Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11-01-1988MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 4, 1988 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Richard Carlson, Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Mori Malone, and Dan McConnon. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill. 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Carlson at 7:32 p.m. 2. Motion was made by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Mori Malone, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held August 2, 1988. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Motion was made by Dan McConnon, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held September 6, 1988. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Motion was made by Mori Malone, seconded by Dan McConnon, to approve the minutes of the special meeting held September 14, 1988. Motion carried unanimously with Cindy Lemm abstaining. 5. Public Hearing - A variance re .guest to allow 1) a garage to be constructed 411hln the front yard setback recLuiremene{( 3) a gars$a to be built with a 61din In excess of the 12-incfi Siding width &hated. Agpllcant, Vivian Jean Abrahamson. Mr. Mike Drayna was present to propose Mrs. Abrahemaon'e variance request. Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, explained to Planning Commission members Mrs. Abrahamson's variance request. Mrs. Abrahamson was proposing to build a detached garage within the front yard setback requirement. The location of the proposed new detached garage would be� within one foot of the front yard setback requirement. The minimum requirement to a 30 -foot front yard setback. P - Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for input Eras the ' public. Mc. Lonnie worth, the adjacent property amen to the north, we present to voice his objection to the variance request in that the sigh line distance would be obstructed, and he would be looking at the back the new proposed detached garage while looking out the windows of hie existing house. Mr. worth also indicated with the current wind directions within the city that there would be problems with end blocking the roadway of Front Street and Linn Street, which run t these properties. Assistant Administrator, Jeff ' 11, qu oned the r the demonstration of hardahip. H ppifcant, hadn't demonstrated any tdahia other monetary in this requesr:. The applicant through Mr. Mike Drayna iiw indicated the preservation of the trees and also not having to have a power pole removed as the reason for the selection of this location for the proposed detached garage. 0 Planning Owmoission Minutes - 10/4/88 Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for input from the Planning Cxmsission members. With no further input from any of the Planning Commission members, Mr. Richard Carlson questioned whether any additional layout of this garage was considered so as to not need a variance request or if a garage could be constructed within the minimum setback requirements. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Mr. Carlson that there hadn't been any additional layouts presented for this garage; and the reason they had chosen this location for the garage was that as part of the 1977-3 Project (streets, curb, and gutter project), that was the location that was chosen by previous City staff members in that near this location of the proposed detached garage she has a hard surfaced off-street parking area already in existence. With no further input from the Planning Commission members, motion was made by Dick Martie, seconded by Mori Malone, to deny the variance request to allow a garage to be constructed within the front yard setback requirement. Motion carried unanimously. Reason for denial is thatimf)f <er hdshJp_had been demonstrated and that the proposed location of the garage would definitely block the neighbor's view of the street. 6. Public Hearing - A conditional use request to allow a cold storage W11O1 t0 De bill It In a PZM (petLO[ma11CB LOnB m1YeO) zone. Applicant, ihnlf B0. Mr. Randy Ruff was present to propose Ruff Auto's conditional use request to build a detached cold storage building along side an existing garage storage building on his dad and mother's place (Harold and Phyllis Ruff's residence). The Harold and Phyllis Ruff residence, along with all of the Ruff Auto Salvage Yard property, is all under the ea ma parcel identification number. Mr. Ruff indicated that if the conditional use request was approved, he would purchase that property from his father and construct a detached pole type cold storage building. The reason the application was filed under Ruff Auto is that he was the applicant even though the owner of the property was Ruff Auto. With no input from the public, Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for any comments from the Planning Commission. Mr. Richard Carlson questioned whether Mr. Ruff was circumventing the ordinance when the applicant, as published in the public hearing notice, was Ruff Auto when in reality it was Mr. Randy Ruff, one of the eons of the owners, that is the actual applicant. Zoning Administrator, Cary Anderson, indicated to Mr. Carlson that it definitely was a request by Randy Ruff, but is currently under the ownership of Ruff Auto; and the land would be sold over to Mr. Randy Ruff if the conditional use was approved. Cindy Lem questioned Mr. Ruff when the property would be sold from Ruff Auto to him. Randy indicated that as soon as the conditional use permit was approved, the land transaction would take place. Mr. Harold Pittman indicated that the Planning Commission members should vote in favor of the Conditional use request to allow a cold storage building to be built in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone. O Planning Commission Minutes - 10/4/88 With no further input from the Planning Commission members, motion was made by Mori Malone, seconded by Cindy Lemm, to approve the conditional use request to allow a cold storage building to be built in a P2M (performance zone mixed) sone. Motion carried unanimously. 