Public Hearing - Consideration of RezoninR - Kermit Lindberg.
Mr. Kermit Lindberg, who owns Lot 1, Block 2, Rivervood Estates, is
requesting rezoning of that lot from R-1 to B-3.
Mr. Lindberg feels that this lot, Lot 1, which lies beeween Dino's
Other World and the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant, is more
suited to B-3 toning than it is to R-1 zoning.
Since the zoning was consistent with the parcels to the cast and vest
lof this property and the only other adjoining property would be the
Lindberg residence itself to the north, a motion was made by John Bondhus,
seconded by Ed Schaffer and unanimously carried to recommend approval of
the rezoning.
2. Public hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use - Terry Mick and
Ery Radunz.
Terry Mick and Ery Radunz, as partnere in this project , are applying for a
conditional use permit to develop two 18 -unit apartment buildings on
Lot 4, Block 1, Louring Hillside Terrace.
Of those items to be addressed on this project would be that the required
lot area for this development should be 94,000 square feet; however, only
81,600 square fact of land is available, thereby the land requirement is
142 short of what it should be. however, in the future, these two gentle-
men are conoidering the pooeibility of developing a total of 100 apartment
units. If that were the case, upon completion of that entire development,
there would be adequate land available for the square footage requirements
if the entire project were taken an a whole, rather than considering each
individual lot and Its individual lot square footage requirements.
Another item which should be considered is the aquare footage of the apart-
ment units. Although the square footage of the ona-be-droom 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 282
short of what the ordinance requirea. Ordinance requirement for an efficiency
{Z�
Planning Commission - 10/14/80
apartment is 500 square feet. However, in reviewing these plans with the
proposed developers, the Building Inspector has determined that it would be
V- 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 space.
Another item for consideration is that Monticello Ordinances required that
whenever an R-3 zone such as this zone is 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
in this request for a 5' rear property line is that the R-3 zone, although it
abuts an R-2 zone, has 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 of the meeting no comments have been returned. However, any
recommendation for approval of this project would be contingent upon a
recommendation from OSM, prior to the Council's consideration.
The following is general information:
A. There are two basic buildings.
B. Each building contains 18 dwelling units and contains 15,600 aq.ft. each.
C. There will be 24 two-bedroom unite of 720 sq.ft. each, and 12 one -bedroom
apartment units of 600 sq.ft. each, and one efficiency unit of 360 sq.ft.
D. There will be two parking spaces per unit available, and of the two
b parking spaces available for each unit, eighteen of these spaces will
be within garages, as required by ordinance.
At the public hearing portion of the agenda item, no comments were heard in
opposition to the proposed project. Additionally, the present owner of the
property, Roy Louring, indicated that he felt that since the project at this
point is proposed to be non -subsidised and that there is a need for this
type of housing in Monticello, he would strongly recommend approval by the
Planning Commission.
A motion was made by Bill Burke, seconded by John Bondhus and unanimously
carried to approve the conditional use for the apartment complex, along with
the three variances indicated above. Reason for the approval of the variances
was in the case of the rear parking lot setback, this abutted up against the
Burlington Northern Railroad tracks, and in effect, there was an additional
80' buffer between the property which is zoned R-3 and the property to the
north of the railroad tracks which is zoned R-2. The variance for the square
footage requirement of the efficiency apartment was approved in light of the
fact that all the remaining units more than exceeded the minimum requirements.
Additionally, the variance on the square footage requirement for the total
land area was approved in light of the fact that additional land costa might
discourage conventional financing, and this is one of the fcw conventially
financed apartment projects to be proposed in Monticello in quite a white.
-2-
Planning Commission - 10/14,80
\-1 3. Public hearing - Consideration of a Rezoning Request - Vic Ilellmon.
Vic Hellman. who is proposing to buy Lots 9 b 10, Block 4, Lover 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 S 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 vould
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 pest.
Vic Hellman indicated that he vould be making improvements to the interior
of the building which would include bringing the building up to code, and
additionally, the exterior would be scraped and painted.
Bneed on the fact that there was no opposition to the proposal and the
fact that if the rezoning would be approved, improvements would be made
to this property, a motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Bill Burke
and unanimously carried to recommend approval of the rezoning request.
