Planning Commission Agenda Packet 08-12-1986AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLD PLANNING CONJITSS10N
Tuesday. August 17. 1986 - 7:30 p.m.
Members: Richard Carlson, Richard Martie, Joyce Dowling, Marren
Smith. and Barbara Koropchak.
7:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order.
7:32 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Bold July 8,
1986.
7:36 p.m. 3. Public Nearing - A Request for Preliminary Plat Approval
of a Subdivision to be known as Victoria Square Addition.
A Rezoning Request to Rezone said Victoria Square
Addition to a Planned Unit Development. A Conditional
Use Request to Allow in Excess of 12 Multiple Family
Rousing Units in said Block 1, Lots 1-55, Portion
of a Proposed Victoria Square Planned Unit Development.
Applicant, Mike Reber.
Additional Information Items
7:59 p.m. 1. Variance Request, Lovell Hendrickson, stand, approved
with no appeal.
8:06 p.m. 2. Simple Subdivision Request, Mel Wolters. approved
by City Council.
8:10 p.m. 3. Variance Request, Wayne Brinkman, stands approved,
no appeal.
8:19 p.m. 6. Bat the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for Tuesday, September 9, 1986.
7:30 p.m.
8:24 p.m. 5. Adjournment.
MIKUTE3
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
July 8, 1986 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Richard Martie, Warren Smith,
Joyce Dowling, Barbara Koropchak.
Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Gary Anderson
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Carlson at
7:31 p.m.
2. Motion by Marren Smith, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve the
June 10, 1906, Planning Commission meeting minutes. Motion carried
unanimously with Barbara Koropchak absent.
3. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow a front entry to be
constructed within the front yard setback requirement. Applicant,
Lowell Hendrickson.
John Londert, brother-in-law to the applicant, and Russell Hendrickson,
son of the applicant, were present to propose Mr. Hendrickson -e request
to construct a 6-x 8- entry to the front of his existing house.
k The reason for the front entry request is to make the house a little
more energy efficient by coming into an entry and than into the existing
front door of the house. The property is going to receive new soffit
and fascia and be resided with permanent typo siding. If the variance
request to allowed, they would also put siding and soffit and fascia
on the proposed entry the same as the existing house. With no
other input from the public. motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded
by Joyce Dowling, to approve the variance request to allow a front
entry to be constructed within the front yard setback requirement.
Notion carried unanimously with Barbara Koropchak absent.
Mr. Richard Carlson than asked that public hearings Id and #5 be
switched around so Mr. Brinkman's request could be hoard first as to
a recommendation from City staff.
5. Public Hearing - A variance requeot to allow Rlacamsnt of a building
within the front and roar yard setback requirements. Applicant,
Wayne Brinkman.
Mr. Mayne Brinkman was present to propose construction of a new National
Bushing Auto Parts store on Lota 1 i 2 near the Wright County Drive -up
Bank just vast of the now Walnut Seven building. If allowed to construct
a new auto parts store, he would like a variance to push the building
back to within 10 foot of the rear property lino. The rationale
for the variance request is that with the configuration of the land.
the best use of the land would be to shove the building back as far
1 �Cai)
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/8/86
as possible to allow parking within the front of the building and
also to the northwest rear corner, with driveways being constructed
along the west edge of the property. Planning Commission member,
Warren Smith, questioned as to where the proposed storm water drainage
would go. Mr. Brinkman indicated that everything on the roof would be
drained to the interior part of the building and then drained out to
existing storm sewer. Commission member, Marren Smith, then questioned
as to whether this property would have to pay for part of the storm
sewer work which the Walnut Seven property owners had to install
as part of their project along the rear of their property. Zoning
Administrator Anderson countered that the storm sewer was put in
under private contract and it would be up to the owners of Lots 1 6 2,
Wright County State Bank, to work out some type of agreement with
Mr. Brinkman and the Walnut Seven people, as they are the once that
pay the major portion of the storm sewer installation costa. The
only involvement the City would have is that the City has the easements,
and they do have the right to go in there to maintain the storm sever.
