Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 08-11-1987f_ AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 11, 1987 - 7:30 p.m. Members: Richard Carlson, Joyce Dowling, Richard Martie, Barbara Koropchak, Jim Ridgeway 7:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order. 7:32 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held July 14, 1987. 7:34 p.m. 3. Tabled variance request to allow a deck to be constructed within the eideyard setback requirement. Applicant, Tom Lindquist. 7:49 p.m. 4. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow two driveway curb cut widths in excess of the maximum curb cut driveway width allowed. Applicant, Weetside Market. 8:04 p.m. 5. Public Hearing - A conditional use request to allow major auto repair in a B-4 (Regional Business) Zone. Applicant, Fred and Patricia Culp. 8:19 p.m. 6. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow construction of an attached garage within the eideyard setback requirement. Applicant, William Sparrow. 8:34 p.m. 7. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow construction of a detached garage, front entry, and front open porch within the front yard setback requirement. Applicant, Daniel Anderson. 8:49 p.m. B. Public Hearing - A conditional use request to allow a beauty shop as a home occupation in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zone. Applicant, Joann Hoorchler. Additional Information Items 9:04 p.m. 1. A variance request to allow a dock to be constructed within the sideyard setback requirement. Applicant, Tom Lindquist. Variance request tabled to the August 11, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. 9:06 p.m. 2. A variance request to allow placement of a pylon sign within the pylon sign setback requiromant. Applicant. Wayne Brinkman. Planning Commission's variance approval stands approved, as there were no appeals. 9:08 p.m. 3. A variance request to allow construction of a swimming pool within the roar yard setback requirement. Applicant, Bob Ksiman. Planning Commission's variance approval stands approved, as there were no appeals. Agenda Monticello Planning Commission August 11, 1987 Page 2 9:10 p.m. 6. A variance request to allow construction of a house and garage within the sideyard setback requirement. Applicant, Janette Leerssen. Planning Commission -e variance approval stands approved, as there were no appeals. 9:12 p.m. 5. A variance request to allow a curb cut within 40 feet of a street right-of-way, and to allow a street right-of-way to be 'ased for a parking lot driving lane, and to allow a parking lot to be constructed without a 5 -foot green area around its perimeter. Applicant, Al Jones. Planning Commissions variance approval stands approved, as there were no appeals. 9:16 p.m. 6. A variance request to allow a portion of a parking lot curbing to be omitted. Applicant, Al Jones. Planning Commission's variance denial stands, as there were no appeals. 9:16 p.m. 7. A proposed subdivision to be known as Highland Heights Addition. Applicant, Rivera Financial and Development ' Company. The preliminary plat request is to be tabled until further notice. 9:18 p.m. 8. Open discussion of a proposed zoning map amendment. 9:38 p.m. 9. Open discussion of the Planning Commission applicants. 9:48 p.m. 10. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, Septembor S. 1987, 7:]0 p.m. 9:50 p.m. 11. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 14, 1987 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Richard Carlson, Richard Martie, Jim Ridgeway, Barbara Koropchak. Members Absent: Joyce Dowling. Staff Present: Gary Anderson 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Carlson at 7:31 p.m. 2. Motion by Barbara Koropchak, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the minutes of the June 9, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow a deck to be constructed within the sideyard setback requirement. Applicant, Tom Lindquist. Mr. Lindquist was present to propose his variance request to have the already completed deck placed within the sidayard setback requirement. Mr. Lindquist indicated he wasn-t aware a building pormit would be needed since the deck could be removed along with the above -ground swimming pool which this deck surrounds. Mr. Lindquist also questioned if ho even nooded a variance requoot when the lot line could conceivably be further north of hie existing property next to the adjoining property owner. This exact lot line was only determined by the Zoning Administrator when he was at the job site when he found that the deck was nearly completed. In site observation, the Building Official made the determination that the deck which surrounds the pool is approximately six feet from the property line, therefore needing a four foot variance. Mr. Roger Rehkamp, the adjoining property owner north of the Lindquist property, was present to indicate he had no problems with the Lindquist -s request, only that he was also unsure where the property line is located. Planning Commission --mbar, Barb Koropchak, questioned why a building permit wan not taken out by the applicant in this cane. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Ms. Koropchak that it in common for the building contractor, not the applicant, to secure a building permit prior to commencing with construction of work. Commission member Jim Ridgeway questioned what the procedure woo for taking out a building permit and if the Building Official was aware of the contractor why he wouldn-t be familiar with the Zoning Ordinance within the City of Monticello. Commission member -o concennus was that the builder is in error on the Lindquist -s request and a letter should be sent to the builder, Paul Becker, dba Paul Becker Construction, to make him aware of procedures needed and when to apply for a building permit. Commission member Barb Koropchak asked for a clarification of staff recommendation that the building permit fee for this be at least doubled. Zoning Administrator Anderson -1- l`'1 J Planning Commission Minutes - 7/14/87 indicated that he, along with John Simola, Public Works Director, Thomas Eldem, former City Administrator, and Rick Wolfsteller, new City Administrator, comprised the City staff which made this recommendation. When work is done without first obtaining a building permit, the fees are by Ordinance doubled when the permit is finally obtained. Motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Barbara Koropchak, to table the variance request to allow a deck to be constructed within the sideyard setback requirement. The following were attached as conditions: 1) The Lindquiets contact a registered land surveyor to have a Certificate of Survey done on their property. Once the survey is done, they can than determine where the newly constructed deck around the existing swimming pool does lie in relationship to their side lot line. 2) That a letter is sent to the builder, Paul Backer, dba Paul Becker Construction, indicating to him when building permits are required and what procedures it takes to apply for a building permit and the fine or penalty which is levied against the builder if he doesn't first secure a building permit prior to commencing with construction. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Public Hearing A variance request to allow placement of a pylon sign within the pylon sign setback requirement. Applicant, Wayne Brinkman. Mr. Brinkman was present to propose his request to place a pylon sign within the pylon sign setback requirement. Mr. Brinkman indicated the proposed location for the pylon sign in relationship to hie lot. Mr. Brinkman indicated the placement of this sign is to be adjacent to the second parking stall as you come in the south entrance to his parking lot. Mr. Brinkman chose that location to got the beet exposure for his now business relocation. Commission member Jim Ridgeway questioned what the minimum setback requirements were. Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, indicated the minimum setback was 15 feet from a public right-of-way. Mr. Brinkman -a request is to be within 9 feet of the public right -of -ray with the placomont of hie sign. Commiceton member Barb Koropchak than questioned what would be the hardship in this coca for tho variance. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated the hardship is with the low placement of the building. Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing. Motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Jim Ridgeway, to approve the variance request to allow placement of a pylon sign within the pylon sign setback requirement. Motion carried unanimously. -2- C�� Planning Commission Minutes - 7/14/87 5. Public Rearing - A variance request to allow construction of a swimming pool within the rear yard setback requirement. Applicant, Bob Neiman. Mr. Bob Weiman was present to propose a variance request to allow him to place an inground swimming pool within the 50 -foot rear yard setback requirement. Mr. Heiman shoved Commission members the location of his pool in relationship to his house and the Mississippi River. Zoning Administrator, Cary Anderson, explained to Planning Commission members his discussion with Dale Homuth, Area Hydrologist, Mater Division, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Cloud Division, in which Mr. Homuth indicated that he had no problems with Mr. Weiman-s variance request to allow placement of the swimming pool within the rear yard setback requirement. He also indicated that the City of Monticello is more restrictive by zoning ordinance than the Wright and Sherburne County Zoning Ordinances. Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. Motion by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Barbara Koropchak, to approve the variance request to allow construction of a swimming pool within the rear yard setback requirement. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Public Hearin% - A variance request to allow construction of a house and garage within the oidayard setback requirement. Applicant, Janette Leersson. Mr. John Leerasen, eon of the applicant, was present to propose a lot split of existing lots to allow for construction of a new house and garage on the split off lot. Mr. Laereson explained the location of the proposed house and garage would meet the minimum sideyard, front yard, and roar yard setback requirements. Mr. Loorssen explained the variance request that is needed in allowing a house and garage to be placed on this lot would encounter only 18 feet on the went side of this lot and only 14 feet on the east side of this lot of distance between structures. He indicated the minimum distance between structures by ordinance is 20 feet, therefore the reason for his variance request. Mr. Ridgeway felt uncomfortable with the applicant's request to place a house and garage there and moot the minimum setback requirements, except he saw no need for the variance request if he would shorten up or redirect the location of his house and garage on this lot to allow for 20 feat of distance between structures on both the east and west side of this lot. With no further input from the public, Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing and aakad for a motion. Motion by Barbara Koropchak, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the variance request to allow construction of a house and garage within the sidayard setback requirement. Voting in favor: Richard Carlson, Richard Martie, Barbara Koropchak. Voting in opposition: Jim Ridgeway. 51! �a) Planning Commission Minutes - 7/14/87 7. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow a curb cut within 40 feet of a street right-of-way, and to allow a street right-of-way to be used for a parking lot driving lane, and to allow a parking lot to be constructed without a 5 -foot green area around its perimeter. Applicant, Al Jones. Mr. Al Jones was present to propose his request to construct a parking lot on the south aide of his building, the former Figs -it -Shop. 1f allowed to construct a parking lot on the south side of the building, Mr. Jones would be looking at a variance to allow the existing curb cut to be left in place within 40 feet of a public right-of-way, and to allow a street right-of-way to be used for a parking lot driving lane, and also to allow the parking lot to be constructed without a five foot green area around its perimeter. A main question raised by Commission members was the misunderstanding of the five foot green area between the to -be -constructed parking lot on the south side of the building and the existing Meat Fourth Street. Zoning Administrator indicated as per their drawings the green area which is to be created between Meet Fourth Street and the parking lot to be constructed on the south side of Mr. Jones's building. Commission members were also concerned with the proposed driving circulation route within the new parking lot to be created on the south aide of the building and the existing gravel parking lot to the west of Mr. Jones's building. Mr. Joneo indicated that the driving entrances from Walnut Street, the one on the north side and south side of his building, would be used as enter only, with the driveway entrance off of Fourth Street `- in the southwest corner of hie lot to be used as an enter/exit. Commission ---here also questioned Mr. Jones if he was aware of the conditions as to the snow removal on the Fourth Street public right-of-way and also should any utility work be needed in the public right -of -ray portion of West Fourth Street that he would have to pay for the restoration after the work in done. Mr. Jones indicated that he wan fully aware of those two conditions which would occur if he was allowed to construct the parking lot on the south side of his building. Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. Motion by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the variance request to allow a curb cut within 40 feet of a street right-of-way, to allow a street right-of-way to be used for a parkinq lot driving Lane, and also to allow a parking lot to be constructed without a five foot green area around its perimeter with the following conditions: A) Any maintenance, snow removal. resurfacing, ate., of the street right-of-way portion which Mr. Jones is going to use for a driving Lane for his parking lot, be at Mr. Jones's expense: B) Should any utility work be done within the street right-of-way portion which Mr. Jones is using for a parking lot driveway, restoration expenses for this be at Mr. Jones's expense; C) Both driveway entrances off of walnut Street be signed and used as an enter only; D) The driveway entrance off of West Fourth Ureot can be used for both entering and exiting. B) The parking lot be striped and signed appropriately to indicate conditions under C and D. Motion carried unanimously. -4- Planning Commission Minutes - 7/14/87 .� S. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow a portion of a parking lot curbing to be omitted. Applicant, Al Joyner. No one was present from Joyner Lanes, Mr. Al Joyner, applicant, to propose their variance request to allow no curbing in certain areas of their to -be -expanded parking lot. Zoning Administrator Anderson did indicate to Planning Commission members Mr. Joyner's request, and if they chose to act on Mr. Joyner's request they could do so. Mr. Joyner was proposing to have only curbing in the area on -the north aide of his new addition which is under construction, and also a little curbing near the northeast corner of his parking lot around the garbage dumpster enclosure area. Mr. Joyner was requesting that in the rest of the parking lot area and driveway entrance area no curbing be installed. Planning Commission members felt that Mr. Joyner was allowed to put in the curbing for his parking lot when his new building was built; however, now that he is building an addition onto his building, the entire parking lot and driveway entrances be curbed as per minimum requirements of the Monticello City Ordinance. Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing. Motion by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Richard Martie, to deny the variance request to allow a portion of a parking lot curbing to be omitted. Motion carried unanimously. Additional Information Items e 1. Conditional use request to allow more than 12 apartment unite in a downtown commercial building. Variance request to allow five existing apartments to remain on the first floor of a downtown commercial building as a non -conforming use. Applicant, Gary Hammer. Applicant requests Planning Commission to table hie request for a period of one year, as he has now entered into a lease agreement for the restaurant portion of his building. Commission members acknowledged Mr. Hammer's request. 2. A variance request to allow construction of a garage/porch addition within the sideyard setback requirement. Applicant, Max and Sue Lavelle. Planning Commission's variance approval stands approved, as there were no appeals. J. Consideration of approval of final platting of a replattod lot to be known as Colony by the Greens Third Addition. Applicant. Jay and Vivian Miller. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. 