4. Consideration of a Variance Request - Dave Sieckert.
Mr. Dave Sicckert, the applicant, is selling his home west of Monticello and
plans to purchase Cary Corrow'e home, which is directly to the west of the
Silver Fox Ins.
Mr. Sieckert is planning to use the barn on that property to establish an
informal meeting place. lie fools that he would like to have a place where
people may go without feeling pressure to join or pay duce to any organi-
zation, society. etc. Mr. Sieckert 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.
Ilia intention would be to remodel the barn to include facilities for a
lounge, kitchen and bathrooms, as wall so apace for a ping pong table,
badminton, basketball or volleyball, whatever apace would allow. Reliever.
in order that Mr. Siockart might develop this plan of his, it is necessary
that he would have to have a variance from the required hardourfacing and
- 3 -
Z
Planning Commission - 10/14/80
curbing of the parking lot. For a community center or private club
auch as he is proposing, the required number of parking spaces would be
ten (10). Mr. Sieckert 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 hardourfacing and curb-
ing requirement for this property become a permanent variance. Although
Mr. Sieckert did say, and has stated in his letter, that this variance
would become immediately void should the objectives for the barn and its
use ever be changed.
There was some concern expressed by the Planning Commission members of
the possible future change in scope of Mr. Sieckert's plans. Specifically,
there was concern relative to the serving of food and if any fee would be
charged for this. Mr. Sieckert indicated that he may have vending machines
such as pop machine, but his intentions would not be to make a profit and
sell food. There was some concern expressed that the number of vending
machines should be limited and additionally, the conditions expressed
in the September 29, 1980 letter from Dave Sieckert would have to be
adhered to. Since the real question before the Planning Commission was
only one of hardsurfaced requirements, however, motion was made by Ed Schaffer,
seconded by Bill Burke and unanimously carried to approve of the variance
request contingent upon the scope of the proposed community room being
consistent with the September 29, 1980 letter by Mr. Dave Sieckert. A
two-year provision was attached to this since this would give the City
some further control if the scope of the project changed in addition
to the regular enforcement procedures of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Sieckort
felt that he could live with the variance as recommended.
S. Consideration of a Variance and Simple Subdivision - Chuck Stumpf.
Chuck Stumpf, who owns Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 6 5, of the Barbur Addition, is
proposing a simple subdivision of those lots. Basically, what Mr. Stumpf
would like to do is take the southerly 80' of each of those five Iota
and create one new lot of 353' x 80'. This would leave Lots 1 thru S
then being 167.5' in depth, and 72§' in width.
The existing City maps do not show the Barbur Addition as ouch, 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 recognised by the County Recorder's office.
Also part of this request is a variance to build a 40' x 75' garage in
approximately the center of this property. 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 square feet.
- 4 -
Planning Cu®nission - 10/14A0
_ 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 set outside
in the weather. Currently, Mr. Stumpf does park his semis in the same
location in which he is proposing to build this garage, and 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 Hall 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.
A neighboring property owner, Prank Auringer, had a question on the type
of building that was proposed. Mr. Chuck Stumpf indicated that the
building would be a colored steel building. Mr. Stumpf also indicated
that it would be for cold storage and for such items as a tractor, semi—
trailer, movers, etc. Based on this information, Mr. Auringer had no
objections to the proposal.
A motion was made by Bill Burke, seconded by John Bondhus and unanimously
carried to approve of the variance request and the simple subdivision
based upon specific and accurate surveys which would be recognized by
the County Recorder's office.
�b
6. Discussion on Scope and Purpose of Planning Commission.
John Bondhus, who had previously written a letter that was sent out to
Planning Commission Members on October 3, 1980, indicated a concern
with the purpose and duties of Cho Planning Commission. Specifically,
he felt that in come areas there might be come redundancy for reviewing
variances, etc. lie felt an effort should be made to streamline some of
these duties, and wondered if come of these matters could not be taken
directly to the City Council.
Administrator Wicber explained that because of legal requirements contained
in the Minnesota State Statutes, it woo necessary for a City to have a
Board of Appeals that was separate from the governing body itself, or the
City Council. However, Cary Wicber indicated that he would look into the
possibility of having less members serve on a board of appooln specifically
for variance requests in order that this might be able to streamline soma
of the work done by the Plonning Commission.
