Planning Commission Agenda Packet 04-09-1985AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
April 9, 1985 - 7:30 P.M.
Members: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Richard Carlson, Richard
Martie, Ed Schaffer.
7:30 P.M. I. Call to Order.
7:32 P.M. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held March 12, 1985.
7:30 P.M. 3. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow a
House to be Built Within the Rearyard Setback
Requirement - Applicant, Dayle Veches Construction.
7:49 P.M. 4. Public Hearing - A Final Review of a Replat of
Existing Lots in an R-3 (Residential -Multifamily)
Zone - Applicant, Daryl 6 Donald Heikes.
6:04 P.M. 5. Public Hearing - A Conditional Use Request to
Allow a Self Service Gas Station and a Convenience
Store in a B-3 (Highway -Business) Zone - Applicant,
Curt Hoglund.
�- 8:19 P.M. 6. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow
a Garage to be Built Within the Front Setback
Requirement - Applicant, Douglas Stokes.
8:34 P.M. 7. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow
a Garage to bo Built Within the Side Setback
Requirement - Applicant, Ralph Mack.
Additional Information Items
8:49 P.M. 1. A request to have a tonativo meeting with the
Monticello City Council for Monday, April 22,
1985, 7:30 P.M.
8:54 P.M. 2. Sot the next tontativo dato for the Monticello
Planning Commi anion for May 14, 1985, 7:30 P.M.
8:56 P.M. 3. Adjournment.
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/9/85
3. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow a House to be Built
Within the Rearyard Setback Requirement - Applicant, Dayle Veches
Construction. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Dayle Veches recently purchased a lot from Mr. Sandberg
in the Par West Addition. As you will note on the enclosed
site plan, he purchased Lot 9, Block 2. He would like to build
a tri -level type house with the garage extended to the front.
However, the rear portion of the northeast corner of the house
would be within 24 feet of the rear lot line. The minimum rearyard
setback requirement is 30 feet. Before purchasing the lot from
Mr. Sandberg, Mr. Sandberg indicated to Mr. Veches that there
was a 10 -foot rearyard setback. With that in mind, Mr. Veches
vent ahead and purchased the lot on which to build this type
of house. At the time of issuing the building permit for construction
of hie house, we noticed that he would be within the rearyard setback
requirements. Mr. Sandberg, at the original meetings for the
replat of Par West, indicated that the types of houses built
here would require no variances. We see problems with starting
to issue variances at the onset of this new development, with
possible additional variances coming along in the future should
this one be approved.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow a house to be built
within the rearyard setback requirement.
2. Deny the variance request to allow a house to be built within
the rearyard setback requirement.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends denial of the variance request on the
principle that Mr. Sandberg indicated that there would be no
need for variances and that he, being the developer, would overcoo
construction of the homes and they would all moot the minimum
setback requirements. Unfortunately, Mr. Vochoo purchased the
lot with incorrect information given him from the developer.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Coity of the proposed location of the variance request; copy
of the plot plan showing the setback of the proposed house.
1E
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/9/85
4. Public Hearing - A Final Review of a Replat of Existing Lots
in an R-3 (Residential -Multifamily) Zone - Applicant, Daryl
and Donald Heikes. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Daryl and Donald Heikes recently purchased all of Blocks 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 from the Kacarlund, Inc., partnership.
They would like to replat Blocks 3, 4, 5, and 6 to create three
new blocks. with the creation of the three now blocks and additional
lots, they are lining up the detached garages with the existing
townhouses and the townhouses to be built. Instead of the originally
platted Blocks 3-6 with six lots in each block, they are proposing
to replat it into three blocks with eight lots in two of the
blocks and 13 lots in the other block. The only difference
seen in the replat is that they were originally four blocks
with a total of 24 lots; and with the replat, there will be
three blocks with a total of 39 lots. There basically is no
change from the originally platted blocks and lots on the alignment
other than re -aligning them to line up with the townhouses to
be built.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the final replat of existing lots in an R-3 (Residential—
Multifamily)
Residential—Multifamily) Zone.
2. Deny the final replat of existing lots in an R-3 (Residential -
Multifamily) Zone.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff rocommondo approval of the roplat of Blocks 3-6 with a
total of 24 lots to tho croation of three now blocks with eight
lots on two of the blocks and 13 loto on the third block. With
Che proposed ro-alignment of the detached garages, they will
lino up much batter with the now townhoucoo to be built.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of tho proposed roplat.
-2-
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/9/85
J
5. Public Nearing - A Conditional Use Request to Allow a Self Service
Gas Station and a Convenience Store in a B-3 (Highway -Business)
Zone - Applicant, Curt Hoglund. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Enclosed you will find a copy of the proposed site plan layout
for the gas station/convenience store. Mr. Hoglund is proposing
to build this at the corner of East County Road 39 and County
Road 75 East. In reviewing the plat, we note that there are
18 conditions that apply to this. The conditions have been
met satisfactorily by the owner, Mr. Curt Hoglund, and the building
contractor, Winkleman Corporation, with the following deficiencies.