7. Public Hearing - A conditional use request to allow minor auto repair in a B-3 (highway business) zone. Applicant, Dale Poganski. Mr. Dale Poganski was present to propose his conditional use request to allow minor auto repair in a s-3 (highway business) zone. Mr. Poganski is proposing to construct a pole -type metal sided auto repair business building. The location of the proposed business building would be adjacent immediately north of the existing General Rental business property. With no further input from the public, Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for input from the Planning Oomtaission members. Mr. Dan MoConnon questioned if the applicant was aware of the site plan which was enclosed which entailed all of the minimum building requirements. Mr. Poganeki countered that he had not seen the enclosed site plan. Mr. Gary Anderson, City Zoning Administrator, indicated that the enclosed site plan merely showed the location of the building to meet the minimum setbacks and all of the minimum off-street parking that would be required. Mr. faro ld Pittman commented that this was a good use of the property and that we should welcome new business into the City of Monticello. Mr. Jeff O'Neill questioned Mr. Poganski if he was familiar with all of the conditions which are attached to the conditional use request to allow minor auto repair in a s-3 (highway business) zone. Mr. Poganski indicated that the Zoning Administrator had sent him all the minimum requirements and that he was familiar with them and would adhere to those requirements. Mr. Poganski also indicated to Planning Commission members that be had not purchased the property yet, but he wanted to make sure that if he did purchase the property, the building could be built for thio use when he came to apply for a building permit. Mr. Richard Carlson indicated that this particular business use would be conducive to the exist Ing business which exists to the south of this property today, the General Rental business. Mr. Dan McConnon questioned in looking at the site plan it would show a different type of front on the building which fronts Highway 25 but questioned whether or not there should be something on the rear also which would front a public right-of-way if the new building type zoning ordinance amendment to adopted. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Mr. MaConnon that Mr. Poganaki to aware of the break up of the metal aiding, as he would have to use a different type of aiding on a portion of the building which would front a major hicjhny or a public right-of-way. With no further input lrae the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Cindy Lam, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the conditional use request to allow minor auto repair in a s-3 (highway business) zone. lotion carried unanimously. 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/4/86 8. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow 1) less than the minimum usable open spacel 2) less than the minimum front Yard setback requiremenil 1) less than the minimum rking space sizer 4) less than the minimum driving aisle widths and 5) less than the minimum number of parking spaces required. Applicant, Metcalt 6 Larson. Mr. Jim Metcalf was present to propose a variance request to allow a 28 -unit elderly subsidized housing project to be constructed on this site with the above variances needed to locate this building on this site. Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for any input from the public. Mr. Pat Tamsend questioned if the alley behind the existing businesses within this block wasn't a fire lane, it should be a through lane from Walnut Street to Locust Street. Mr. Hud Schrupp indicated that with his business, the alley would be needed to be opened all the way through to accommodate semi -truck tractors which unload goods at his carpet store and to allow them to get back out of this alley without having to back up onto a public street from this alley. Mr. Metcalf reiterated that one could call this an alley but it is not an alleys it is private property even though it has been used for many years as an alley for the public. Mr. Stan Douglas indicated that the use has always been a public alley and it should remain so. Mr. Schrupp reiterated how hard it is to enter into this property let alone having to back out of it with a semi -truck tractor. Mr. Scott Douglas indicated that the use of this alley does receive considerable use, and it is not a very limited use for the majority of the property owners which utilize this alley or private property. Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, indicated that the Topel's were unwilling to sell their unsightly looking storage building Which is located to the rear of their property to accommodate the alley relocation to the rear of these private properties. 011ie Roropchak, Economic Development Director, was present and indicated that she had done a study with the property owners of which the affected business properties were notified of some proposed improvements that could be done as part of this elderly project. Questions centered around the process of seeing if a different alignment could be done or using the existing alignment as presented by Mr. Metcalf to open up the flow of traffic through this alley portion of the business private properties. Mr. Jeff O'Neill commented that the node or the parking island could be removed to allow the travel portion to be opened up to allow semi -truck trailer movement. Mr. Jim Metcalf indicated that he had received no contacts from the Topels in regards to the Topel's indication that they would like to see the alley closed off in its entirety. Mr. Harold Pittman indicated that he felt the Topel building should be condemned, that it is an unsightly building and hazardous building. Chairperson Richard Carlson indicated to Mr. Pittman that the City does not make it a practice to go out and condemn private buildings for public use. Mr. Pittman reiterated that he felt the relocation of this building would open up the alley to a much better open type use. Mr. Jeff O'Neill reiterated the rationale for the hardship with the variance requests and 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/4/88 that the City willingly knew that to get a project in here with the limited site area of the downtown business sites for land use that it would require some type of variance request to get this elderly project on this site. Mr. Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission members. Mori Malone questioned Mr. Metcalf if he could purchase the 1bpel's building. Mr. Metcalf indicated no, that the City purchased the Ford property and the RRA has optioned the Stelton, O'Connor, and Jones properties. And it is up to the City to negotiate to purchase any additional property if they so felt they needed. Mr. Richard Carlson indicated to the public that they should understand just where the City stands on this alley situation, and that it is private property and they should deal with their private property for the use of it as a collective unit of business property owners. Mr. Harold Pittman questioned why the City is purchasing property on which we are currently receiving taxes and replacing then with an apartment building on which we will see a lesser amount of tax. Jeff O'Neill indicated that tax increment financing is only a tool to exchange business places with the apartment buildings. Mr. Richard Carlson reiterated that at previous Planning Commission meetings consideration was given at that time whether the use of the property was better for an apartment or for a business type of use. Mr. Dan McConnon questioned whether or not there could be any variance reductions by any other type of placement of this building on this site. Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, indicated that no other possible relocations of this had been done but would only eliminate one variance and gain another. Chairperson Richard Carlson then read a letter from Mr. Reith Rjellberg opposing the City's purchasing of existing vacant business buildings and replacing them with apartment buildings. Mr. Mcconnon questioned Mr. Metcalf if he had any problems with losing one parking space to relocate the island delineator for the alley. Mr. Metcalf indicated he saw no problems with the elimination of one parking apace if that's what the Planning Commission members chose. With no further input from the Planning Commission membere, motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Dan PxCoenon, to approve the variance request to allow lees than the minimum usable open space. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Mori Malone, seconded by Dan MoConnon, to approve the variance request to allow a building to be placed within the minimum front yard setback requirement. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Cindy Lamm, seconded by Mori Malone, to approve the variance request to allow a parking lot to be constructed with leas than the minimum parking space size. Motion carried unanimously. 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/4/88 Motion by Dan McConnon, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the variance request to allow less than the minimum number of parking spaces as required by ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. 9. Public Hearin - A preliminary plat request for proposed new residential sundivision pat. Applicant, Tom Holtfiaus. Tom Holthaus was present to propose his preliminary plat request for a proposed new residential subdivision plat. Mr. Holthaus indicated that what he would like to do is to be able to sell off the existing house on this unplatted residential tract of land to create a separate tract of land which would be a recorded tract of land which would be left in the form of an outlot on which to develop at some point in time in the future. Mr. Harold Pittman indicated that he felt the preliminary plat should be approved for this request. Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for comments from the Planning Commission members. Mr. Dan MoDonnon questioned the use of the existing driveway to serve this residence in that this would be onto the outlot portion of this proposed subdivision plat. Honing Administrator, Gary Anderson, indicated to Mr. MoConnon that the gravel portion of this driveway was used to accommodate ingress and egress into this property. Once this is recorded this driveway would be vacated, and the old trail or driveway would come in from the north and proceed southeasterly into the back of this existing residence. With no further input from the Planning Commission members, motion by Cindy Lean, seconded by Dan McConnon, to approve the preliminary plat request for a proposed new residential subdivision plat. Motion carried unanimously. 10. Public Heerin� - A replotting request to replat an exietint unplatted lot into eisnt todnr4use lots aia one commmon area lot. Applicant, Floyd FlOrkling. -_ Mr. Jim Metcalf was present to propose a replatting request to replat an existing unplatted lot into eight townhouse lots and one common area lot. With no input from the public, Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission members. Mori Malone questioned if this was the same plat that was presented before them in the rezoning request. Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, indicated to Ms. Malone that thio was the same plat which they had seen in the previous rezoning request. Mr. Harold Pittman indicated that he felt this replatting request should be approved. Chairperson Richard Carlson clarified the replotting request that basically it's back before them like it has been for other replatting requests of another applicant, Mr. Jay Miller, on his Colony by the Greens townhouse subdivision plate. With no further input from the Planning Commission members, motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Dan McConnon, to approve the replatting request to replat an existing unplatted lot into eight townhouse lots and one common area lot. Motion carried unanimously. Planning omission Minutes - 10/4/88 11. Public Hearing - A simple subdivision request to allow two residential lots to be split, with the two lots when subdivided would be less than the minimum lot square rootage. Applicant, Dan Frie. Kr. Dan Frie was present to propose his simple subdivision request to allow two residential lots to be split, with the two lots when subdivided would be less than the minimum lot square footage as required by today's ordinance. Mr. Frie indicated that he has come back over one year later with basically the same request in that he is not requesting any variances at this time, but they have redone the proposed simple subdivision and that each of the lots as proposed would be less than the minimum lot square footage that was required when these lots were platted with that being 10,890 eq ft. He has also eliminated any variance request for an encroachment in the sideyard setback requirement. Mori Malone questioned as to what would happen with the existing garage on Parcel B. Mr. Frie indicated that prior to building permit application, the garage would be removed from Parcel B in its entirety. Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for any input from the public. Kr. Harold Pittman indicated he would recommend approval of the simple subdivision request. Mr. Marvin Woolhouse indicated to Planning Commission members when he purchased his property that the previous property owner had to purchase additional land area to meet the minimum city requirements. The City staff was not aware of the previous property owner having to purchase additional land area before he could purchase this property. Mr. Ren Link, an affected property owner across the street from this residence, questioned whether or not the property would have enough square footage as the existing two lots as platted would have. Mr. Richard Carlson then read letters that were received by the City staff, and they were as follows. The first ono was from Kra. Genevieve Weiman, 624 East Fourth street. She objected to another residence being built on this simple subdivided lot. The other letter was received from Mrs. Verla Vork, 316 Ramsey Street. she indicated she was in opposition to another house being built on the simple subdivided lot. With no further input from the public, Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for any input from the Planning Commission members. Richard Carlson indicated whether or not there should be any conditions attached to this. toning Administrator Anderson indicated that there should be two conditions attached to this: 11 Prior to building permit application, the garage be removed from Parcel Br and 21 Prior to building permit application, the addition be removed from the existing house. 7 With no further input from the Planning Commission members, motion by Dan McConnon, seconded by Cindy Lamm, to approve the simple subdivision request to allow two residential lots to be split, with the two lots when Planning Commission Minutes - 10/4/88 subdivided be less than the minimum lot square footage with two conditions as follows: 1) Prior to building permit application, the garage be removed from Parcel Bi and 2) Prior to building permit application, the addition on the southerly aide of the existing house be removed. Motion carried with Richard Martie objecting and Mori Malone abstaining. 12. Public Bearing - A variance request to allow placement of an attached garage within the sideyard setback requirement. Applicant, David Tice. Mr. David Tice was present to propose building an attached garage within the sideyard setback requirement. With no input from the public, Chairperson Richard Carlson closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for any input from the Planning Commission. Mr. Dan McConnon questioned the distance between the structures and if the proposed attached garage, when built, would encroach in any side lot line easements which we have on this property. Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, indicated that there would be 24 feet of separation between building structures where the minimum requirement by ordinance is 20 feet of separation, and there would be a 1 -foot separation from the proposed attached garage and would be right up to the easement line an the fi-foot drainage and utility easement on the side lot line. Mr. Harold Pittman indicated that he would recommend approval of the variance request. With no further input from the Planning Coxmnission members, motion was made by Mori Malone, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the variance request to allow placement of an attached garage within the sideyard setback requirement. Motion carried unanimously. Rationale for approval was that the developer had so placed the houses on the center of the lot that the maximum size garage that could be built on these would be an attached single car garage that would stay within the minimum sideyard setback requirement. 13. Public Bearing - A variance request to allow no hard eurfacin c curb, and ,gutter of a proposed parking .quest Applicant, J b R P[Ope[[lee/rfaU9 Mr. Jim Maus was present to propose the variance request to allow no herd surfacing, curb, or gutter of their existing employee parking lot. Mr. Maus indicated that they are looking at another area for existing off-street parking, are negotiating with another property owner now, and want consideration for no hard surfacing, curb, or gutter of this existing employee parking lot until some time next summer. Mr. Maus felt that by the granting of the variance it would allow them additional time to possibly negotiate with another property owner for spring construction on another property or the completion of the hard surfacing, curb, and gutter on this existing property with the employee parking lot on it right now. 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/4/88 Chairperem Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for any input from the public. Mr. Harold Pittman .:-..,,.,:.,,.J_] that the variance be granted to Mr. Maus. Mr. Pat Townsend, representing some of the residents of the Cedar Crest apartment complex, indicated that some of the residents have no objections to Mr. Maus's variance request. Motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Lean, to approve the variance request to allow no hard surfacing, curb, or gutter of the proposed parking lot with the following conditions: 1) hard surfacing, curb, and gutter to be completed by no later than June 15, 19891 2) a letter of credit be submitted to the City as soon as possible indicating that there are sufficient funds in a lending institution to accommodate completion of the hard surfacing, curb, and gutter by June 15, 1989; or money in the amount of 1-1/2 times the amount be submitted in a cashier's check to the City of Monticello to complete the parking lot if It is not leted by June 15, 1989. Motion carried unanimously. 