Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 08-12-1980AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTiCELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 12, 1980 - 7:30 P.M. Members: Jim Ridgeway, Dave Bauer, John Bondhus, Dick Martie, Ed Schaffer, Loren Klein (ex -officio). 1. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of July 22, 1980. © — 2. Public Hearing - Consideration of Rezoning for Mel Wolters in The Meadows. 3. Consideration of a Variance for Off -Premise Directional Sign - St. Michael and All the Angels Church. e 4. Consideration of a Variance for Vera Diedrich. 5. Consideration of a Variance Request - Blocher Outdoor Advertising 1 Company. PM —6. Consideration of a Variance Request for Front Yard Setback - Robert Santoris. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Riverwood Estates (Floyd Kruse). Unfinished Business - New Business - The date of the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission for September is recommended to be set for September 2, 1980, rather than September 9, 1980, due to the State Primary Election which is scheduled for September 9th. M1 NUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 22, 1980 - 7:30 P. M. Members Present: Ed Schaffer, John Rondhus, Loren Klein (ex -officio) Members Absent: Dave Bauer, Dick Na rtie, Jim Ridgeway. NOTE: Due to the fact that this meeting did not have a quorum of voting members present, meeting was held to allow citizen input and members present went on record with their comments and recom- mendations to full Planning Commission - this meeting then was postponed until M' nday, July 28, 1980 at 5:00 P.M. at which time final action will be taken on all items. 1. Review of Minutes - June 10, 1980. It was the consensus of the members present that the minutes were correct as shown. 2. Public Hearing - Sign Ordinance Amendment. Wayne, from Wayne's Red Owl was present, and asked what would happen if the Mall were expanded, his question would be if the Mall wanted to expand even larger than they are today, would it be necessary for them to bring their signs into conformance before a building permit could be issued for the expansion of the mall since they are allowed only one pylon sign and have two? Bill Seefeldt, of Electro Industries, was present and stated that he felt that the location of a business and the type of road upon which it was located should dictate the size and height of a sign. It was pointed out to him that presently, the sign ordinance already does dictate the size and height of a sign based upon the type of road and the speed 1 imit allowed upon that road which abuts that businesses property. It was the consensus of the three members present that the non -conforming signs which were in place on or before August 25, 1975, that is the time upon which the present Ordinance was adopted, should be allowed to continue to exist as non -conforming signs, and that those signs which are non- conforming or prohibited and were placed after August 25, 1975, without variances or the required permission to do so, were removed. Planning Commission - 7/22/80 3. Public Hearing Regarding an Ordinance Amendment for Home Occupations. At the )one 10, 1980 regular Planning Commission meeting, it was the consensus of the members present to hold a public hearing at the next meeting at which time an ordinance amendment making all home occupations as a conditional use could be discussed. The reason for that request is that there are certain items which are allowed as present as home occupations, and certain others that are not allowed as home occupations. By making all of the home occupations conditional uses, it would thus give the City better control over home occupations in the various residential zones. After a discussion, it was the consensus of Loren Klein and Ed Schaffer that the home occupations ordinance should be amended to make all home occupations a conditional use, and it was the position of John Bondhus that the ordinance should be left as is. 4. Public Hearing on Subdivision Request for Kenneth Larsen. At the May 20, 1980 Planning Commission Meeting, Ken Larsen, who owns the East 51' of Lot 6 and all of Lots 7 6 8, Block 32, Lower Monticello, made a request for a simple subdivision of that property. His proposal was to divide those three lots which run in a north/south direction into two lots which run in an east/west direction. That property contains approximately 30,000 square feet, and subdivided into two lots, which was recommended by the Planning Commission and granted by the Council, created two lots of approximately 811,' wide by IRV deep. Each contained over 15,000 square feet, which does exceed the 10,000 ,quare foot requirement for a lot in an R-2 zone by one and one-half times. At that time, the Planning Commission recommended to the Council that this simple subdivision request be granted, provided that a certificate of survey be submitted and no variance 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 Win front footage width and is 5' less than the 80' presently required by Monticello ordinance. Thus, two new lots would be created - one which is 13,500 square feet, and the other which is 16,500 square feet. Although the new 75' lot width would be more square footage than required by the present ordinance, it would be 5' less in front footage width than that which is required, thus a variance is necessary. It was the consensus of the members present to approve the subdivision request. 