They are proposing to not curb the entire area where the driveway
encroaches onto adjoining Iota on both the East County Road 39
entrance and the East County Road 75 entrance. They are proposing
some type of sod or landscaping, and the landscape plan is being
submitted to us for our reaction. We have asked them to incorporate
the tree plantings into their site plan, and they will be submitted
e site plan to us for our review on Monday. We are suggesting
a highly planted area along East County Road 39 and along the
diagonal at the corner of County Road 75 and County Road 39.
The site plan as submitted does meet the minimum setback requirements
as required by City Ordinance. Also, it does meat the minimum
number of parking spaces required by Ordinance; therefore, with
�- prop000d expansion they would exceed the total number of minimum
parking spaces required. They are proposing a landscape buffer
between the convenience store and the Curt and Anna Hoglund
residence. Ordinance dose require some typo of screening fence
between the now development and any raoidential area. Even
though th000 are interior lots in a B-3 (Highway-Buoineso) Zone,
we do have a nonconforming otructura, Curt and Anna Hoglund'o
raoidenco, within this; and the screening requiromenta would
atill have to be mat.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the conditional uao roquoot to allow a oolf oorvico
goo station and convenience atoro in a B-3 Zone.
2. Deny the conditional uao roqueot to allow a oalf oorvico
goo otation and convenience otoro in a 0-3 Zone.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional uoo roquoot to
allow a self oorvico goo otation and convenience Otero to be
built in a B-3 (Highway-Buain000) Zona. We aloo ouggoot an
oxcluoivo hoavy tree planting along the area of County Road 39
and at the intorooction of County Road 39 and County Road 75.
-3-
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/9/85
We would also like to note the no curbing of the driveway en trance
off of East County Road 75 could be offered as a variance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed location of the self service gas station/
convenience store; Copy of the site plan.
-4-
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/9/85
1 6. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow a Garage to be
Built Within the Front Setback Requirement - Applicant, Douglas
Stokes. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Doug Stokes originally applied for and received approval
of a variance request on August 31, 1982, to allow him to build
within 10 feet of the front yard setback rather than the 30
feet as required by Monticello City Ordinance. However, Mr.
Stokes did not build his garage as originally intended, and
his 1 -year time limit has expired. He is before you to reapply
for his variance to build within the front setback requirement.
City staff feels you should take another look at their request
from another point of view, that being site line obstruction
coming off of Mississippi Drive onto East County road 39. With
the proposed garage in the front, the site linea would be greatly
reduced when approaching the stop sign from Mississippi Drive.
Because County Road 39 is a County road, they might have some
objections to a garage being built that close to the road.
Mr. Wayne Fingaloon, County Engineer, has boon sent a letter
regarding this public hearing and will be present at the Planning
Commission meeting to voice his concerns to this variance request.
If you are familiar with the Stokos' property, you will note
that they have plenty of apace to build a garage to the rear
of their property. The garage they aro proposing is a detached
garage, and I see no problem in locating it to the rear of their
house. They currently park their vehiclea to the roar of their
property, so I sea no problem in building the garage and continuing
to park their vehicloo to the roar of their property. The only
drawback to building a garage to the rear of their property
would be the site linos would be reduced for view of the Mississippi
River.
D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance requoat to allow a garage to be built
within the front ootback requirement.
2. Deny the variance request to allow a garage to be built
within the front ootback requirement.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff rocommando denial of the variance roquoot. City staff
citoo thu olio linco ac the major r0000n for denial of the variance.
we coo no hardohip in building a garage to the rear of the property,
an he hao adequate room for one to the roar. We do, however,
coo come problems with a garage being to the front abutting
County Road 39. With the prop000d widening of County Road 39
-5-
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/9/85
in the very near future, we would see problems with the regrading
of the ditches and the right of way adjacent to East County
Road 39. These concerns will be addressed by Mr. Wayne Fingalson
at the Planning Commission meeting.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed location of the variance request; copy
of the proposed site plan; copy of the notice of public hearing,
August 31, 1982; copy of the Planning Commission minutes of
August 31, 1982.
-6-
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/9/85
7. Public Hearing - A Variance Reguest to Allow a Garage to be
Built Within the Side Setback Requirement - Applicant, Ralph
Mack. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Mack currently owns a house located at 114 Balboul Circle,
Block 2, Lot 7, Balboul Estates. As you will recall, this addition
was originally in the Township and was annexed into the City
of Monticello. Some building requirements were probably ignored
when the houses were built in Balboul Estates. The houses were
set on the center of the lots to allow the house to meet the
minimum front yard setback. However, they did not allow for
additional room on the west side of the house where a proposed
garage would be located. To build the garage parallel with
the house, Mr. Mack would have to reconstruct his driveway and
come into his garage at an angle. With the driveway that currently
exists, he would be able to drive directly into the garage as
he is proposing to build it with the northwest corner of the
garage protruding into the 10 -foot rear setback requirement.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow a garage to be built
within the sidoyard setback requirement.
2. Deny the variance request to allow a garage to be built
within the sideyard setback roquiroment.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommando approval of the varianco roquoot to allow a
garago to be built within tho 10 -foot oideyard setback requirement.
we recogni¢o the problem that the location of tho houoea on
the loto do not allow enough room for garages to be built.
We acknowledge the oversight and, therefore, rocommand approval
of tho variance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the prop000d location of tho variance roquoot; copy
of the site plan of the garago.
-7-