Barbara Koropchak arrived at the meeting at 7:50 p.m. With no further
input from the public or from any other Planning Commission members,
motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to
approve the variance request to allow placement of a building within
the rear yard setback requirement. Also as part of the motion was
that the owner, Mr. Brinkman, work out with the previous owner, Wright
County State Bank, and the Walnut Seven property owners on possible
use of the existing storm newer which they put in rather than digging
up the street again to hook up to the main storm sewer line. Notion
carried unanimously.
d. Public Hearing - A simple subdivision request to allow a residential
lot to be subdivided into two residential late. A variance request
to allow a now residential lot to have less than the minimum lot
frontage as required. Applicant. Mel Wolters.
Mel Wolters wan present to propose a simple residential lot subdivision.
Mr. Wolters indicated that due to the excess square footage of the
lot, it is rather hard for a single family household to maintain
that large a lot and that was some of the rationale that he used
for splitting up the lot in question. Nr. Wolters also showed where
the new water and sower service would be run in to service the existing
houae, and the existing service would be terminated at the propooed
location of the house on the newly subdivided lot. He also indicated
the poesiblo relocation of the existing driveway on the proposed
site plan. Chairperson Richard Carlson opened the meeting for input
from the public. Mr. Scott Hill was present to voice his concerns
on the existing location of the driveway. He was out measuring it
yesterday and found that the existing driveway would be on the proposed
newly subdivided lot. Mr. Wolters countered that the driveway would
be relocated so it would be within the 73 foot leg of the lot going
out to West River Street. Mr. Hill also voiced his concerns on the
high amount of traffic on this road right now and with an additional
buildable lot with the subdivision, you might also expect there would
be at least two more vehicles used on this public road. Nr. Richard
Carlson then entered into the public record a letter delivered by
Planning Commission Hinutes - 7/8/86
�j Mr. Scott Hill from Mr. 6 Mrs. Scott Whitson and signed by Teresa
Whitson, notarized by Diane Jacobson, our Notary Public, to City
Council and is also being heard by the Planning Commission. "we
desire the lot at Lot 2, Block A, to remain a single family dwelling zone.
We desire the lot at Lot 2, Block A, not be subdivided to contain
two single family dwellings." Signed by Teresa Whitson, Lot 1, Block A,
1328 West River Street, June 4, 1986.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing and asked
for input from Planning Commission members. Mr. Warren Smith questioned
Scott Hill's reasons for his objections. Mr. Hill countered that
he his definite reasons for objection were creating another lot in
this area when the reason he purchased his house was because of the
large amount of green area that went with the lot. He also has concerns
with the increase in traffic when there is a high amount of traffic
in the area already. Warren Smith also raised the question of the
front yard setback on the newly created subdivided parcel. Zoning
Administrator Anderson countered that if the setbacks for Whitson'e
house and Mr. Hills house were at 30 fast, the least amount of front
yard setback this new house could have would be a 30 foot front yard
setback.
Chairperson Richard Carlson called for a motion on this simple subdivision
request. Motion by Warren Smith, seconded by Richard Martie, to
approve the simple subdivision request to allow a residential lot
to be subdivided into two residential Iota, and to approve the variance
request to allow a residential lot to have lees than the minimum
lot frontage as required, and also to add as a condition that the
developer bear all costs of a new water and sower line stub to service
the existing property. Motion carried unanimously.
Additional Information Items
Motion by Barbara Koropchak, seconded by Richard Martie to eat the
next tentative data for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting
for August 12, 1986, 7:30 p.m. Mr. Warren Smith then questioned
as to what happens to soma of the actions that they take at the City
Council level. He thought it would be important for Planning Commission
members to know the results of the applications which go before them
at City Council and the other ones that do require City Council action.
