Planning Commission Agenda Packet 07-08-1986AGENDA
REGULAR METING - MONTICELLO PLANNING OOMMISSION
Tuesday, July S. 1986 - 7:30 p.m.
Members: Richard Carlson, Richard Martie, Joyce Dowling. Marren
Smith, Barbara Koropchak
7:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order.
7:32 p.m. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held
June 10, 1986.
7:34 p.m. 3.
Public Hearing - A variance request to allow a front
entry to be constructed within the front yard setback
requirement. Applicant, Lovell Hendrickson.
7:49 p.m. 4.
Public Hearing - A simple subdivision request to allow
a residential lot to be subdivided into two residential
lots. A variance request to allow a new residential
lot to have lose than the minimum lot frontage as
required. Applicant, Mal Wolters.
8:14 p.m. 5.
Public Hearing - A variance request to allow placement
of a building within the front and rear yard setback
requirements. Applicant, Wayne Brinkman.
Additional Information Items.
8:29 p.m. 1.
Bet the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commiealon meeting for August 12, 19860 7:30 p.m.
8:31 p.m. 2.
Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
June 10, 1986 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Barbara Koropchak, Marren Smith.
Members Absent: Richard Martie, Joyce Dovling.
Staff Present: Gary Anderson.
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Carlson at
7:56 p.m.
2. Motion by Barbara Koropchak, secondad by Marren Smith, to approve
the May S. 1986, Planning Commission minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow placement of entrance
lights and sign within a street right-of-way - Applicant, Monticello
Americ Inn.
Mr. Murphy was present to propose his request to allow placement
of lights and sign within the street right-of-way. Mr. Murphy indicated
he had goofed in the placement of these light and sign poste, and
he apologized for that. He is merely before you with a variance
to allow the signs to be left where he placed them.
City Attorney, Gary Pringle, indicated that it the sign and lights
are not allowable uses within our street right-of-way, they shall
not be allowed at all. The liability for allowing placement of lights
and signs within the street right -of -ray leaves the City a part in
a liability suit should someone become injured when striking the
sign and/or light post. Planning Commission members felt no problem
with the actual sign and the lights which Mr. Murphy wan proposing
but were vary uncomfortable with the placement of them within the
street right-of-way with the liability falling on the City.
with no further discussion, motion by Barbara Koropchak, seconded
by warren Smith, to deny the variance request to allow placement
of entrance lights and sign within a @treat right-of-way. The motion
carried unanimously. The reason for denial was the liability Involved with tho
City allowing oigno and lights within the City street right-of-way.
d. Public Hearing - A conditional use request to allow construction
of two 24 -unit apartment buildings. Applicant. Construction 5, Inc.
Mr. Joseph Lafromboise was present to propose construction of two
26 -unit apartment buildings on Lots 1-5. Mr. LaPromboLee also would
like to amend his request to allow construction of a 24 -unit and
a 30 -unit apartment building. When a development agreement was reached
before final recording of the Construction 5 Addition to the City
of Monticello, Mr. Larromboise was allowed to use the area square
footage requirements under the old tut of our ordinance, which was
-1-
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/10/86
y 8,000 square feet for the first building unit, 2,000 square feet
for each additional one bedroom unit, and 2,500 square feet for each
additional two bedroom unit. Commission members felt uncomfortable
approving a request for a change from two 24 -unit apartment buildings
to one 24 -unit and one 30 -unit apartment building. Not being able
to see it on the enclosed site plan, they felt very uncomfortable.
Another question raised was the relinquishing of easement rights
between Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, with the City having no use for easements
between these lata. Commission members also questioned the location
of the proposed play area and what would be the structures within
the play area. A considerable amount of discussion was centered
around a screening/landscaping plan which was not submitted along
with the conditional use request. Zoning Administrator Anderson
indicated that the applicant. Construction 5, Inc., had met the minimum
requirements of the conditional use section of the ordinance and
met every condition with that. The landscaping/screening plan is
to be submitted prior to building permit application. Before a building
permit is issued for construction on one or both of these projects,
an approved landscaping/screening plan must be submitted and approved
by the City staff. Commission members also questioned the location
of 24 off-street parking spaces within a 30 -toot utility easement
right-of-way. Zoning Administrator Anderson questioned that as part
of your conditional use, you could put in where the applicant and
any future owners are responsible should the City come in to do any
work within the area for restoring the property to its original use.
