Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 07-08-1980AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 8, 1980 - 7:30 P. li. Members: Jim Ridgeway, Dave Bauer, John Bondhus, Dick Martie, Ed Schaffer, Loren Klein (ex-offici ). 1. Review of Minutes - June 10, 1980. Q( 2. Public Hearing on a Sign Ordinance Amendment. 3. Public Hearing Regarding an Ordinance Amendment about Home Occupations. 4. Public Hearing on a Sub -division Variance Request for Ken Larsen. 5. Sub -division Request for John Sandberg. 6. Simple Sub -division Request for the First Baptist Church of Monticello 7. Public Hearing for a Conditional Use for the First Baptist Church of Monticello. 8. Simple Sub -division Request by Gary Corrow. 9. Simple Sub -division Request for St. Peter's Lutheran Church. 10. Simple Sub -division Request for the Assembly of God Church. 11. Reminder of a Special Planning Commission Meeting to be held at 5:00 P. M. on the 14th of July, 1980. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 10, 1980 - 7:30 P. M. Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Dick Martie, Ed Schaffer, John Bondhus. Loren Klein (ex -officio) Members Absent: Dave Bauer. 1. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Martie and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the May 20, 1980 Regular Meeting. 2. Public Hearinq - Monticello Siqn Ordinance. Mr. Bob Ryan, of Howard Dahlgren Associates, explained a letter from John Uban, dated May 29, 1980, regarding sign ordinance amendments allowing existing billboards to remain as a non -conforming use. Mr. Ryan explained a possible ordinance amendment which could be added to our present ordinance in Section 10-3-9 which would deal with permitted and prohibited signs, and be added as subsections thereto. Also, a draft copy of an agreement form which could be used between the City of Monticello and the property and advertising sign owners was discussed. This form could give the City a stronger legal standing in the event that a property or sign owner did not want to remove the sign when the property was developed with another principal use. It was suggested that the forms be sent to the owners by certified mail with return receipt signatures kept on file at City Hall. In that way, the City could have a document that the property owners received the form. Basically, the discussion was centered around the existing billboard signs, that is, signs of over 200 square feet, being allowed to remain as they are in their present condition as the principal use of the property. It was further discussed that at the time that the property upon which the signs are located is further developed and another principal use or building is developed on that property, that at that time the existing sign would have to be removed. An ordinance amendment which stated the above could help prevent non -conforming billboards from being perpetuated indefinitely. On a motion by John Bondhus, seconded by Dick Martie, all voted in favor to suggest the following sign ordinance amendment be added to ordinance Section 10-3-9: Planning Commission - 6/10/80 10-3-9: SIGNS B. Permitted and Prohibited Signs: 2. Prohibited Signs: (g). Advertising Signs, in excess of 200 sq. ft., except that those signs which were in place on or before June 23, 1980 and which are the principal use of the lot of record as of the above date, and which have an agreement on file with the City on or before July 23, 1980, in the form so desig- nated by the City Administrator which is signed by the property owner and the advertising sign owner and notarized, may continue as a non -conforming use until such time as the lot of record above is developed, in which case, the non- conforming advertising sign must be removed within 60 days after written notice from the Building Official. (Excep- tions - bus benches or signs which advertise non-profit organizations). The Planning Commission also voted to recommend that it be considered that this be recorded as a deed restriction on those respective parcels of property, if it is possible to do that. The Planning Commission decided that at this meeting they would deal only with billboards or, that is, signs of over 200 sq. ft., and that signs that do not conform to the present ordinance would be dealt with after gathering more Information at the next regular Planning Commission meeting, and that, if necessary, they would be willing to hold a special meeting to discuss further information. 