Zoning Administrator Anderson said he would carry it a atop further
in that he would send torten of the motion made by City Council members
in dealing with any information to Planning Commission members and
also of the requests which go before City Council members. Also,
a spot on the agenda would be not aside for giving the action which
was taken on any requests which go before the City Council. This
information would be sent out in their agenda packets prior to their
next scheduled meeting date. It was the consensus of the Planning
Commission members that it was a very good idea and would be vary
worthwhile information to Nem.
.3-
v
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/8/86
1 - Motion by Warren Smith, seconded by Richard Martie, to adjourn the
meeting. The meeting adjourned at 6:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
/l
I
-4 C
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/12/86
3. Public Hearing - A request for preliminary plat approval of a subdivision
to be known as Victoria Square Addition. A rezoninq request to rezone
said Victoria Square Addition to a planned unit development. A conditional
use request to allow in "Coos of 12 multiple family housing units
in said Block 1, Lots 1-55, portion of a proposed Victoria Square
olanned unit development. Applicant. Mike Reher. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Mike Reher is before you again with a proposed request for final
approval of the Block 1, Lots 1-55, portion of his previously approved
preliminary plat of Victoria Square Addition. What Mr. Reber is
looking for is preliminary plat approval of the previously approved
preliminary plat of Victoria Square Addition now to be known as Victoria
Square Planned Unit Development. The Planned Unit Development portion
would allow different types of zoning to exist and also outlots to
exist prior to development and final approval. The portion that
Mr. Reher is looking at for development and final approval in Block 1,
Lots 1-55. Within this block are 27 separate townhouses with detached
garages. With 27 total unit townhouses, it does require a conditional
use, as it exceeds the maximum 12 multiple unite allowed. Also one
thing to note to that Mr. Reher will have to bring current any previous
platting fees to the City of Monticallo, and also prior to his plat
being recorded all delinquent special assessments and delinquent
taxes would have to be paid.
4t, B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the preliminary plat of a planned unit development to
be known as Victoria Square Planned Unit Development; Approve
the rezoning as proposed in the outlote A. B. C. and D, and also
Block 1, Lots 1-55; Approve the conditional use request to allow
in excess of 12 multiple family housing units in said Block 1,
Lot" 1-55.
2. Deny the preliminary plat of a planned unit dovelopment to be
known as Victoria Square Planned Unit Development; Deny the rezoning
request; and deny the conditional use request to allow in excess
of 12 multiple family housing unite in Block 1, alto 1-55.
3. Approve the preliminary plat, approve the rezoning as proposed,
and approve the conditional use request, with the conditions
that all platting charges on this plat be paid up front to the
City prior to recording, all delinquent special assessments and
taxes be paid prior to recording, and that an approved grading
and drainage plan be submitted prior to building permit application.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
the staff recommends approval of the Victoria Square Planned Unit
Development as laid out in Block 1, Lots 1-55, and Outlets A. B.
•1
C. D, and 8; the proposed layout of the streets; the proposed extension
of the existing Cedar Street or what he is proposing to rename
am
11
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/12/86
Victoria Street; and also approval of the development stage and final
stage of Block 1, Lots 1-55. with granting the conditional use request
to allow in excess of 12 multiple family units; also that prior to
issuance of a building permit. an approved grading and drainage plan
be submitted.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed Victoria Square Planned Unit Development; Copy
of the Block 1, Lots 1-55; Copy of the first set of 8 townhouse units.
-2-
•' t• % r 1 1/ 1 �...(•`•1 •• tr �.a __roil:
'�• �I +' r. �� ''t r• '; '. I/j it �
`'�-�-La ,l ,�-_`�=tc,' ' 9 / t 1.t J r ;77 �l�1'j� •, ',;.. �'•�..:
� ."`.,c,�; :7+�.1 r t j ',`.r•`;a ? t,: "'``''�.. �` .J..l 1 '1 "^'11 �i11 � t 1 /%% � �.