2 - Planning Commission - 7/22/80 5. Subdivision Request - John Sandberg in Sandberg's Riverside Addition. John Sandberg, who owns Lots 3 6 4 in Sandberg's Riverside Addition, is proposing to further subdivide 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 resubmit for a final plat approval. However, in order to cut out some of the paperwork necessary, at the time he makes his subdivision request, it is also possible that he can request a variance from all the subdivision requirements and that he be allowed only to submit a proposed preliminary plat and final plat showing what new lots would be created and what new easements would be created. Also required would be a new subdivision name, a new block number and the new lots to be newly names. Example - this subdivision could be called - Sandberg's Riverside Second Addition - Block 1 - Lots 1, 2 R 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 plan showing the sizes , etc., of the new lots and all the easements which would be recorded such as drainage easements between the lots, etc. Ron White was present at the meeting to oppose this subdivision request. He had a concern over the size and setback requirements; however, it was determined that a house of approximately 29' x 80' could be built on the smallest of the three lots. Mr. Mel Wolters was present and stated that he was lea to believe at the time he purchased his lot along Sandberg Circle, that the lots would never be further subdivided and that would then keep someone from building a smaller home in that area. It was the consensus of Ed Schaffer and Loren Klein to approve the sub- division request. It was the consensus of John Bondhus to oppose the subdivision request because he felt that the owners were misled or deceived at the time that they purchased their present lots. 6. Simple Subdivision Reouest - 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 subdivide 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 request, and the second lot would he large enough to accommodate their proposed new Church facility if the conditional use in the next item was granted. . 3 - Planning Commission - 7/22/80 If this simple subdivision request is granted, the Lot created would exceed several times the minimum size lot required in an R-2 zone, which is 10,000 square feet. It was the consensus of Loren Klein, John Bondhus and Ed Schaffer to recommend approval of this subdivision request. 7. Pablic Hearing - Conditional Use for first Baptist Church. The First Baptist Church of Monticello made an application for a Conditional Use to develop a church facility on their property on Uest 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 size to accommodate both the proposed Church and parking facilities, and in addition to that, large enough to accommodate a future addition to the Church and the future addition's parking lot. One item which would require a variance is their request to be allowed not to develop 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 would not be necessary to destroy an already in place concrete curb in order to expand the parking lot. It was the consensus of the three Planning Commission members present to recommend this item for approval. H. Simple Subdivision Request - Gary Corrow. Gary Corrow, who owns the property just to the east of the Silver fox tiotel, which lies between the Glass Hut and Tom Thumb, which abuts old Highway 25, is making a proposal to subdivide his parcel of property into two lots. The 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 subdivision. it was the consensus of the members of the Planning Commission present to recommend this item for approval. 9. Simple Subdivision Request for St. Peter's Lutheran Church. St. Peter's Lutheran Church, who own Lots 2, 3, 4 S 5, Block. 15, Lower Monticello, is proposing to subdivide Lot 5 and the West ', of Lot 4, off fron 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 is exactly the same lot which the new parsonage facility will be built on. This request is made in order that they may build a new parsonage on the south half of the newly created lot and then later move the old parsonage and garage off to another locatiun. At this point, it has not been determined where the old house might be moved to, or if it might he turn down, but hopefully, that derision can be made soon. EK -W Planning Commission - 7/22190 Also, as part of the simple subdivision request, St. Peter's Lutheran Church is requesting that they might be allowed to build the new parsonage prior to moving the old one off from the property, so that the pastor has a home in which to live while the new parsonage is being built. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members present to recommend this subdivision request for approval. 10. Simple Subdivision Request - Assembly of God Church. The Assembly of God Church, who own the east one-half of Lot 9, and all of Lot 10, 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 on those lots, and would create without any variances required, a lot which is larger than the 10,000 square feet which is necessary for a lot in that zoning district. The lot of 1,800 square feet which 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' x 75' subdivision they are requesting. it was the consensus of the Planning Commission members present to recommend this subdivision request for approval. 11. Consideration of a Variance Request - Quintin Lanners. Quintin Lanners, who owns Lot 3, Block 1, Ka mpa Estates, is making a variance request to build a garage within 5' of the West property line of that lot. Mr. Lanners is also the owner of the abutting lot to which the variance is requested. Last winter, when the basement was dug, apparently the excavater made a mistake as to which stakes were to be used when the basement for the house was dug, and the basement was dug 5' too far west. Thus, this spring when Mr. Lanners prepared to dig footings for the new garage, it was discovered that in order to facilitate a 22' wide garage, it would be necessary for him to obtain a 5' variance in order to construct that garage. If the new garage is allowed to be built with a 5' variance, it would still leave 18y' between the garage which required a 5' variance and the garage which will be attached to the house to the immediate west. It was the consensus of the members of the Planning Commission present to recommend this item for approval. - 5 - Planning Commission 7/22/80 12. Consideration of a Subdivision Request - Reinert Homes. Tim Yogerst, a representative of Reinert Homes, was present at the meeting to request a simple subdivision of Lot 3, Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrace. This request is based on the need for more property to develop a Planned Unit Development on Lots 1 6 2, and a portion of Lot 3, Lauring Hillside. If the subdivision request is approved, it will create a lot on the east half of Lot 3, which will still be larger than that which is required in an R-3 zone, and the half of the Lot on the west could thus be attached to Lots 1 8 2 to become one lot which would be large enough fur the 36 -unit apartment complex, which is proposed for that property, which will be considered in the next agenda item. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members present to recommend this simple subdivision for approval. 13. Conditional Use Request for a Planned Unit Development within an R-3 Zone. Tim Yogerst, representative of Reinert Homes, Inc., was present to request a conditional use to develop a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in an R-3 Zone. That new development would include Lots 1, 2 G b '; of Lot 3, Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrace. Their proposal would be to develop a 36 -unit apartment complex on that property. This 36 -unit apartment complex would consist of five units - some three-bedroom units, some two-bedroom units and one handicapped unit. Some variances would be required under the present ordinance if this PUD were to be allowed. They are as follows: A. Only eight (8) of the required eighteen (18) garage units would be provided, and only seventy-five percent (757,) of the parking spaces required would be provided. B. A 4' setback between one building and the driveway on the property would be required. The requirement for less garages and less parking spaces was recommended for approval by unanimous consensus of the Planning Commission members present, based on a letter from Howard Dahlgren Associates regarding this proposal, which suggested that we consider not only allowing less off-street parking for this PUD, but we also consider amending our ordinance to lower the number of parking spaces required in a residential development. That also was the consensus of the Planning Commission members present for the garages and was based upon a letter dealing with the same from Howard Dahlgren Associates. The variance of 4' was also recommended for approval by consensus of the Planning Commission members present. - 6 - Planning Cummission - 1/22180 in light of the letter from Howard Dahlgren Associates previously v mentioned, it was also the consensus of the members present to recommend that we review the present parking and garage ordinance requirements. 