With no further diccuonion, motion by Marren Smith. seconded by Barbara
Koropchak, to approve the conditional use request to allow construction
of a 24 -unit and a 30 -unit apartment building. She following conditions
were attached:
1. The placement of tho 24 -unit and 30 -unit apartment buildings
on these lots should roquire no variances.
2. An approved landscaping plan/screaning plan, along with
a designated play arse, be submitted to City staff prior
to building pormit application and be approved by City staff
prior to issuance of a building permit.
3. The City relinquish any oasement rights between Lots 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5.
4. Allow construction of a parking lot within the 30 -foot utility
easement right-of-way, with the developer. Construction 5, Inc.,
or all future owners, agreeing that if the City should have
to do any utility work within this easement right-of-way
that the developer and any or all owners would be responsible
for restoration of the parking lot to 14 original use.
Notion carried unanimously.
I
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/10/66
9. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow placement of an attached
prage to within the front yard setback requirement. Applicant.
Gary and Doris Miller.
With neither of the Millers present, Zoning Administrator Anderson
explained their request to Planning Commission members. There was
no input from the public for or against the Miller's variance request.
Commission members felt uncomfortable entering into a decision on
the Miller's request with the Millers not present and no one representing
them at the meeting.
Notion by Warren Smith, seconded by Barbara Koropchak, to table the
variance request to allow placement of an attached garage within
the 30 -toot frontyard setback requirement. Motion carried unanimously.
Additional Information Item
1. lotion by Barbara Koropchak, seconded by Warren Smith, to set the
next date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting for July 8,
1986, 7:30 p.m.
2. lotion by Warren Smith, seconded by Barbara Koropchek to adjourn
the meeting. the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/8/86
3. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow a front entry to be
constructed within the front yard setback requirement. Applicant,
Lowell Hendrickson. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Lovell Hendrickson Is proposing to be allowed to construct a
front entry to his existing house. The front most portion of his
house is within 30 feet of the front property line. Therefore, he
would need a variance to construct a front entry. The new entry
will be approximately 6 x 8 onto the front of the hoose. With
this being an older structure built in the late 1800's or early 1900'x,
the houses were placed very close to the streets at that time. With
the present ordinance that is in effect, lir. Handrickson would need
a variance to construct this entry onto the front of his house.
If an entry is allowed to be constructed, there would be no eight
lines which would be obstructed by the construction of this new front
entry.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow construction of an entry
onto the front of an existing house.
7. Deny the variance request to allow construction of an entry onto
the front of an existing house.
C. STAYS RECOKKENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow construction
of an entry to the front of thin existing house. With this being
an older house and there would be no sight lines which would be obstructed
with the placement of this entry, we see no problem with granting
the variance request.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the variance request; Copy of a site plan
for the variance request.
A variance request to allow a front
entry to be constructed within the
front yard setback requirement.
'� .. •� \ Lowell Hendrickson.
NO. 94
i , 1
I �
Cj �
1
n
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/8/86
T
4. Public Hearing - A simNle subdivision request to allow a residential
lot to be subdivided into two residential lots. A variance request
to allow a new residential lot to have leas than the minimum lot
frontage as required. Applicant. Mel Wolters. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND.
Mr. Mal Wolters is proposing to subdivide an existing residential
lot on Meet River Street. If this lot was allowed to be split into
two residential lots, the lot as noted on the enclosed site plan,
which in called Parcel #2. would be approximately 14,405 eq.ft..
which exceeds the minimum 12.000 sq.ft. lot size requirement. With
the lot split as shown on the site plan, the existing lot will have
only 33 feet of frontage along West River Street, which is less than
the minimum 80 feet lot frontage we require by ordinance. The object
of simple subdividing lots is to create smaller late from existing
Large residential Iota into rectangular type Iota, not Iota of irregular
shape as presented. Our new City Ordinance has addressed this type
of lot configuration in that we do not allow this type of residential
lot subdivision with a lot created as Parcel t1 to be created like
this. However. you may want to approve a subdivision of this large
residential lot into two residential Iota with both lots when split
meeting the ainimum lot square footage, with Parcel 01 needing a
variance on the slaimum lot front footage. An additional water and
sewer line would have to be run into the property to service Parcel it.
