Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11-12-1985V AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION November 12, 1985 - 6:30 P.M. Members: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Richard Carlson, Richard Martie, and Ed Schaffer. 6:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order. 6:32 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held October 8, 1985. 6:34 p.m. 3. Tabled Request Continued - A Conditional Use Request to Allow a Duplex Addition to be Built onto Existing House - Applicant, Ken Larson. 6:54 p.m. 4. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow No Curbing and No Hard Surfacing in Certain Areas of a Parking Lot - Applicant, Glass Hut. 7:04 p.m. 5. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow Off-Strcat Parking in the 5 -foot Setback Requirement of a Parking Lot - Applicant, Raindance Partnership. 7:20 p.m. 6. Public Hearing - A Conditional Use Request to Allow Open and Outdoor Storage and Rental Equipment in a B-3 (Highway Business) Zone - Applicant, Suburban Gas. 7:30 p.m. 7. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow Placement of a Sign in the Railroad Right of Way - Applicant, John Sandberg. 7:40 p.m. B. Public Hearing - A Rezoning Request to Rezone from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to R-2 (Single and Two Family Reoidential), and R-2 (Single and Two Family Reoidontial) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential). A Request to Roplat Exloting R-1 and R-2 Lota into R-3 Late - Applicant, John Sandberg. 8:10 p.m. 9. Planning Commiooion Review of the Prop000d Zoning Amendment to the City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Additional Information Items 8:25 p.m. 1. Sat the next tentative data for the Monticello Planning Comminolon Mooting for Docambor 3, 1985, 7:30 p.m. 8:27 p.m. 2. Adjournment. NOTE: The mooting io being hold at 6:30 p.m. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/12/85 3. Tabled Request Continued - A Conditional Use Request to Allow a Duplex Addition to be Built onto Existing House - Applicant, Ken Larson. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Ken Larson is back before you with two site plans showing 1) his carpet business shop, and 2) the existing attached garage, the garage being used for off-street parking spaces for his duplex addition and his existing house. This plan will show six off-street parking spaces and three garage spaces. The existing house requires two parking spaces of which neither has to be anclused. The proposed duplex addition requires two spaces per unit of which one has to be enclosed. The existing carpet business shop requires one space per 200 sq. ft., which will need three off-street parking spaces. The site plan shows two of them immediately east of the existing shop. The other site plan enclosed shows his existing house with the proposed duplex addition. Also shown is his existing shop with two stalls in the garage used for storage area for his carpet business, one stall being used for carpet storage. The number of off-street parking spaces needed to accommodate this proposed site plan aro two open spaces for the existing house, four spaces for the proposed duplex addition of which one space shall be enclosed. The carpet storage portion and the shop portion as shown on the site plan would need six open parking spaces, with the garage as shown accommodating two off-street enclosed spaces. In essence, with either site plan as presented, Mr. Larson does meat the minimum requirements of the ordinance in rogards to building setbacks, parking spaces required, parking sotbacko, and parking dimensions. If there is to be a parking area as shown in the rear of the garage, we should have Game typo of screening fence or some type of troo planting screening provided. We ouggoot that appruximatoly 70 lineal foot of screening, whether it be opaque troo plantings or a combination of tree plantings and screening fence, be installed. This 70 foot would be on the Gide lot property lino between the existing garage and the adjoining property owner. If we were looking at troco for p000iblo screening, they should be of a variety for opaqueness. Some additional troo or ahrubbory plantings should be planted in front of the shop building facing Third Street. 0. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: I. Approve the conditional uoo roquoot to allow a duplex addition to be built onto an existing house. 2. Deny the conditional uoo request to allow a duplex addition to be built onto an existing house. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/12/85 3. Approve the conditional use request to allow a duplex addition to be built onto an existing house with the following conditions: a. The parking lot be screened on the south and west sides of the parking lot with an opaque planting of trees or a solid screening fence or a combination of both. b. Some type of tree planting or shrub planting be put in front of the shop area of the garage which faces toward Third Street. c. Curbing be installed from the existing curb in the street up to the property line. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this conditional use request to allow a 2 -story duplex addition to be built onto Mr. Larson's existing house. We would like to add the following conditions if there is a parking lot to the rear of the existing garage. a. The west and south ends of the parking lot be screened with an opaque planting of trees and/or a solid screening fence. b. A small planting of trees or shrubs be put in the front area of the shop which faces toward Third Street. c. Concrete curbing be installed from the existing curbing up to the property line. �— D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed conditional use request; Copy of the two site plans depicting proposed duplex addition onto existing house. -2- Planning Commission Agenda - 11/12/85 4. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow No Curbing and No Hard Surfacing in Certain Areas of a Parking Lot - Applicant V Glass Hut. (G.A. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Rick Longley, owner of Glass Hut, is proposing to construct a cold storage warehouse building on the adjoining lot immediately east of his existing Glass Hut building. if allowed to construct this warehouse, Mr. Longley would like a variance from the hard surfaced parking requirement and the curbing requirement for the parking and driveway areas. As noted in the site plan, the proposed location of the new building would be directly in back of the Glass Hut building with an overhead door and a walk door on the end facing the rear of the Glass Hut building. The parking for the proposed new building would be created in the area between the existing building and the newly constructed building. Mr. Longley's request is to not put any blacktop surface down any further east than the rear most portion of the proposed new building. Also, he would like a variance on the curbing requirements for the new blacktop which he put down between the property line and the proposed rear of the new building. If this existing building site and the proposed new building site becomo developed to another type of use of the existing building and/or of the proposed new building, at that time the Planning Commission could instruct the owner to eat up a time table for the installation of hard surfacing and curbing requirements of the two entire parcels over a maximum period of 3 years. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the variance request to allow no cursing and no hard surfacing in certain areas of a parking lot. 2. Deny the variance request to allow no curbing and no hard surfacing in certain areas of a parking lot. 3. Approve the variance roquout to allow no curbing and no hard surfacing in certain areas of a parking lot with the following conditions: a. Should the now building built on the adjoining parcel become developed to another typo of use, at that time Planning Commission can have tho owner upgrade the existing Glass Hut parking lot and the adjoining parking lot to the inotallatfon of a hard surfaced parking lot with the curbing, with this being put in over an approxlmatu 3 year period of time. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff rocommonds approval of the variance request to allow no V -3- Planning Commission Agenda - 11/12/85 curbing and no hard surfacing in certain areae of a parking lot, with the condition that should a more expanded development occur on the adjoining lot with the proposed new building, the Planning Commission could have Mr. Longley install the hard surfacing of the parking lot and the curbing over an approximate 3 year period of time. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of location of proposed variance request; Copy of the site plan showing the proposed building on the adjoining property site. -4- Planning Commission Agenda - 11/12/85 V 5. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow Off -Street Parkinq in the 5 -foot Setback Requirement of a Parking Lot - Applicant, Raindance Partnership. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Raindance Corporation is proposing to construct a new Maus Foods building and approximately 8,000 sq. ft. of additional rental space on the vacant property currently owned by the City of Monticello and Wilbur Eck in the area between the railroad tracks and the cemetery. To conform to the minimum requirements of our parking lot section of the ordinance, Raindance Corporation is proposing to extend the parking lot on the south, east, and vest sides of their lot, right up to their lot line. Therefore, they will need a variance to allow parking within 5 feet of the property line. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the variance request to allow a parking lot t o be constructed within 5 feet of the property line. 2. Deny the variance request to allow a parking lot to bo constructed within 5 feet of the property lino. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION; Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a parking lot to extend right up to the property line. Thorn will bo a sufficient amount of green area botwoon the property lino and the oxioting road ourfaces on the oast, west, and south of this property. with the allowance of this variance, we will allow tha developers to moot the minimum requiromonto of our parking lot section of our ordinance. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the prop000d variance requeot; Copy of the site plan. -5- Planning Commission Agenda - 11/12/85 6. Public Hearing - A Conditional Use Request to Allow Open and Outdoor U Storage and Rental Equipment in a B-3 (Highway Business) Zone - Applicant, Suburban Gas. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Suburban Gas is proposing to rent U -Haul trucks and/or trailers at their facility. In looking at their facility, with certain adjustments made to accommodate the storage and parking of these U -Haul trucks and trailers, we don't see any problem with their conditional use request. We do, however, see the overall view or impact of the storage of these trucks and/or trailers in a highly visible area off of Highway 25. With the proposed new construction next year across the highway of the new Maus building complex, we see a high visible impact in this area. There is an enclosed area around the existing facility to accommodate the parking of those rental trucks and trailers. If these trucks and trailers were allowed to be rented as a conditional use, we would like to see the following conditions attached to this site. 1) An opaque screening of trees be installed around the outside perimeter of the existing fence. As shown in the enclosed site plan, you will see where the proposed tree planting should be placed. 2) Also, the current facility does have off-street parking but has no hard surfacing. At this time, we could insist on the hard surfacing of their parking lot for this facility. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the conditional use request to allow open and outdoor storage and rental equipment in a B-3 (Highway Business) Zone. 2. Deny the conditional use request to allow open and outdoor storage and rental equipment in a 0-3 (Highway Business) Zone. 3. Approve the conditional use request to allow open and outdoor storage and rental equipment in a 0-3 (Highway Business) Zone with the following conditions: a. An opaque screening be installed along the outside perimeter of the existing fence on the cant and north aides. b. The hard surfacing of the parking lot be installed at this time. C. The entire area for the storage of this rental equipment be in the fenced area. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditlotal uoo request to allow open and outdoor storage and rental equipment in a D-3 (Highway Business) Zone. We would like to add the following conditions: -6- Planning Commission Agenda - 11/12/85 1. An opaque planting of trees along the east and north sides of the existing fence. 2. The hard surfacing of the parking lot be put in at this time. 3. All rental equipment be parked in the fenced portion of the existing site. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the conditional use request; Copy of the site plan shoving the proposed U -Haul truck and trailer rental. -7- Planning Commission Agenda - 11/12/85 7. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow Placement of a Sign in the Railroad Right of Nay - Applicant, John Sandberg. (G. A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. John Sandberg, owner and developer of the Par west Addition, would like to allow the existing placement of his sign identifying the Par west Addition. The problem that exists is that the placement of thio sign is currently in the railroad right of way. We have had a case example where in the Meadow Oak development, the placements for their signs identifying their development were denied to be placed within the railroad right of way; and we insisted on them being moved, and they were moved back onto their own property. Having set this as a precedent, we do feel strongly in opposing the variance request to allow the continued placement of this sign in its location. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the variance request to allow placement of a sign in a railroad right of way. 2. Deny the variance request to allow placement of a sign in a railroad right of way. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the variance request to allow placement of a sign in the railroad right of way. The placement of this sign without the written permission of the Burlington Northern Railroad would be in complete diaragard of the actual proporty owner. Wo have not a precedent in another development in town and had them remove the identification of their additions back onto their own property. We fool that we ahould otay with thio came policy. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed varianco roquoat. -8- Planning Commission Agenda - 11/12/85 8. Public Hearing - A Rezoning Request to Rezone from R-1 (Single Family ROB idential) to R-2 (Single and two Family Residential), and R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential). A Request to Replat Existins R-1 and R-2 Lots into R-3 Lots - Applicant, John Sandberg. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Sandberg is proposing a rezoning and replatting of portions of lots in The Meadows Addition in the City of Monticello. In proposing his request, he is before you with a concept plan for his proposed rezoning and replotting of this addition. We have met with Mr. Sandberg and indicated, as you will note in the enclosed copies of the reviews from our Consulting Planner and Consulting Engineering Firm, that Mr. Sandberg address the six items noted on the review from the Consulting Planner. If Mr. Sandberg addressee these and brings it in before the City staff for review on Tuesday, we will have a recommendation for you at the meeting. However, if Mr. Sandberg does not address these items and it is not in for our review in time to give you a recommendation, we will ask that the Planning Commission not hear his request until the information needed is in its entirety. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the rezoning and replotting request. 2. Deny the rezoning and replotting request. 3. Recognize his rezoning and replotting requests but not hoar any further information until all the items have boon addressed in the review by our Consulting Planner and our Consulting Engineering Firm. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff rocommondo the hearing of Mr. Sandberg's request only if everything Lo brought in for our review on Tuesday; and at that time, if it doco moot our approval, we will ask you to hold the public homing on thio. The otaff recommendation at thio timu is not relovant, so we do not have oufficiont information to put togothor o recommendation. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposod rezoning and roplatting roquooto; Copy of the oito plan ohowing the rozoning and replotting roquooto of portiorno of The Moadova Addition. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/12/85 9. Planning Commission Review of the Proposed Zoning Amendment to the City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND. The City staff has completed and submitted for your review the entire Zoning Ordinance amendments to the text of the City Ordinance. We would like you to note that there are still some typographical errors in certain sections of this ordinance, and also you may have some input or comments on some of the revisions or existing text. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text as presented. 2. Do not approve the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text as presented. 3. Approve the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text as presented with possible revisions or corrections as you would recommend to the City Council. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the amendments to the ordinance as presented. We do acknowledge there aro some typographical errors in it, but they will be corrected before the proposed adoption by the City Council on November 25, 1985. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. -10-