14. Consideration of a Variance Request - Udene Slinde. Udene Slinde is proposing to build a garage onto his house on lot 5, Block 1, Anders Wilhelm Estates. In order that he might build the size and style of garage that he would like, he is asking for a 5' variance to be able to construct that garage. Under present ordinance, the setbacks from the property line are 10', thus, if a person were to build a house on both sides of a property line 10' away from the property line, there would be 20' between the two buildings. Presently, the building on the lot adjacent to the lot line which requires Mr. Slinde to obtain a variance is 15' away from the property line, thus, if the 5' variance were granted, there would still he the necessary 20' between the abutting house and the new garage. it was a unanimous consensus of the members present to recommend this item for approval. 15. At the end of the meeting, it was the consensus of the members present to re -hold this meeting at 5:00 P.M. on Monday, July 28, 1980, in order that a quorum which is necessary could possibly be obtained and the recommenda- tions on the items which were dealt with at this meeting could go forth to the Council with the required number of votes to obtain recommending approvals or recommending denials. Meeting adjourned. Loren Klein, Zoning Administrator LD1:/ns V - 7 - 11 q Rf'?0NIW; Rfgq'f ST rtna F -i to a-2 Ri Z1 T Rf'?0NIW; Rfgq'f ST rtna F -i to a-2 THE MEADOWS ' '�_, ♦ 131o�k 1 0 t � IL.b i ••' X7.0 •'yZ / - /� � •,.-. �-`(T' �»• ' � �—wt r � a� ° �% i �� � • .•fes a �; r1°•. - .. ' LIP b �� �7 •f I r31.t� :++• `• 4 ;r• Y,». �1 r ee � 4 � • •e . f B I• °I ,7 .n a t4 ' s` 1 •`I IY n I L 1 c ... .Y :I a �.. r •lu. • r.w• Y it �I .�• J ..• I• a.. 1• aw • aW 1• au I• � I•+ •t .... '�r� . w ' , � bia» b�S b1 el• 0• b• It I 1 l t hle tl'• �.� 1 v • �' i u P � t1 P,g tt �I� tl iii 1° P � » P i ° .I+ ° � � ° , � V � � # I ' � { a _�JY w 1�lY.y_ • .. I an an w.. n � � _ —_. � •• _� • i�-+� 1..� • ° , •°B°INIE .t +-•6WN'7YaM,EnU... •.' , tOAD�L.S6�•tb 2e• r3r. 4 » I N • f4 1 4 RPF "• ) •''''°tib% • lri' \ • Y, SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE REQUEST John Sandberg SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE REQUE5T Rick Cole '' ` i 0 �,♦ L ' ♦ General location of directional signs raquestod by variance for ` •�.., ft. Michaela and All the "elm Church Ir `y • . i\ moi/ J�� "'• w �•M ,y • i r� i ��/ y •/w a 1, .R •�'^• ' 7tr'•'w f •• � � +•-.�-r"r � � `fir. � ; ♦'•' ., •• t it 41 � Mtn' f � � 1� .� •w ii.- � ♦ •, ti t Variance Request Vera Diedrich L *WO- ob ,3 IL BUXHER Outdoor Advertising Company, Inc. July 31, 1480 Mr. Loren Klein Building inspector City of Monticello Monti cell o, MN 55362 Dear Loren, In reference to our painted bulletin that was recently damaged in the wind storm of approximately Wednesday, July 23, 1480, P d like to support evidence of damage to this particular structure. I'm going to make my comparison as to what it would cost to erect this location from scratch and then deduct the damages incurred, thus giving you a percentage of the cost of actual damage to the sign. The two faces in question are the Kroska Datsun Sign, approximately 14' x 48' on the East face and the Hopkins House Si gn, approximately 10' x 40' on the West face. These are on the Roy Lauri ng Property, approximately 1800' East of the Jct of 1-94 and. They were structured on 6 telephone poles. They were what we call a standard painted bulletin. The supporting structures, six telephone poles - 25' in height, were embedded in concrete approximately 5 to 6 feet below grade. With these particulars in mind, I'd like to establish the cost of building this uni It new, or in the case of 100% damage - Material s: The Kroska Face - consists of 20 sections at $60.00 each, which is equal to $1200.00 The Hopkins race - consists of 17 sections at $50.00 each, which is equal to $850.00 The painting of the Kroska Face would be $1200.00. 100 Sq. Ft. of plywood extensions at $8.00 per sq. ft is equal to $800.00 The painting of the Hopkins House face would by $1100.00 60 Sq. Ft. of wood extensions at $8.00 per sq. ft. is equal to $480.00 6 - 25' telephone poles at the rate of $70.00 each is equal to $420.00 9 yards of concrete to support the telephone poles would be $300.00 Wood strir;gers that support the backs of the extensions -$560.00 2625 Ciearwater Road/Box 865/S1.CIoud,Mannesotn 56301/612-253-3000 S Mr.. Loren Klein Page 2 July 31, 1980 Electrical for Kroska Datsun - $1300.00 Electrical for Hopkins House - $1000.00 Cedar Apron used on the Kroska Datsun Sign -4350.00 Labor to install this unit complete - including trucks and equipment would be 40 hours x $50.00 per hour or $2,000 Total Cost to build: $11,560.00 This is the labor and materials for 100% damage. Actual damages: Replacement of the following: 6 - 25' telephone poles at $70.00 each is equal to $420.00 9 yards of concrete to support poles - f300.00 Touch up and repair of scratched faces - $200.00 Labor to replace poles and electrical - $900.00 Total cost of damages: $1820.00 This represents approximately 16% in damages to the signs. As you can see. Loren, the damage on the particular