�, tel. ���;• �. � � / ;�Q�.-:- ,
1 r 1. ,lit iJ yAS eS►Px°Va1 °ta,��,�iAep tn+, i�tf+ _
tia0.ueet to Vi tosle td?1oM'�(�igS.o4e6n ,
M i GHWAY A to ovn ee V otosie Uset 91 eve} i '• r r • . V
%6%0ne as Opei v ��t� to ee 0 41 94 t '
Dona ho�tin9
,. KSXO 0.,v, , • � i J ��� �.�r. 3y `\.
VICTORIAN SQUARE ADDITION
� / ,•��-.....: %/t1 ,RfN!{R- �I.rr, L►X�N«l,rrC
DUNDAS
• t
BLOCK 1 F
N RON
I ..., �... ...... y�
CI
w
nIV
NB9i?B'!$•f 1 d•/7°/6CB' $jl 7�Ns'vQ'o F % IR
/857 .55M
ZS"-' r0m, ai/ /dJ/ Mr V al/ AOX rano1771
41 6; 6 122 8n 824 820h $ rroo.
$ r2� 'a d/N ,I A7 Cif .0
1611 /dl/ 40 /all 2000%Z,( w8. 2s $ 1
.AO dia �7AO 00 dM N t $ 29 d/q0
q ivo'Fl,�r iv 8 30 u
p 41 I M 4700 ..• Oo 00 a �rEll t; dtQp
•. Mq
h ='--•wEl'oblA's
ISA eio 30 8 •''Y 3
:831 duco
44I ; ;
V V ,
W I �j 33 a 32 g. U&V
~ h0 I O $3380 Zr�,l \io
r'f7ao•' N&V
�_ �$ ` .• � •--•,rerae're'tr ,OT.rr-•- ...:. +,D�ri `� 8 81� I L
$ 7i7D ••, uu, r �.:ree = N m
jJ 12 �or5r,°DT�i: 1 39
::o�e�r»•, C $gweVbe71� yl8 d/AO I h
•, I 16.91 161, as, roan � som Nu al, /a, Up1. r err rrw �I ��
pp$ �
°gre $11 818 i 15 8 8 i4 113 a12 $11 810
aea Ig ,
a s Y = a a3
IL iuL AIL
we9'oe'Jt2r n l7. - -A _ st ►'—_ _ _ J'
_.gnaw -• ...__* ... �,a77p...
•DA�Oi�C� aM0 UTIL,j ��{IIIFMTI i4-:b
%O,d QdiOIIQ/ dIA IAC N• /%u0 of the on o1/b N" oI.W. /1. {'_ f MDYM TMUb� �0 6 � '
5 b9i78'!E W 4.72 26000
ti �� jj • \"�`..__
16 5'1
5585IV 78. 33'14-
-
.
1 r •,• •• d 12'OS'02' ¢, 5+006 69'21 a7 W
'.72
ff. •O
n n z
i K sUO.
GI •� .W� •r.M 11
r l���a b � �,.��� b❑ d i I��°i �
r7
w.... w•iw ♦ • os
anrw e•v�... .c.a sv�__w�
y _ _ DUN
D
»-w q
-�_ ROAD
1
� r
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/12/86
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
2. Simple Subdivision Request, Mel Wolters. Approved by City Council. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
There was a lot of discussion on what the actual reason would be
for granting a simple subdivision, with the lot configuration as
shorn allowing a lot with less than the minimum front footage as
required by ordinance. Council members tossed this about, and they
felt that with the uniqueness of the size of the lot, they would
grant the approval of a substandard lot to be created with less than
the minimum front footage.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the City Council minutes.
H
A1C
Council Minutes - 7/14/86
S. Consideration of Orantinq ADoroval for a Simple Subdivision - hoolicant,
Mel Wolters.