If a simple subdivision is approved, the developer in this case would
�L have to bear all costs of a new water and sever line stub into the
property.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the simple subdivision request to allow one residential
lot to be split into two residential lots and to approve the
variance request to allow one of the residential lots to be split
with less than the minimum lot width required.
2. Deny the simple subdivision request to allow one residential
lot to be split into two residential lots and to also deny the
variance request to allow one of the residential lots to be loss
than the minimum lot width as required.
3. Approve the simple subdivision request splitting one residential
lot into two residential lots and approval of the variance request
to allow a residential lot with lass than the minimum lot width
as required, with the developer bowing all costs of a now water
and sewer line stub into the property.
C. STAPP RECOMI&NDATION:
City staff would like to take the neutral position on Mr. Wolters
request. The request for the lot subdivision as presented on the site
W
-2-
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/8/86
plan with Parcel t1 is in direct violation of our newly adopted ordinance,
allowing a lot to be subdivided with less than the minimum lot width.
However, Nr. Molterst request does have some merit in that the newly
created lot, with the 33 foot width along west River Street, would
allow construction of a driveway on this 33 foot width of property
and also allow for snow removal from this existing driveway on both
aides of a newly created driveway.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed simple subdivision and variance
request; Copy of the site plan for the simple subdivision and variance
request.
-3-
IA simple b ivision request to
i qr a res ntial lot to be subdivided
�1 reeid Lai lots.
61 'r T A e r t to allow a new
nasi T`lotve lese than
J the mfr ga aa. required.
Mel Wolters.
•� f G,V- L CTI
OF `r..
r'J. � '�1.1. ••1.1. -1 /
lOV. *
4
-- 1.Lrsr.
n
± PARCEL 2
ri.aes so...r. r
� 1t
n �
Lw .�
b e
a�
PARCEL !
10
m
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/8/86
5. Public Nearing - A variance request to slier placement of n building
within the front and rear yard setback requirements. Applicant,
Wayne Brinkman. (G.A. )
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Wayne Brinkman, owner of National Bushing Auto Parte store, is
proposing to construct a new auto parts building on Lots 1 & 2, Block 6,
Original Plat Addition to the City of Monticello. The property is
located just northwest of the existing Walnut 7 office building.
Mr. Brinkman is proposing to be allowed to construct a front entry
onto the existing new auto parts store to within 25 feet of the front
property line. Mr. Brinkman is also requesting a variance to be
allowed to place the new auto parts building to within 10 feet of
the rear property line. With the configuration of the land an these
two lots, and with the placement that he has chosen for his building
with the perking area around it, does make good sense in his two
variance requests. It allows the building to be bermed into the
ground without much disturbing of the existing land around it.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow placement of a new building
within the front and rear setback requirements.
Fi 2. Deny the variance request to allow placement of a new building
within the front and rear setback requirements.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Due to the layout of the land on which this building is proposed
to be located, staff recommends approval of both variance requests
to allow placement of a new building within 25 feet of the front
property line and within 10 feet of the rear proporty Sino. No do,
however, have a storm sewer easement through the rear of these two
late, which would be also to the roar of this building. We have to
get in there to service or dig up the exieting storm never. and the
developer would be responsible for replacement of any of the berm
which may be damaged due to related work on the storm sower.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the variance request; Copy of the proposed
sits plan for the variance request.
7
V
M
A variance request to allow placement
of a building within the front and
rear yard setback requirements.
Wayne Brinkman.
o./
-47
�/�• - i• � /�• a .%• / �-/
ir N0. 94
0
10
'
p ) v ! i
6s
`yl, I SGT
B�
E
loo'
a
i
�
Farr
•I�
•.
/o'
66LM
11` h
Ile