unit did not exceed 20%. Therefore we should be, and hopefully can be, allowed to replace this particular unit as expediently as possible. If 1 may interject this. Loren, since we are allowed to replace anything less than 40 to 45 percent damage in this area, we would like to replace this unit with the single pole that was discussed before the City Council, which at that time was well received. t:c obviously are doing this under the stipulation that these romand a position on these lots as a principle use, and at such time that these particular lots are developed, these units would conceivably be removed. If there are any further questions regarding this, please call me at your earliest convenience. if not, we will proceed on the building as soon as possible. Sincerel� ygurs; Del Blocher President DB:df D K SI NGTI F RILE POSTER UNI T --Mi, Rif SIMILE POI BULLETIN UN IT _CEZ^Iz TP - i M - I BLOCHEiROutdoor Advertising Company, Inc. July 28, 1980 Dear Members of the Monticello Planning Commission Blocher Outdoor Advertising would like to apply for a variance to the sign ordinance and propose the following. We would like to replace the existing structure nearest to the exit of Hwy 25 on 1-94 on the north side of the road (Krienke - Lauring Property) with a single pole, back to back "V" shaped type of paint unit. The dimensions of this unit would be 10'7" x 36' and would have a rough sawn cedar apron and would be illuminated. It would be 12' above grade as measured from the ground to the bottom of the sign and the overall height would be 25'. The idea for this application for a variance is to introduce the City of Monticello to the new concept of single pole paint structures. The advantages of this type of build is landscaping, maintenance and an overall aesthetic value. Please give this application your just consideration. Sincerely yours, " k Del Blocher President DB: df 26250barwater Road/ Box 865/S1.Ooud. Minnesota 5G301/612-253.3000 -6- Y �ptft So pptE tba6 �1e0 , � {• tat a •.�' � t�'"T"_ a. ly' �r�u ��n a• Mississippi River 002 I 904 i_ _.s % w ISSMSIPPI Drive c a Planning Commission - 8/12/80 AGENDA SUPPLEMENT 1. Approval of Minutes. Consideration of approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting held July 22, 1980, which was continued until July 28, 1 980 at 5:00 P.M. 2. Public Hearinq - Consideration of Rezoning for Mel Wolters in The Meadows. Mel Wolters, who is the contractor developing new homes in The Meadows Addition, is requesting rezoning of the 14 lot s in Block 1 of that Plat from R-1 to R-1 zoning. His desire to do this rezoning is so that he c an build duplexes on those lots, similar to those that Quintin Lanners proposes to build on the Christopher Property (now The Brothers Plat). According to the newly amended ordinance, dupl eyes can be built on lots of 10,000 square feet or more in an R-2 zone and divided into two lots of 5,000 square feet or more and sold to separate owners. In considering this request for rezoning, some of the items to be considered should include: A. The property's proximity to the railroad tracks and highway. B. The relationship to the R-1 zoning which would be completely surround i ng i t . C. The comments of the public hearing. If this rezoning request is recommended for approval and subsequently granted, the maximum amount of dwellings that could be developed on these fourteen lots would be twenty-eight (28). POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this request. REFERENCES: Area depicting area of The Meadows and surrounding area, and plat map showing area to be retorted. APPLICANT: Mel Wolters. Planning Commission - 8/12/80 3. Consideration of a Variance for Off -Premise Directional Siqn - St. Michael and All the Anqels Church. A representative of St. Michael's Church has made an application to put up a small sign in the areas of Palm Street 9 East Broadway and also 4th Street and Highway 25. These signs would be approximately 18" x 24" and would give directions to the Church. These signs are common in other areas giving directions to churches. Some items for consideration would include the impact of this request upon the intention of the newly amended ordinance on signs, that signs should not be erected on public property, but rather, on private property and that if they were erected, that the property owners give written permis- sion with a copy to be sent to the City, to the people erecting the sign. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending this request for approval or denial. REFERENCES: Map depicting the two areas in request for sign placement. APPLICANT: St. Michael and All the Angels Church. 