3. Public Hearing - Proposed Ordinance Amendment to Allow a Day Care facility within an R-2 zone as a conditional use. The present Monticello Zoning Ordinance allows a day care home with up to five children as a permitted use in an R-1 zone, and allows the same as a permitted use in an R-3 zone, with a day care facility with more than five children as a conditional use in an R-3 zone. It was a staff recommendation that the Planning Commission and Council consider amending the present ordinance to allowa day care facility unit with more than five children in an R-2 zone as a conditional use, provided that it meets all the conditional use criteria as are required in an R-3 zone, as is discussed in Section 10-8-4-0. if this ordinance amendment were passed. it would then allow the ABC Day Care Center to reestablish themselves from the Oakwood School to the Baptist Church Building. At a recent Planning Commission meeting, it was recommended to the City Coune it that the ABC Day Care Center be allowedto move their facility into the old Baptist Church building, which is zoned R-2, and that request was approved by the City Council as it was recommended to them. - 2 - Planning Commission - 6/10/80 Hearing no objections, on a notion by Dick Martie and seconded by Ed Schaffer, all voted in favor to recommend a zoning ordinance amendment to allow a Day Care Center with more than five children as a conditional use in an R-2 zone. 4. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment to Allow Duplexes in an R-2 Zone to be Owned by Two Separate Individuals. Upon a staff request, John Uban of Howard Dahlgren Associates, wrote a memorandum to Gary liieber, which outlined how our Planner feels that the present ordinance could be interpreted to allow a duplex in an R-2 Zone which could be owned by two individual owners. Mr. Uban stated in his letter "we feel that the zoning ordinance as written should allow the City to approve the division of lots containing multiple unit structures, in order that the individual housing units could be sold. The total structure containing the units would then be subject to the zoning ordinance requirements. In effect then, the units would be built to and meet at one or more lot lines without the typical setbacks." Mr. Uban went on to state that if the City desires to more clearly address the issue of dividing lots of multiple unit buildings, that possibly the City should consider a suggested new language be added into a new provision Subsection E to Section 10-3-3. On a motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded by John Bondhus, all voted in favor to recommend a new subsection E. which states the following: Lots of multiple housing unit structures may be divided for the purpose of condominium ownership provided that the principal structure containing the housing units shall meet the setback distances of the applicable zoning district, 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 individual or joint ownership. 5. Public Hearinn - Subdivision, Rezoning and Conditional Use Requests - Quintin Lanners. At the beginning of the meeting, Mr. Quintin Lanners withdrew his request for a conditional use so this item dealt only with subdivision and rezoning. - 3 - Planning Commission - 6/10/80 This public hearing item dealt with two topics - Item A - a subdivision y request; and Item B - rezoning requests. Mr. Quintin Lanners is proposing to subdivide the present Don Christopher property, located directly west of Balboul Estates, into nine lots. Of these nine lots, his request is to rezone Lot i to R-3 and Lots 2 thru 9 to R-2. His request for rezoning lots 2 thru 9 would be based on his desir a to build duplexes on each of the lots which would be individually owned by the people who reside within the unit, rather than to have them owned by one owner and have rental units. These duplex units would be the same as those which were recommended for approval at the last Planning Comm ssion meeting for another lot owned by Mr. Lanners in another area of Monticello, and also would be done at the recommendation of our City Planner. The square footage of Lots 2 thru 9 range in size from 10,175 square feet, which meets the minimum lot size required in an R-2 zone, to 29,100 square feet. which is approximately three times the size of the minimum lot size allowed in an R-2 zone. At the time of the meeting, a comment back from Howard Dahlgren Associates was to recommend this subdivision and rezoning request because of the reasonable transition. Mr. John Badalich, of OSM, at the time of the meeting had not submitted a convnent, however, his comments should be forthcoming before the next City Council meeting. On a motion by Ed Schaffer and a second by John Bondhus, it was unanimously approved to recommend approval of the subdivision request and to recommend approval of the rezoning requests, as requested. 