Mel Wolters appeared before the City Council to request final approval
`1- of a simple subdivision, creating two buildable lots, out of Lot 2,
Block 1, in Doerr Estates. The request for the simple subdivision also
contained a request for a variance to reduce the street frontage
on one of the lots. Acting Mayor Fair noted for the Council that
the Planning Commission had granted approval to this request. Mr.
Wolters indicated that it was a fairly simple request to create one
new building lot and that the variance request was included to allow
access to the rear lot.
Councilmember Blonigen indicated that, in his opinion, due to the
extremely large size of the lot, perhaps the entire parcel should
be replatted. Blonigen expressed some concern over the creation
of two irregularly shaped lots and the granting of variances. Be
was concerned with establishing a precedent for approving lots with
only 33 feet of frontage. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated
that the Planning Commission, at their meeting on July 8, 1986, raised
the same question of precedent. Anderson noted that some discussion
of the Doug Pitt subdivision which received approval contained lots
with far less frontage than Mr. Wolters' proposal.
Administrator Eidem indicated to the Council that it was the Doug
Pitt subdivision proposal that generated an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance ouch that the street frontage of an irregularly shaped
lot should contain a minimum width of 53 feet, said number being
two-thirds (2/3) of the required minimum lot width at building setback
line. Eidem noted that consequently, the Pitt oubdivioion could
not be used so a precedent since the requirements of the ordinance
had changed since approval of that subdivision. Eidem went on to
nay that the Council needed to be aware of the consequences of granting
a variance where a hardohip or finding of fact relating to the uniquonoeo
of a lot mandated the granting of ouch a variance. Eidem indicated
that land use planning low generally hold that the granting of variance
without a finding of fact woo ecoentially amending the ordinance
and loocaning the minimum roquiromento. He noted that for a governing
body to arbitrarily grant variancea that will allow development below
the minimum otandarda oncontlally lowero th000 minimum otandards
without officially amending the ordinance. Eidam otr0000d that the
finding of fact needed to be documented in order to juatify the granting
of the variance.
Councilmombor Bill Pair defended the configuration indicating that
the prop000l exceodo ell other roquiromento with respect to site
and danaity, setbackn, etc. Councilmember Maxwell aloo supported
the lot oplit concept based on the fact of the oubstantial quantity
of land available. Administrator Eidam indicated that the question,
at this point, woo not a queation of design and donoity or configuration,
but rather a quootion of proceca. Eidam indicated that in the sboenco
of the finding of fact oubatantiating a hardship or a uniqueness
to the parcel, any future request for a 33 -foot front lot would have
to be legitimately considered. Acting Mayor Pair asked Mr. Woltera
if he had considered any other design that might more adequately
addreea the minimum requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Wolters indicated
he had not really considered any other design. Mr. Wolters noted
Council Minutes - 7/14/86
that there is a house in place, and that he wished to create the
new building site without infringing or encroaching upon the existing
structure. It was Mr. Wolters- contention that a different design
configuration could encroach upon the existing structure and would
lessen the rights to property enjoyment of that existing structure.
Councilmember Bill Fair indicated that the parcel in question is,
in fact, unique because it was designed and developed under a different
set of requirements from the City's subdivision ordinance and was
annexed as designed. He felt that the parcel deserves specific consideration.
He indicated that he found no difficulty in finding that the parcel
in. in fact, unique based on the design considerations under which
It was developed. He noted that the proposal exceeds all other municipal
requirements and that the variance would not be considered arbitrary.
Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, read the following letter into
the record: To the City Council: We desire the lot at Lot 2, Block A,
ra=in single family dwelling zoned. We desire the lot at Lot 2,
Block A. not be divided to contain (2) two single family dwellings.
i
The statement was signed by Teresa Whitson, Lot 1, Block A, 1328
West River Street.
Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blonigen, and carried
unanimouoly to approve a simple subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, in
Doerr Estateo, with one lot (Parcel 1) being granted a variance in
minimum width of lot frontage from 53 fact to 33 feet.