4. Consideration of a Variance for Vera Diedrich. Vera Diedrich, who lives at 612 West Sixth Street, would like to construct a horseshoe driveway in front of her home. Prior to the street project in 1978, Mrs. Diedrich had a horseshoe driveway in the front of her home which utilized the driveway openings to the lot on her east and west side respectively. However, since the street project, which brought curbing to the property in front of Mrs. Diedrich's house, she has been left without a horseshoe driveway she previously had. She is now requesting permission to install the curb cuts to reinstall a horseshoe driveway on her property. According to the present ordinance, two driveways in less than 125' of frontage requires a variance. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this request. REFERENCES: Map depicting location of the property. APPLICANT: Vera Diedrich. 2 Planning Commission - 8/12/80 5. Consideration of a Variance Request - Blocher Outdoor Advertising Company. v Del Blocher, of Blocher Outdoor Advertising Company, is requesting a variance to replace one of his billboards along I-94 with a single - pole billboard structure, as opposed to the present multi -pole structure. Mr. Blocher has stated that the new structure would be made of steel. One item worth noting is that before the big wind, approximately three weeks ago, that destroyed one of his signs, there was a 14' x 60' sign on the Lauring property. However, since that sign has blown down, Mr. Blocher has replaced that sign with one of the type which is asking for a variance for. Because the sign which was blown down was damaged less than 50% of its replacement value, Mr. Blocher was able to reconstruct a new sign on that location without a variance. You might be interested to know that Mr. Blocher has agreed to reduce the size of that sign when he replaced it to 12' x 36', because he has indicated that a uniform sign size should be used within the community in his opinion. If Mr. Blocher is granted permission to replace another of his signs with a steel, single pole structure, he would still be willing to remove those signs when another principal use is erected on the property. If the request is granted, one consideration might be made which would require a certain amount of landscaping to be used with that or both signs which are being replaced. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of recommending approval or denial of this request. REFERENCES: A letter from Mr. Blocher outlining his request, and also a letter from Mr. Blocher showing the cost breakdown on the sign that was damaged, which shows his justification for being able to replace that sign without a variance . APPLICANT: Blocher Advertising. 6. Consideration of a Variance Request for front Yard Setback - Robert Santoris. Mr. Robert Santoris, owner of Lot 12, Block 3, Hoglund Addition, is requesting a variance from the City's 30' front yard setback requirement. Mr. Santoris would like to construct his house 16' from the front pro- perty line to allow space for landscaping behind the house to facilitate drainage and runoff from the steep hill which is on the back of his lot. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of recommending approval or denial of request. REFERENCES: Map depicting location of this lot. APPLICANT: Robert Santoris. u - 3 - Planning Commission - 8/12/80 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Riverwood Estates (Floyd Kruse). Mr. Floyd Kruse is proposing to subdivide 6.4 acres into seven (7) resi- dential lots and two (2) commercial lots. The property is located at the present site of Dino's Restaurant, with the existing restaurant being located on one of the newly created commercial lots. The seven (7) residential lots would be located north of the restaurant and south of the Mississippi River. The residential lots would range in size from 12,000 square feet to 19,400 square feet, with the two commercial lots being 24,000 sq.ft. and 94,800 sq. ft. The property is currently zoned B-3 Commercial and R-1 Single Family Residential, and the plat plan as proposed would require a minor alteration of the zoning line to accommodate the proposed preliminary plat. As you will note from the preliminary plat enclosed, Mr. Kruse proposes a cul-de-sac in the residential development, along with extending Mississippi Drive straight through his property in a westerly direction. The westerly extension of Mississippi Drive would, at this point, deadend on the west side of his property, but it is intended that the abutting property owner, Kermit Lindberg, is also contemplating developing his property into additional residential lots, and this is the reason for extending the road to the property line. Although no plans have been submitted at this time, M. J. Weber land surveyors has been in contact with Kermit Lindberg and will be preparing Mr. Lindberg's residential preliminary plat. Copies of the preliminary plat have been given to City Engineer, John Badalich, for his review. His comments will be sent along with the agenda or prior to Tuesday's meeting POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of preliminary plat as presented subject to consulting engineer's comments. REFERENCES: Enclosed plat plan. Comments from John Badalich when received. APPLICANT: Floyd Kruse. r' V