6. Review of the Home Occupations Ordinance. At a previous Planning Commission Fleeting, the Planning Commission dis- cussed the possibility of changing the definition of a home occupation to include more items, and also to make all home occupations conditional uses rather than some be conditional uses and others be permitted uses. On a motion by Dick Flartie and second by John Bondhus, all voted in favor to advertise for a public hearing at which it would be discussed to change the hone occupations ordinance to include all the uses as conditional uses. 7. Discussion of Lawful, Non-Confominq Uses within Certain Zoning Districts. Recently, there have been several complaints come in to City Hall about people who were grandfathered in with their businesses at the time the zont ng was made to the entire City. One of those items which is receiving a lot of attention at this time is trucking firms who have parking spaces at their residences. Apparently, those people who own trucks which are larger than allowed in residential zones are parking those vehicles in the residential zones and it is causing concern to the surrounding and abutting neighbors . After considerable discussion among the Planning ConuJssion 4 - I Planning Commission - 6/10/80 members, it was unanimously decided to recommend better law enforcement in those areas. 8. Discussion of a Letter from the Department of Interior on the Monticello island. Approximately four years ago, Howard Dahlgren Associates sent a letter to the Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, regarding a question about the use of Monticello Island, which is located just below the Highway 25 Bridge. At this time, the Bureau of Land Management is in the process of determining land use planning, and would like to know if the City has any plans for using the island. At one time it was discussed that possibly a small bridge could be built from Bridge Park to the island, and it could be used as a park annex, or a wilderness addition to the existing bridge park. Orr a motion by Ed Schaffer and seconded by Dick Martie, a unanimous decision was voted to recommend no development of the island - to leave it as it is. 9. A Variance Request for a Business Development to Not Have Landscaping and Parkinq Requirements Met. Bob Peterson, of Scott's, inc. of Grand Forks, N.D., was present to make a request that he be able to continue to operate his brokerage firm from behind the Monticello Ford building, yet still on the Monticello Ford property, with a few variances that would be necessary. They are as follows: A. A second principal use on a particular lot. B. No landscaping requirements. C. No hardsurfacing requirements. His request was based on the operation of his business only being from July 28 through October 20; however, those dates can vary from 10 days either way. At the present time, they feel they cannot Justify d per- manent building of their own because of the limited time spent in Monticello during that short shipping season. They feel that the facility they now have is able to handle their needs, which are: A. Easy access on and off the highway. B. Room for one to eight semi trucks at any one time, which stay from 15 minutes to one hour, or possibly longer. Planning Commnission - 6/10/80 In Mr. Peterson's request, he is asking that they be allowed a permanent variance from those three items which were listed. On a motion by Dick Martie and seconded by Ed Schaffer, it was unanimously approved to recommend that the three variance requests from Scott's be granted on a one year basis with notation be made that they be able to come in at the end of each one year period and request renewal of those variances. 10. A Variance Request for a Setback for a Pylon Sion - Jim Maus. Jim Maus was present at the Planning Commission meeting and requested that he be allowed to put new pylon sign on the present Stor-A-Way property and be allowed to erect that sign as close as possible to the property line. Montice llo's present ordinance requires that Pylon signs use the same setbacks as a building unless they are granted a variance to do so. In the past, all pylon sign setback requests have been granted as requested, and that in mind, on a motion by Ed Schaffer and second by John Bond hus, it was a unanimous vote to recommend granting a variance to allow the pylon sign to be erected as close as possible to the property line on the east side of the Stor-A-May property without any overhang into the right-of-way. Meeting Adjourned. Loren 0. kle{n „ Zoning Administrator LDK/ns 14, HOWARD DAHLOREN ASSOCIATES ".7.1". CONSULTING PLANNERS ONE GPOVELANO TERRACE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 66403 era • v. • seas 14EMORANDUM DATE: 20 June 1980 TO: Monticello Planning Commission RE: Sign Ordinance Amendments to Clarify Informational/Directional Sign Definition, Advertising Signs of 200 Square Feet or Loss, and Time Limit for Temporary Permits Based on the 10 June 1980 meeting and subsequent discussions with City Staff, we have prepared amendments to the Sign Ordinance for your consideration. One amendment clarifies that information/directional signs are on -promise signs. The Ordinance allows information/ directional signs up to a maximum of ton (10) square feet. Informational/ directional signs are meant to allow for signs such as those directing motorists through parking lots, identifying entrances, and similar signs. This amendment is to the definition of informational/directional signs contained in Section 