Additionally, other areae were discussed on how the Planning Commission
could better serve. Various members felt that the Planning Commission was
already serving its assigned function, but felt that Mr. Bondhua'o comamento
were worth considering and in the future, at the end of each agenda, a
particular area would be discussed to eco how it could be streamlined. For
example, one possibility was discussed to take each section of the Ordinance
- 5 -
Planning Commission - 10/14,80
and review it in detail to see if any changes should be made.
A motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Bill Burke and unanimously
Carried to adjourn.
/;CiItYYIimi,ni
er,strator
CM/ns
Io
M
- 6 -
r-,
�t-
0
Planning Cunmtission - II/I 1/80
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
1.
Approval of Minutes - October 21,1980 Planning Conanission
meeting. iE DM v-
2.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use -
Rivercrest Christian School.
At the time of advertising for Lite conditional use for Ery
Radunz and Terry Hicks conditional use to build two 18 unit
apartment buildings in Lauring's Hillside Terrace, it was
brought to our attention that Lite Rivcrcrest Christian School
had moved students into the house adjacent to the Assembly
of Cod church to the vest.
This information Wns brought: to our attention by ane of the
l� �
people receiving a conditional use hearing notice.
\\
q ab
Basically, what has happened, is that the administration of the
�•�
Rivercrest Christian School, knowing they needed more room to
expand their educational class rooms, chore to expand into the
hence to the vest of Lite Assembly of Cud church which they already
ppGl
owned. They did not, apparently know that Lite school's expansion
would require a conditional use, as provided by Monticello
��O`
`�
ordinance, in order that they might expand.
?4
Since Lite existing house in which [he classes arc going to be
p'
held vas in place prior to the zoning, it may be difficult to
meet aomt• of the conditions of a conditional use fur an cdu�at i.ni.il
institution in an R-2 zone. They include doubling the side yard
required for Lite district, but no greater than ]U feel. Adequate
off-street parking is available on Lite property between house
and Lite church; however, it is not hard ourface nor dura it have
a continuous concrete curb around its perimeter.
Our zoning administrator met With Mr. Cuhart Dcckui-, it repn•centativt-
of the Rivercrest Christian School, and toured the dwelling; in
which the classes are bring held. There would be some building
code requirements to up -grade purlionb of the dwelling, Miuuld
petninsion be granted to continue Lite educational uac Within that
residential facility. Mr. Decker stated that presently they .rte
in the planning stage for an addition to Lite Assembly of God church/
Itivercrebt Chrinlian School, but that it would be a lew munthb more
before linal plans would be ready to be submitted at a cnnditinnal
use hearing.
At Tueoday night's meeting there ohould be rt•pieaeutnlives from
LiteRivercrest Christian School to answer any queotiuno Which you
may have,
APPLICANT: Rivercrest Chtistian Schoul
CONSIDERATION: Consider reeunauending approval or denial of this
conditional lice n•qurr.t.
RLPERENCF.S: Enclosed map depicting the area lit Lite Riv•rrrvot
Chriatian School.
Planning Commission - 11/11/80
3. Consideration of a Variance Request and Lxtending a Conditional
Use - First Baptist Church of Monticello.
At Lite August 23, 1976 regular meeting of Lite Monticellu
City Council, a building permit was granted to build a residence
and use that residence as the First Baptist Church.
Three years later, during 1979, an effort was made to purchase
another church facility within the conununily; however, that
plan fell through, and later in the fall of 1979, the re-
presentatives of the First Baptist Church of Monticello began
plans and preparations for building a church facility on the
site of the existing First Baptist Church. However, since that
time available mortgage money has evaporated, and it is near -to
if not impossible for them obtain a mortgage with which thoy can
build their new church.
In regard to the previous statements the First Baptist Church
of Monticello is now making a request fur a two year extension
to continue to use the residential dwelling as a church facility
until such time as mortgage money is available to build their
new facility. ('F1._P:.__ H-,, .. �1�+ tt_I�:r. - --- to
the
used Cto is• a b�_permit,-thus indicating tto tnLent to
go aheau uuw —;1441 -
Also, the First Baptibt Church of Monticello is requesting that
the Planning Commission recommend that they be allowed to use a
mobil home situated on their present site as a temporary educational
facility for up to two years. This request being made because of
the lack of apace within the presr.nt t-,:::idrnlial/church taCility.
This variance rc quest to have n mubil horn,: a clan -room facility
temporarily on the site will go to a public hearing at Lite City
Council level at the next council meeting.
