Loading...
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.