10-2-2. Another amendment deals with advertising signs of 200 square feet or less in area. Discussion of these signs was deferred from the 10 June meeting. The proposed amendment prohibits these signs, but allows those existing signs to remain. The amendment would be placed in Section 10-1-9 (8) 2 of the Ordinance immediately proceeding the recommended revision to advertising signs in excess of 200 square feet which was discussed at the last meeting. The possibility of phasing out these advertising signs of 20.E square foot or leas in a manner oimilar to billboards was also considered. The major diffiCUILy in applying similar removal conditions in that some of those existing advertising signs are located on dovoloped property. In light of the fact that there are relatively few of theno signs in town, that the existing signs are not overly obtrusive, and that most of these signs were in place before the City had a Siqn Ordinance, it seems reasonable to grandfather them in as a non -conforming oign. The other amendment shown following deals with insuring temporary pormitu for search lights, banners, pennants, and similar dovicon. The Ordinanco as presently written contains no time limit for the issuance of a temporary permit. Theoretically, under the present Ordinance, a temporary permit could be issued for an extended time period which could 2 MEMORANDUM 20 June 1980 RE: Amendments to Sign Ordinance Page Two in fact, allow these temporary uses to become permanent signs. The proposed amendment places a ten (10) day time limitation on such permits with a 180 day period between consecutive issuances of permits to a particular property owner. The proposed amendment would allow the property owner to have these special temporary signs occassionally during extraordinary circumstances such as a grand opening or big sale. This amendment is contained in -Section 10-3-9 (C) 4. The applicable sections of the Sign Ordinance are shown following with the amendments underlined. SECTION 10-2-2 INFORMATI0NAL/DIRECTIONAL SIGN: Any on -remise sign giving information tr employees, visitors, or delivery vehicles but containing no advertising. May include name of business but must predominantly reprosent a directional or information message. SECTION 10-3-9 (R) PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED SIGNS: 2. Prohibited Signst g. Advertising oigns of two hundred (200) rquare feet or less in area, except that those signn which were in placo on or before may continue an a non- conforminq use. (The provisions dealiny with advertising signs in excena of two hundred (200) square fent could be added here or an anothor proviuion (h) following with subsequent provioionu rcletturv�d.) (C) GENERAL PROVISIONS. 4. Tho temporary uco of nearch lightn, ha nnerU, pennants, and uimilar dovicoo shall require a pormit. The �,nrmit nhall bn inr.ued for a maximum period oC ten (10) dnvn with n minimum period of one hundred MEMORANDUM 20 June 1980 v RE: Amendments to Sign Ordinance Page Three eiqhty (180) days between consecutive issuance of such permits for any property. The permit shall be prominently displayed during the period of validity. Use of portable signs shall be restricted to information only and may not exceed four (4) square feet (no advertising). 2 \ � ►1�RT waw. = •.w '\ aI � � I '!r • dw 7 J � A * � CA - 7• I ..... ........ • 1 J•6, X90 lo, C a / � ,sJ.wa.r,.a �..aa � ✓// 1 Twt rrr war.. ♦ ♦ ~ �] r L.. r,. V r. 1 •u.0 .. M r aw.. .. •r. •444w w •....,p N. a. w 464. Te.. • . . r .. �. •.Mn M�YT •�L...w I L ss 's SQA A SUBDIVISION of LOT 3 BLOCK 1, SANDBERG - � L /07 Y L SUBDIVISION of LOT 3 BLOCK 1, SANDBERG - 4 --N84'SSW 1x13 d�-- -- lk I " •r J � Q t u r 0 ti, �4y�J)Jvl= ore J N N � HN 00 i C- ft,, r u3 90 lk I J � Q t u r �4y�J)Jvl= J /a HN 00 i C- lk I I V, o - r A�YER-AiO�iLN11,NMC N+R WE iss-ops 035CO91_ 681-0-1 E'/L L,,T 9- kk- ?s L&,ai- lU4 & Planning Commission - 1/8/80 AGENDA SUPPLEMENT .^ 1. Review of the Minutes. Review and approve the minutes from the June 10, 1980 meeting. V\2. Public Hearinq on a Siq n Ordinance Amendment. At the June 10 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission members chose to act only on that portion of the sign ordinance which dealt with billboard si gns; that is signs of 200 or more square feet. It was the consensus of the members of the Planning Commission at that meeting to set another public hearing to deal with other non -conforming signs; that is directional signs that are too large, more signs than allowed, etc., at another public hearing. On June 17 the city staff met with Bob Ryan, of Howard Dahlgren Assoc., and discussed informational and directional signs, other prohibited signs of 199 square feet or less, and the temporary use of search lights, banners, pennants and other similar devices. As a result of that meeting, Bob Ryan of Howard Dahlgren Assoc., sent a memorandum dated June 20, 1980, to the Planning Commission members outlining the basic