14. Public Hears A conditional use request to allow incineration or reauction oPwaste material in an I-k ?heavy umstrial) zone. _Vplicant, Arthur Freta. Arthur Fretag was present to propose incineration of waste material within an I-2 (heavy industrial) zone. Cindy Lemrm questioned hie experience and the disposal of the sharps (needles) and their plastic containers. Mr. Dan McOconon questioned if he had filled out an environmental impact statement. Mr. Fretag indicated that he doesn't have any formal experience in this particular type of business but that he has background experience in different entities which revolve around this. The disposal of the sharps (or needles as they are also called) and the plastic containers are all through the incineration process. The residue or debris, which would be the ash, is what can be disposed of at the local landfills. Mr. Fretag did, however, indicate that he felt he didn't need to fill out an environmental impact statement. If he was required to do that, it would be a very expensive statement to have completed. The cost would run into the thousands of dollars. Mr. Jeff O'Neill indicated that in his conversations with Mr. Lou Chamberlin of the Pollution Control Agency, under its basic requirements, he would not be required to obtain a license from Pollution Control and that he would only be burning 300 lbs per hour, which is under the minimum licensure requirement of 1,000 The per hour. There are possible concerns that should be addressed with the amount of plastic that is burned. Mr. Fretag did indicate that he had answered all of the suggested City staff conditions. 011ie Koropchak indicated in her conversations with Barb Hchwientek that they are allowed to continue to burn their disposable infectious waste materials at their hospital site. Mr. Pat Townsend indicated with the prevailing winds in the area, it would blow the smoke which to generated from this incineration plant directly over hie building. Mr. Harold Pittman indicated that there is a (2) Planning Commission Minutes - 10/4/88 significant amount of infectious waste that is currently burned at the Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital now. Mr. Dan Jackson indicated the perception of this business to prospective employees at his business would be devastating. He indicated the chances of his being successful In attracting good qualified candidates for positions that he may have at the Fingerhut Corporation business would be quite restricted with this type of use nearby. Mr. lbwnsend indicated to Planning Commission members if they considered how devastating this would be to the existing businesses which are currently in the Oakwood Industrial Park. Mr. Rod Dragsten, part owner in the Silver Pros Inn, indicated the amount of an investment of $250,000 for an addition to his business, how it would relate to the investment that Mr. Fretag is proposing for his business, and how it would impact Mr. Dragsten's prospective future business with an infectious waste incineration plant very near his business. Mr. Townsend questioned the rationale for the permit and why there would not be a permit needed to burn under 1,000 The of waste per hour. For him just to dispose of automotive debris, he is required to get a permit from the Pollution Control Agency, and it has to be disposed of at an approved site. Be questioned whether or not any type of waste from this incineration plant could be disposed of in the local landfill, the Yonak Landfill. 011ie Roropchak indicated the Industrial Development Committee was also very skeptical of Mr. Fretag's proposed use of a heavy industrial lot within the industrial park on this. They would not voice any type of approval to him until they had found some more information out about his infectious waste facility. Mr. Pretag indicated the boundary of his service area would be from Highway 2 to the north and Highway 212 to the south. Mr. Jackson responded that the Pingerhut Corporation itself does not burn any paper whatsoever. Harold Pittman recommended that the applicant's request be denied. Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing and asked for comments from the Planning Commission members. Mr. Richard Martie suggested that the City staff check with the Industrial Development Committee and other communities which Mr. Fretag had suggested have any sire waste disposal burners within their comae itiee. Mr. Dan McConnon indicated that definitely the PCA would be involved with this project, and he was quite sure Mr. Fretag would also have to do an Environmental Assessment worksheet. Mori Malone indicated that the burning of this waste would be a definite concern of the public, and that the public should be involved in Mr. Pretag's request. Motion by Dan McConnon, seconded by Richard Martie, to table the conditional use request to allow incineration or reduction of waste material in an I-2 (heavy industrial) cone. Reason for tabling of the conditional use request: They feel that an Environmental Assessment workaheet would have to be filed and that they would look at that as a requirement, and also that the surrounding communities be contacted 10 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/4/88 where the infectious waste burners are in existence today to get their input on how things are working out with incineration in their communities. Motion carried with Cindy Leamm absent and Mori Malone abstaining. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS 1. Consideration to approve Modification #3 for Tax Increment District f2. 011ie Roropchak indicated to Planning Commission roentbera the Tax Increment Financing District Modification Plan. With no further input from 011ie, motion was made by Mori Malone, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the Modification Plan 13 for Tax Incremtent District A2. Motion carried unanimously with Cindy Least absent. 2. A variance request to allow expansion of an existing parking lot up to within the 5 -foot green area setback requirement. Applicant, Monticello Eduplay Childcare Center. Council Action: No action necessary, as there was no appeal. 3. A variance request to allow a pylon sign to be constructed in excess of the maximum sign square footage and height requirements. Applicant, Tom Thumb Store. Council Action: No action necessary, as there was no appeal. d. A variance request to allow a parking lot to be constructed within the 5 -foot green area requirement. A request to allow this parking lot to be constructed in two phases. Applicant, Bridgewater Telephone Company. Council Action: Approved as per Planning Oo®iseion recommendation. 5. Rezoning request to rezone a lot from R-1 (single family residential) to R-2 (single and two family residential). 