APPLICANT: First Baptist Church of Monticello
CONSIDERATION: 1. Consider recommending approval at- denial of this
requeut fur o two yens eAlan8iun to continue LU
out, the prruent residential building au a church.
2. Conuider rvcontmending approval ur denial of this
request to one a mobil home nu a temporary cla:>a-
ruom facility for two yeas., of until such time at;
the new church facility, which in being propooed
to be built within that two yearn, ib availnblt• fur
occupancy.
REFERENCES: Enclosed map depicting the area of the Firnt Baplibt
Church and a letter from Itrstor J,try Oau, of the
First llaptint Church at Monticello.
NOT Ii: City of Munticollo only allowu mobil humt•r, in .t H-4 (Mobile
Home {'ark) diutrict. TO allow .t mobil hasty would by ineunutktent
with the fact that the City denied a potato bruk,•ragc firm
Lite name requ,tat. Additionally, there would be concern
whether a mobil home would meet the lire code and buildin)-,
code for a uoo of this type.
Planning Commission - 11/11/80
4. Consideration of Rezoning Lots of Riverwood Estates - Floyd Kruse.
and Kermit Lindberg.
At a recent Planning Commission meeting it was recommended to
i approve the Riverwood Estates for Mr. Floyd Kruse and Mr. Kermit
k.4 Lindberg. However, at that time there was a possible discrepancy
in the zoning line for portions of several of those lots, and
also the Lindberg's on their portion of the property proposed
rezoning Lot 1, Block 2 from R-1 to B-3.
At a subsequent meeting, the Planning Commission recommended
granting the rezoning of Lot 1 of Block 2 from R-1 to B-3.
However, now it is necessary to define the area of B-3 to the
south po ►on of the Kruse portion of that property. That being
that Lots 5,6,7 be zoned as R-1 and that Lots 4,3 ,1 and 2, of
Block 1 be zoned B-3.
APPLICANT: Floyd Kruse
CONSIDERATION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this
clarification of this rezoning.
REFERENCES: Enclosed map depicting the area of the Riverwood
Estates and a copy of the plat of Riverwood Estates.
5. Consideration of Ordinance Amendments to Simplify Permit Process.
As a result of the inquiry by John Bondhus at our last Planning
Commission meeting, I have researched the possibility of simplifying
the process for variances.
It does appear one possible method to do this would be to amend
our current ordinance which would establish the Planning Commission
as the sole authority for variances. This, then would be in effect,
a Board of Adjustments and Appeals. This board could be set up any
number of ways. One way is that the decision of the. Board of
Adjustments and Appeals is final, or one other method is that the
decision of the board could be appealed to the City Council. It
would seem that the later method might be more preferable in that
the Planning Commission could still be not up an the Board of Ad-
justments and Appeals and its decision would be final•unlena the
particular decision was appealed by either the. applicant or the
other individual. This would still simplify the proceao due to the
fact that many of the variances that go both to the Planning Commission
and the City Council are not controversial and would probably not
be appealed anyway, Again, thin wo.ild still allow the individual
who felt that the Planning Coasnission was unfoir on his requeut or
a resident who might feel that the decision mad., by the Planning
Commission wan unfair a further of>portunity to go to the Council
if they felt it necessary.
It should be pointed out that thin samu type of process cannot he
applied to a zoning request, n toning ordinance amendment or other
adjustments in the zoning ordinance.
-3-
Planning Commission 11/11/80
In the State statutes it specifically states that the
Planning Commission must review zoning ordinance changes or
request for rezoning. However, the Council must review the
recommendation of the Planning Conmission before the decision
is made. Therefore, it is required that both the Planning
Commission and City Council review these natters.
In addition to possibly looking at the way that the city now
handles variances the Planning Commission made also want to
consider amending the ordinance so that a variance is not
necessary. For an example, right now we currently have a lot
of requests for a variance from landscaping provisions, curb
barrier for a parking lot, hard -surfacing of a parking lot,
etc. The Planning Coamission may want to spend a portion of
Tuesday night's meeting looking at some of the more frequent
variance requests and consider recommendations to amend the
ordinance so that the number of variances may decrease.
POSSIBLE ACTION: No specific action is expected other than
discussion of the above issues and determination
made on which areas the Planning Commission
could consider at their next meeting for
definite ordinance amendments.
-4-