concerns of the items which were discussed at the meeting with the staff. They were adding the words: "on premise" to the informational and directional signs definition; and adding a section to prohibited signs which says that signs of 199 square feet or less which were in place on or before a date to be designated may continue as a non -conforming use, and that also under general provisions we had a sentence to say that temporary use of search lights and banners, etc. shall be done by permit which is issued for a maximum period of 10 days with a minimum period of 180 days between consecutive issuance of such permits for any property. POSSiCLE ACTION: Consideration of recommending an ordinance amendment to the City Council which deals with the definition of informational and directional signs, a section which deals with prohibited signs of 199 square feet or an area less and a sentence to the general provisions of the sign ordinance which requires that permits be issued only for certain number of days and only so often within a specific period of time. REFERENCES: An enclosed copy of a memorandum from Howard Dahlgren Assoc. dated June 20, 1980. 3. Public Hearinq Renardinn an Ordinance Amendment About Home Occupations. At the June 10 regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission, it was the consensus of the members to hold a public hearing at the July 8 regular meeting , at which time an ordinance amendment making all home occupations a conditional use could be discussed. �1� Planning Commission - 1/8/80 The reason for this request was that there are certain items which are allowed at present as home occupations and certain others that are not v allowed as home occupations. By making all home occupations conditional uses it would thus give the city better control over home occupations in the various residential zones. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of recommending an ordinance amendment which would make all home occupations conditional uses. 4. Public Hearing on a Sub -division Variance Request for Ken Larsen. At the May 20, 1980 Planning Commission meeting, Ken Larsen who owns the east 51 feet of Lot 6 and all of Lots 7 b 8 of Block 32, Lower Monticello, made a request for a simple sub -division of that property. His proposal was to divide those 3 lots which run in a north -south direction into 2 lots which run in an east -west direction. That property contains app- roximately 30,000 square feet, and sub -divided into 2 lots which was recommended by the Planning Commission and granted by the Council, created 2 lots approximately 81� feet wide and 183 feet deep. Each contain over 15,000 square feet which does exceed the 10,000 square foot requirement for a lot in an R-2 zone by I� times. At that time, the Planning Commission recommended to the Council that this simple sub -division request be granted provided that a certificate of survey were submitted and no variances would be required in allowing the new property line change; however, since that time Mr. Larsen has made a request to allow the southerly created lot to be only 75 feet in front footage width which is 5 feet less than the 80 feet presently re- quired by Monticello ordinance. Thus two new lots would be created; one which is 13,500 square feet and the other which would be 16,500 square feet. Although the new 75 foot width lot would he more square feet than required by the ordinance, it would be 5 feet less in the front footage width that would be required, thus a variance is necessary. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending this simple sub -division and variance request. REFERENCES: Enclosed copies of the certificates of survey showing the newly created property line as requested. APPLICANT: Ken Larsen. 5. Sub -division Request for John Sandberg. John Sandberg, who owns Lots 3 and 4 in Sandberg's Riverside Addition, is proposing to further sub -divide those two lots into three lots. in order that this might be done it is necessary according to Monticello ordinance to submit a preliminary plat for approval and then re -submit a final plat for approval. However, in order to cut out some of the paper work necessary at the time he makes this sub -division request, it is also possible that he can request a variance from all of the sub -division requirements and that he be allowed only to submit a proposed preliminary plat and final plat showing whet new lots would be created and the new easements which would be created. - 2 - Planning Commission - 7/8/80 Also, required would be a new sub -division name, a new block number and the new lots to be newly named. Example: this could be called 'v Sandberg's Riverside Second Addition, Block 1, Lots 1,2 and 3. The three proposed new lots would exceed the requirements for square footage that the present ordinance requires. It would only be necessary that he submit a plat plan showing the sizes, etc. of the new lots and all the easements which would be recorded, such as the drainage easements between the lots, etc. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending or denying this sub -division request and the variances to be allowed not to submit all the pre- liminary and final plat data. REFERENCES: A certificate of survey showing the three newly created lots. APPLICANT: John Sandberg. 6. Simple Sub -division Request for the First Baptist Church of Monticello. The First Baptist Church of Monticello is proposing to build a new church. in doing so, it is their intention to sub -divide the present property which is located on West Broadway into two lots. One lot would be large enough to accommodate the existing church building without any variance requests, and the second lot would be large enough to accommodate their proposed new church facility if the conditional use in the next item is granted. if this simple sub -division request is granted the lot created would exceed several times the minimum size lot required in that R-2 zone which is 10,000 square feet. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this simple sub -division request. REFERENCES: Enclosed certificate of survey showing the two newly created lots. APPLICANT: First Baptist Church of Monticello. 7. Public Hearing for a Conditional Use for the First Baptist Church of Monticello. The First Baptist Church of Monticello has made an application for a conditional use to develop a church facility on their property on West Broadway. if the previous item was recommended for approval then the newly created easterly lot is the site on which the proposed church would be built. That lot is large enough in site to accomodate both the proposed church and parking facilities and in addition large enough to accommodate a future addition to the church and future addition to the parking lot. One item which will require a variance is their request to be allowed not to develop the curbing along the south side of their parking lot so that in a few years when the new church addition is built and the parking lot expanded it will not be necessary to destroy an already in-place curb in order to expand that parking lot. - 3 - Planning Commission - 7/8/80 The proposed new church would have all the parking which would be required for the proposed new facility on the parking lot and no v number of parking spaces variances would be required. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this conditional use request. REFERENCES: Enclosed plat plan showing the proposed development of church and parking lot. APPLICANT: First Baptist Church of Monticello. 8. Simple Sub -division Request by Gary Corrow. Gary Corrow, who owns the property just to the east between the Glass Hut and Tom Thumh, which abuts old Highway 25, is making a proposal to sub -divide his parcel of property into two lots. The two newly created lots would require no variances. No park dedication fee would be required since the park dedication was paid on this property in a previous sub -division. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this simple sub -division request. REFERENCES: A copy of the certificate of survey showing this parcel property. APPLICANT: Gary Corrow. 9. Simple Sub -division Request for St. Peter's Lutheran Church. St. Peter's Lutheran church, who own Lots2,3,4 and 5. Block 14, Lower Monticello, is proposing to sub -divide Lot 5 and west half of Lot 4, off from the total parcel of property. This request is so that an individual lot for the parsonage can be created. The present parsonage and garage set on the west 1; of Lot 4 and all of Lot 5. This request is made in order that they might build a new parsonage on the south half of this newly created lot and then later move the old parsonage and garage off to another location. At this point it has not been determined where the old house might be moved to, but hopefully that decision can be made soon. Also, as part of this simple sub -division request, St. Peter's Lutheran church is requesting that they be allowed to build the new parsonage prior to moving the old one off from the property to that the pastor has a home in which to live while the new parsonage is being built. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this simple sub -division request and a request that the development of the new church be allowed to take place prior to the removal of the old parsonage building. REFERENCES: An enclosed certificate of survey showing the proposed new 1_6t and sting house and garage. APPLICANT: St. Peter's Lutheran Church. 4 Planning Commission - 7/8/80 v 10. Simple Sub -division Request for the Assembly of God Church. The Assembly of God church, who own the east > of Lot 9 and all of Lot 10 on Block 35, Lower Monticello, are proposing to divide that lot of 16,335 square feet into two lots. One of 1,800 square feet and one of 14,335 square feet. The lot of 14,335 square feet is where the existing home sets and that lot could be created without any re- quired variances. The lot of 1,800 square feet would be retained by the Assembly of God church in order that they might be able to continue to facilitate off street parking on their present remaining parcel which is contiguous to this 24 by 75 foot sub -division they are requesting. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of recommending approval or denial of the simple sub -division request contingent upon a certificate of survey showing that no variances would be required. REFERENCES: Enclosed drawing showing the lots and proposed sub -division. APPLICANT: Assembly of God Church. 11. Reminder of a Special Planning Commission meeting to be held at 5:00 P. M. on the 14th of July, 1980. This request comes in light of a developer's having come into Monticello City Hall this past winter and obtaining information to develop a parcel 14- of land. At the time that he came in for that information the Planning Commission was still meeting on the 3rd Tuesday of the month, and since that time has changed their meeting date. However, the developer was unaware of that change in meeting dates and thus came in in the past few days feeling that he had plenty of time in order that the request for public hearings could be made in adequate time. However, since the change in the meeting dates this is now impossible and thus to ac- commodate his development schedule in accordance with the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's required schedule he must request this special meeting. The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency is the lendor involved in this project. This is an item which you may wish to discuss. SM Planning Cormnission Agenda July 8, 1980 Meeting r ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS The following are extra items for the Planning Commission Agenda. These are being brought to tonight's meeting to avoid having to wait six weeks in order to have a public hearing at the Council level. These items will be able to be considered at the July 26, 1980 Council meeting i; the Planning Commission chooses to make a recommendation on them at tonight's meeting. 1. Udene Slinde - Sideyard Setback Variance for Garaqe. Udene Slinde would like to build a double garage attached to his home on Lot 3, Block 3, Anders Wilhelm Estates. That Lot is somewhat of a parallelogram, and at the time the house was built, the home was built 15' away from the south property line, leaving 31c' between the house and the north property line. Since the time of its construction, it has been purchased by a new owner who would like to have a double garage attached on the north side of the south. However, in order to build that garage, a 5' Sideyard variance is necessary because of the present relationship between the house and the existing property lines. Although, since the time of this application, there has not been enough time to publish the variance public hearing notice in the paper, the Planning Commission could choose to make a recomme.dation to apdrove or deny this variance request hase,l upon information that would be obtained at the public hearing at the Council level on July 28, 1980. An atter.;pt was made to contact the abutting owners to find out if they had any objection to this proposal; however, it wasn't possible to contact them as of this time. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this variance request. REFERENCES: An enclosed plat plan. APPLICANT: Udene Slinde 2. Quintin Lanners_:_ Sideyard Setback Variance for Garane_ Quintin Lanners, who owns the property in Kampa Estates, hds made a request to build a garage within 5' of the property line on Lot 3, Block 1, At the time the basemect was dug for this dwelling, a mistake was made in the loca- tion of the stales which were set for the corners of the basement escavation and consequently, the basement was dug 1' too far west and thus it is necessary to have a variance of 5' in order that a 22' garage can be attached to this house at the point in which garage attachment was desiqned. Additional Planning Comniission Items This mistake was not discovered until recently when the proposed garage footings were about to be dug. The reason it was not discovered until recently is that the basement was dug this past winter and the garage was left to be built after the ground had thawed. Originally, it was intended that that garage would be 24' wide; however, because of the mistake in the setback, the owner has decided that if a 5' variance were granted, that he could get by with building only a 22' garage. Because Mr. Lanners is the owner of the abutting lot, he can build the garage on the abutting lot far enough away from the proposed garage with 5' setback, that it shouldn't make any rea 1 significant difference as far as distence between the buildings. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this variance request. REFERENCES: Enclosed plat plan. APPLICANT: Quintin Lanners.