1f rezoned, a request to replat this residential lot into eight townhouse lots and ate comok area lot. If replatted, a conditional use request to allow up to eight townhouses on an R-2 (single and two family residential) lot. Applicant, Floyd MMarkling. Council Action: Approved as per Planning Oommission recommendation. 6. Simtple subdivision request to subdivide one unplatted lot into two unplatted lots. Applicant, Tom Nolthaus. Council Action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. 7. Tabled request for a preliminary plat review for a proposed new subdivision plat. Applicant, Charles Ritze. Council Action: Approved as per Planning Oommisoion recommendation. 8. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Coxmission meeting for November 1, 1988, 7:30 p.m. Planning Oo®ission Minutes - 10/4/88 Motion by Mori Malone, seconded by Richard Martie, to set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting for November 1, 1988, 7:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously with Cindy r absent. 9. Motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Mori Malone, to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 11:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, te Gar ilnder�son °1 Zoning Administrator 12 0 Planning Commission Agenda - 11/1/88 i 3. Public Hear"_- A rezoning request to rezone an R-1 (single family. residential) tract of lana to R-3 (single and two family residential) zone. Applicant, Ren Maus/Gary DeBoer. —T -Nall �WIILIPT Mr. Ren Maus and Gary DeBoer are partners in a residential rental house which they own on Rest County Road 39 or Golf Course Road. The house Is a flat roof house immediately north of the northerly entrance into Club View Drive Addition. The property as it exists today is zoned R-1 (single family residential) zoning. The applicants at this time are proposing just to have the property rezoned to R-2 (single and two family residential) zoning. 1f the property would be rezoned to R-2, some of the possibilities that the applicants are looking for would be removing the existing house and the construction of more townhouses on this lot, or it would accommodate a single family, two-family, tri -plea, or 6-plex on this lot. At this time, the applicants only want to go through the rezoning process. Should they get Planning Commission approval for rezoning and go onto the City Council for their approval, that is all they would like to have done with the property at this time. At some point in time in the future, the land could be available for purchase with the existing house on it for development and more flexibility in developing it into something more than a single family residence on this unplatted tract of land. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIORS: 1. Approve the rezoning request to rezone an R-1 (single family residential) tract of land to R-2 (single and two family residential) zone. 2. Deny the rezoning request to rezone an R-1 (single family residential) tract of land to R-2 (single and two family residential) C. STAFF RECOMEND 1TION: One could consider this as an Isolated piece of spot zoning for R-2 in that the entire parcel is surrounded by R-1 (single family residential) zoning. We do, however, have R-2 zoning at the other end of Club View Drive on the former Bette Groasnickle property that was also rezoned for R-2. Also across the golf course we have the entire Par Rest development that is zoned R-2. We have R-2 zoning near this property# but we do not have it abutting or adjacent to this unplatted tract of residential land. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed rezoning request# Copy of the layout of the house and garage on this ujVlatted tract of land# Oopy of the zoning ordinance section under R-2 (single and two family residential) zoning. A rezoning request to (single family resides 1-2 (single and two N Ken Maus/Gary DeSoer r9_10 10-7-1 SECTION: 7-1: 7-2: 7-3: 7-4: 7-1: 7-2: 7-3: 7-4: 10-7-4 CHAPTER 7 "R-2" SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Purpose Permitted Uses Permitted Accessory Uses Conditional Uses PURPOSE: The purpose of the "R-2" Single and Two Family Residential District is to provide for low to moderate density one and two unit dwellings and directly related, complementary uses. PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a "R-2" District: (A] All permitted uses allowed in a "R-1" District. (B] Two family dwelling units. PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in a "R-2" District: (Al All accessory uses as allowed in an "R-1" District. CONDITIONAL USE: The following are conditional uses in an "R-2" District: (RequilLea a cond4t(OnaL u.6e petmite2upponpu0 � cwedeencet loath in and rtequWed by ptea1o (A) All conditional uses, subject to the same conditions, as allowed in an "R-1" District. (B] Townhouses an defined by Chapter 2, Section 2 (TB] of this Ordinance provided that the regulationa and requirementa of Chapter 20 are satisfactorily completed and mot. (C] Pour family dwelling unit. (D) Day Care - group nursary provided that: 1. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered and removed doily. 2. The front yard depth shall be a minimum of thirty-five (39) feet. 3. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with Chapter 3, Section S of this Ordinance. O 10-7-4 10-7-4 4. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance with .L Chapter 3, Section 6 of this Ordinance. S. The site and related perking and service shall be served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. 6. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9 of thin Ordinance. 7. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. S. The regulations and conditions of the Minnesota Department of public Welfare, public Welfare Manual 11-31-30 as adopted, amended and/or changed are satisfactorily met. 9. A written indication of preliminary, pending or final license approval from the regulatory welfare agency is supplied to the City. t 1. Clothes line pole and wire. 2. Recreational equipment and vehicles. 3. Construction and landscaping material currently being used on the promises. 4. Off-street parking of passenger vehicles and trucks not exceeding a gross capacity of nine thousand (9,000) pounds in residential areas. 5. Propane Lanka, fuel oil tanks, and other similar residential heating fuel storage tanks which do not exceed 1,000 gallons in capacity and shall not be located within five (5) feet of any property line. 6. Wood piles in which wood is stored for fuel provided that not more than 10 cords shall be stored on any property. A cord shall be 4' x 4- x V. All wood piles shall be five (5) feet or more from rear and aide yard property lines and shall be stored behind the appropriate set back line in front yards. 7. Soler heating systema. 3-3: Y*D REQUIREMENTS: (A) PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum yard apacon and areas to be provided for in each zoning district. (B) No lot, yard or other open apace shall be reduced in area or dimanoion no as to make ouch lot, yard or open space loco than the minimum required by this Ordinance, and if the existing yard cr other open apace as existing is lona than the minimum requirad it shall not be further reduced. 03 required open apace provided around any building or otructuro shall be included as a part of any open space required for another atructuro. (C) All sotback distances, as listed in the table below, shall be moaaurod from the appropriate lot line, and shall be required minimum diotancoo. Front Yard Side yard Roar Yard A-0 50 30 50 30 10 30 �R-1 F M In sq) R-3 30 20 30 R.4 30 30 30 PZ -R See Chapter 10 for specific regulationo. PZ -M See Chapter 10 for opecific regulation. B-1 30 15 20 D-2 30 10 20 In addition, each condominium unit shall have the minimum lot area for the type of housing unit and usable open space as specified in the Area and Building Size Regulations of this Ordinance. Such lot areas may be controlled by an individual or joint ownership. (P] In residential districts, where the adjacent structures exceed the minimum setbacks established in Subsection (C] above, the minimum setback shall be thirty (30) feet plus two-thirds (2/3) of the difference. between thirty (30) feet and the setback or average setback of adjacent structures within the same block. 3-4: AREA AND BUILDING SIZE REGULATIONS: (A] PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum area and building size requirements to be provided in each zoning district as listed in the table below. DISTRICT LOT AREA LOT WIDTH BUILDING HEIGHT A-0 2 acres 200 N/A R-1 12,000 BO 3y R-2 12.000 so 2L,� R-3 10,005 80 2 R-4 48,000 200 1 PZ -R 12,000 BO 2y PZ -M 12,000 BO 2 B-1 8,000 80 2 B-2 N/A 100 2 8-3 N/A 100 2 B-4 N/A N/A 2 1-1 20,000 100 2 1-2 30,000 100 2 1. The building height limitation in an R-3, PZ -M, 8-I, B-2, B-3, 8-4, I-1, and I-2 zoning districts shall be two (2) stories. 2. In zoning districts R-3, PZ -M, S -I, B-2, 8-3, 8-4, I-1, and I-2, a (3) three story building may be allowed as a conditional use contingent upon strict application of a requirement that tire -extinguishing systema be installed throughout the building. (Requd2ea a conditionat uae permit based upon puceduaea aet Jo4th in and itegutated by Chaptea It of thi6 oadinance). 0 EBI LOT AREA PER UNIT: I Single Family 12,000 square feat Iy Two-Family 6,000 square feet 4 Torch use Mobile Home 4,000 square feet Multiple Family 10,000 square feet for first unit plus 2,000 sq. ft. for-. 4 each additional one bedroom unit, plus 3,000 eq. ft. for each additional two bedroom unit. Elderly Housing 1,000 square feet (The Lot a4ea pen unit aequ,iAement boa e tounhoaaea, condominimima and planned unit devetopmenta ahaU be caw& ed on the baaia od the totat a4ea in the p4oJect and as contaotted by an individuat and joint awncuf%ip) . (C) UTILITY TRANSITION AREAS: All areas in which cover is not currently available shall be designated as Utility Transition Areas. The minimum lot area of any platted lot in such arena shell be two and one-half (2y) acres. Any lot platted according to the ` provisions of this subdivision, may be replotted provided that public sanitary sower will be made available and all conditions and provisions of thin Ordinance are mat. j [D) USEABLE OPEN SPACE: Each multiple family dwelling cite ohall contain at laact five f hundred (500) cquaro loot of usooblo open space an defined in Chapter 2 of thin Ordinance for each dwelling unit contained thereon. lei £XCEPTIOKS: The building height limito ostabliched heroin for dictricto oholl not apply to the following: i. Belfries 2. Chimnoyc or llueo 3. Church spires 4. Cooling tovera 5. Cupolas and domes which do not contain u000ble space. 6. Elevator penthouaes 7. Flag poles 9. Monumanto 9. parapet wells extending not more than three (3) feat above the limiting height of the building 18. Water towers � .. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/1/88 4. Public Hearing - A replotting request to rellat an R-2 (eincile and two familyy reaiaentiai)f tot into twc iesicential tote. Applicant, Fairway l]ourtjJey 1�111ei. 1G.A.1 A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Jay hiller is proposing to replat the fifth approved lot, that being Lot 1, Block 5, Par West Addition, into two residential lots. By the replatting of this existing platted residential lot, Mr. Miller is proposing to build a 6 -unit townhouse on the south portion of this existing platted lot) and on the north portion of the existing platted lot, he is proposing to build a 4 -unit townhouse building. Back in 1985 when Mr. John Sandberg platted this unplatted tract of land into a residential subdivision that is now known as the Par West Addition, Mr. Sandberg received approval to develop Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 of Block 4, and Block 5, Lot 1, Par West Addition, to be developed into 8 -unit townhouses. The total amount of townhouse units proposed to be built was 40 townhouse units. Mr. Miller is before you with a request to increase this by an additional two units, which would bring the total number of townhouse units within this Par West development to 42 total townhouse units. As you can see by looking at the enclosed site plan, with the proposed 6 -unit townhouse building proposed to go on the south side of this lot, the proposed 4 -unit townhouse building to go on the north side would have less than the minimum lot frontage as required under R-2 toning, which is 80 feet of lot frontage at the setback line. It could possibly still be done having an irregularly shaped newly created lot line to subdivide this existing residential lot. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION9t 1. Approve the replotting request to replat an R-2 (single and two family residential) lot into two residential lots. 2. Deny the replotting request to replat an R-2 (single and two family residential) lot into residential lots. C. STAPP PDXXORMATION: As you will note on the enclosed Site plan, the developer is running into some problems trying to get the 4 -unit townhouse building along with the 6 -unit townhouse building on this lot and create some sort of subdivision of this lot. Yes, there is sufficient land area to accommodate 10 townhouse units. We would like to reaffirm the Planning Commission and City Council approvals that were given back in 1985 for the development of this unplatted tract of land, which is now known as the Per West Addition. Within this approval, approval was also given that the entire property be zoned R-2 (single and two family residential) zoning. Also as part of this zoning, the developer, Mr. John Sandberg, was granted -2- Planning Commission Agenda - 11/1/88 �. approval to develop up to 40 townhouse units on Lots 6, 7, 6, and 9, Block 4, and Lot 1, Block 5, in this Par Nest Addition. Even if there is sufficient land area to accommodate this up to 10 unite on this Lot 1, Block 5, we are going to run into some type of a variance or variances to accommodate a 6 -unit and a 4 -unit townhouse on this lot when split. D. DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed replotting requestr Copy of the site plane Copy of the R-2 (single and two family residential) toning requirements. -3- � _ t -�-------------- 'A --------- ---•A repiAting request to replat an '"R-2 ( ingle and two Tamil t: Aiiaen w.into �tvo residential '�. _ Fairwsry Co Ja Mil` -N.7 ORivE v _V4 JL All 1. Clothes line pole and vire. 2. Recreational equipment and vehicles. 7. Construction and landscaping material currently being used on the premises. 4. Off-street parking of passenger vehicles and trues not exceeding a gross capacity of nine thousand (9,000) pounds in residential areas. 5. Propane tanks, fuel oil tanks, and other similar residential heating fuel storage tanks which do not exceed 1,000 gallons in capacity and shall not be located within five (5) fact of any property line. B. Wood piles in which wood is stored for fuel provided that not more than 10 cords shell be stored on any property. A cord shall be 41 x 4- x 8-. All wood piles shall be five (5) feet or more from rear and side yard property linen and shall be stored behind the appropriate net back lino in front yards. 7. Solar heating systama. .wry 3-3: YARD REQUIREMENTS: (A] PURPOSE: This aection identifiao minimum yard apacou and•aroaa to be provided for in each zoning district. (e] No lot, yard or other open opaco ohall be reduced in area or dimanaion so an to make such lot, yard or open apace lean than the minimum required by thio Ordinance, and if the anioting yard or other open apace on axisting is leas than the minimum required it shall not be further roducod. lb raquirod open opaco provided around any building or atructuro shall be includad 40 a part of any open apace required for another ctructuro. (C] All cotback diotancoo, an liotod in the table bolow, shall be moosurod from the appropriate lot line, and shall be roquirod minimum diotancoo. Front Yard Side yard Rear Yard A-0 50 30 50 R-1 300 10 30 Try 19 AV R-3 30 20 30 ✓ R-4 3030 30 PZ -R See Chapter 10 for opecific regulations. PZ -M Sao Chapter 10 for spocific regulations. 0-1 30 15 20 0-2 30 10 20 In addition, each condominium unit shall have the minimum lot area for the type of housing unit and usable open space as specified in the Area and Building Size Regulations of this ordinance. Such lot areas may be controlled by an individual or joint ownership. [P] in residential districts, where the adjacent structures exceed the minimum setbacks established in Subsection (C] above, the minimum setback shall be thirty (30) feet plus two-thirds (2/3) of the difference_ between thirty (30) feet and the setback or average setback of adjacent structures within the same block. 3-4: AREA AND BUILDING SIZE REGULATIONS: [A) PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum area and building size requirements to be provided in each zoning district as listed in the table below. DISTRICT LOT AREA IAT WIDTH BUILDING HEIGHT A-0 2 acres 200 N/A 11.000 8n 2 • - -2 12.000 60 2 R-3 10,000 80 2 R-4 48,000 200 1 PZ -R 12,000 BO 2% PZ -M 12,000 80 2 B-1 8,000 80 2 B-2 N/A 100 2 B-3 N/A 100 2 B-4 N/A N/A 2 1-1 20,000 100 2 1-2 30,000 100 2 1. The building height limitation in an R-3, TZ -M, B-1, B-2, 8-3, B-4, I-1, and I-2 zoning districts shall be two (2) stories. 2. In :ening districts R-3, PZ -M, B-1, 0-2, B-3, 5-4, I-1, and I-2, a (3) three story building may be allowed as a conditional use contingent upon strict application of a roquiromont that lire-oxtinguiahing oyatoma be installed throughout the building. (Requi)tea a conditional use pest hawed upon ptocedunea act 6oath in and aegu.Cated by Chaptei 22 06 this ordinance). 0 (B) IAT AREA PER UNIT: Single Family 12,000 square feet Family 6,000 square feet .w ovnhouse 5,000 square— feat Mobile Home 4,000 square feet Multiple Family 10,000 square feet for first unit plus 2,000 sq. ft. for-. each additional one bedroom unit, plus 3,000 sq. ft. for each additional two bedroom unit. Elderly Housing 1,000 square feet (The tot aaea pea unit aequ.iaement boa tounhouaea, condomininxu and ptanned unit devetopmenta ahatt be ca aUated on the baste o6 the total area in the paoject and as contaotted by an .cndividuat and joint ouneaahip). [C] UTILITY TRANSITION AREAS: All areas in which sever is not currently available shall be designated as Utility Transition _ Areas. The minimum lot area of any platted lot in such areas shall be two and one-half (24) acres. Any lot platted according to the provisions of this subdivision, may be replatted provided that public sanitary never will be made available and all conditions and provisions of this Ordinance are met. (o1 USEABLE OPEN SPACE: Each multiple family dwelling site shall contain at least five hundred (500) square feet of useable open apace as defined in Chapter 2 of this Ordinance for each dwelling unit contained theronn. (El EXCEPTIONS: The building height limits established heroin for districts shall not apply to the following: 1. Belfries 2. Chimneys or fluor 1. Church spires 4. Cooling towers S. Cupolas and domes which do not contain ucoobla space. 6. Elevator penthouses 7. ring poles S. Monumento 8. Parapet walls extending not more than three (3) feet above the limiting height of the building 10. Nater Lovers