4. A proposed subdivision to be known as Highland Halflhts Addition. Applicant, Rivera Financial and Development Company. The preliminary plat request will be coming before the Planning Commission at its August 11, 1987, meeting. Planning Commission Minutes - 7/14/87 Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated that the preliminary plat is due into the City office on or about July 23 for their review. If it looks like the preliminary plat is in its entirety except for a couple of corrections here and there, we then will have the public hearing notice filed on July 27, 1987, for the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission, meeting date of August 11, 1987, 7:30 p.m. However, if the preliminary plat is not ready in acceptable form, the preliminary plat request will not be published for public hearing on July 27, 1987. S. Commission members were not aware that the former Charlie's West property, now known as West Side Market, was given a Certificate of Occupancy to be open for business. We did not get a reZuest in time for the public hearing deadline for this July 14, 1987, Planning Commission meeting on the developers request to allow the driveways which are currently in to be wider than the 24 -foot maximum driveway width. The developer -e request will come forth as a public hearing at the next regularly scheduled Monticello Planning Commission meeting on August 11, 1987, 7:30 p.m. The Certificate of Occupancy was issued with a Letter of Credit from the Wright County State Bank in the developer -e behalf to allow up until October 8 to complete the following: 1) the right turn lane off of West County Road 75; 2) the Otter Creak Road realignment; 31 the enclosed area around the garbage dumpstor; 4) the trees and hedging to be planted sometime on or about September 1 to September 15, 1987; 5) the proposed screening fence on the east aide of their property hes been omitted and replaced with intermixing of tree plantings as per agreement between the developer, affected property owners, and the City of Monticello. 6. Notion by Barbara Koropchak, seconded by Richard Mortis, to set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission for Tuesday. August 11, 1987, 7:30 p.m. 7. Notion by Barbara Koropchak, seconded by Richard Martie, to adjourn the meeting. The mooting adjourned at 9:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gary AlTdordan Zoning Administrator -6- Planning Commission Agenda - 8/11/87 3. Tabled variance request to allow a deck to be constructed within the eideyard setback requirement. Applicant, Tom Lindquist. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: I received a call from Mr. Lindquist on July 24, at approximately 10:40 a.m. in regards to a Certificate of Survey that was performed on his residential lot. Mr. Lindquist at that time indicated that, indeed, the deck around the pool was constructed within the eideyard setback requirement, and he would need a 4 -foot variance to allow the deck to be left in place. Mr. Lindquist is currently on vacation and will not be back until next week. I have not seen a copy of the survey that was performed for Mr. Lindquist, and I am only going on the assumption of our conversation that I had with him. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the variance request to allow a deck to be constructed within the sideyard setback requirement. 2. Deny the variance request to allow a deck to be constructed within the aidoyard cutback requiroment. 3. Approve the variance request to allow the dock to be constructed o within the eideyard setback requirement, and the building permit to be issued with the fee doubled to the applicant. C. STAFF RF,COKKENDATION: In this case, any action that the Planning Commission will be taking will be after the fact, as this project has been completely finished. staff fools that, under the unusual circumstances that wore created and the confusion created by those circumstances and the follow up at the public hearing as per Planning Commission recommendations, the Planning Commission should approve the variance request to allow the dock to be placed within the eideyard setback requirement. If the Certificate of Survey is submitted and upon submission acknowledged that the variance request is needed, we feel at least the leo for the building permit be doubled to the applicant for the work that has already been completed. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the variance request; Copy of the oito plan. 50 ~ l i ' variance request to allow a deck to be constructed within the sideyard setback 'E ---------------------- requirement. \ Too Lindquist. �� � li�� •fir ' ` ` \ `�,, � -------------- T1- Tr- TI t ` iJ \\~ \ ~ `� ♦\ '♦ n• fly •�I. � "a� / • • �' �\\ R� e Planning Commission Agenda - 8/11/87 4. Public Rearing - A variance request to allow two driveway curb cut widths in excess of the maximum curb cut driveway width allowed. Applicant, pest Side Market. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you will note, the peat Side Market was issued a Certificate of Occupancy to be open for business. An error was made on my part not getting the public hearing notice in in time for the applicants request to be processed for th• July 14, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. The decision was made by the City staff to allow the owners of the Meet Side Market to put in two driveway curb cut widths in excess of the maximum driveway curb cut width allowed, 24 feet. The driveway curb cut width on the south side, or Highway 75 peat side, is 28 feet in width; and the width of the driveway curb cut on the Otter Creek Road side is 27 feet in width. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the variance request to allow two driveway curb cute to be installed in excess of the maximum width allowed. 2. Deny the variance request to allow two driveway curb cut widths to be installed in excess of the maximum curb cut width allowed. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Again, we apologise for the lateness of the applicant -a variance request, but we had to make a decision at the time they were being put in; and we hope you look favorably upon the decision that was made. We do recommend approval of the variance request to allow the two curb cut driveway widths to be left installed in excess of the maximum 24 -foot driveway curb cut width allowed. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed variance request; Copy of the site plan. .2- Planning Commission Agenda - 8/11/87 �. S. Public Hearing - A conditional use request to allow major auto repair in a B-6 (Regional Business) Zone. Applicant, Fred and Patricia Culp - A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Fred and Patricia Culp are currently in the process of purchasing the existing business Broadway Auto Repair under the ownership of Mr. Ken Stolp. The existing business, Broadway Auto Repair, formerly known as K 6 H Auto Repair, was allowed to exist there under the grandfather clause in that it was there under a different business ownership before the Monticello City Ordinance was in place. The applicants would like to run the same type of business out of this location only under now ownership and a new name. However, the Culps would like to make some changes to the property to clean up the existing moos that constantly occurs around the property. The Culps would only like to do major auto repair at this location and have no intentions of being in the used auto sales business. Therefore, some of the existing spaces which are currently taken up by automobiles constantly parked on every available space of the property will now be reworked to definitely mark the areas for customer parking and the area for the employee parking with the entrances to those areas marked. The Culps would also like to take the current area as noted on their site plan in the front boulevard portion and plant acme shrubs and remove the grass and put back in acme landscaping rock where the weeds currently exist. The area to the east of the existing building is currently where used auto parts debris tends to accumulate with the current owner of the business. This area would now become parking for the employees of thin now business. The Culps would like some consideration in a couple of other conditions which may be attached to this property, and they are an follows: For the existing semi -trailer which Is parked to the rear or north of this building, they would like that to remain for a short period of time until they can bettor facilitate storage within the confinos of the existing building. They would also like consideration of a possible condition that the area along the south and a portion of the east property line screening fence not be installed for a period of up to one year. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the conditional use request to allow major auto repair in a B-0 (Regional Business) Zone. T. Deny tho conditional use request to allow major auto repair in a 0-0 (Regional Business) Zone. 7. Approve the conditional use request to allow major auto repair in a B-6 (Regional Business) Zone with the following conditions: min Planning Commission Agenda - 8/11/87 i a. Off-street customer parking space be striped on the existing bituminous off-street parking surface as shown on the enclosed site plan. b. The employee parking area be in the area immediately east of the existing building. c. The existing sami-trailer parked on the north side of the building be removed at a period of time as recommended by the Planning Commission. d. A solid screening fence be installed along the entire north side of the property and on a portion of the east side of the property from the northeast corner up to the and of the northwest corner of the Poet Office building. e. The front boulevard portion of this site be installed as per site plan. f. The conditional use permit be granted for a period of up to one year. At that time, it would be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator. t C. STAFF RECOMPMNDATION: In our conversations with the applicants, we feel the intent of the applicants in definitely to improve the blighted condition which occurs at the existing business location right now. The use of this property would not change, but we fool the overall appearance of this property and the operation of the new business which will be going in here will more than compensate for the conditions that exist there right now. We recommend the applicant be given consideration of up to one year from approval of their conditional use request to install solid ecroening fence along the south side and part of the east aide of their property. we also fool that a one year time limit be attached to their conditional use request and be reviewed at the and of this one year. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the conditional use request; Copy of the site plan. -d. n ZZ Id 0 fix /a f le 0 y ��7 H 78 $0-31 W— 9 4 - JIB �-- D Planning Commission Agenda - 8/11/87 6. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow construction of an attached garage within the sideyard setback requirement. Applicant. William Sparrow. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. William Sparrow would like to construct an addition onto his 16 -foot attached garage of approximately an S -foot garage addition. With the proposed addition to the garage, the front corner of his garage addition would be within 7% feet of his side property line. With the proposed S -foot addition onto this existing garage, the distance between the proposed garage addition and the existing house immediately east would be approximately 22-26 feet between structures. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the variance request to allow construction of an attached garage within the sidayard setback requirement. 2. Deny the variance request to allow construction of an attached garage within the sideyard setback requirement. C. STAFF RECOKKENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a garage addition to be placed within 7% feet of the sidoyard setback requirement. With the irregular shape of the lots in this particular addition and the houses when built were placed at the minimum front yard setback, it constitutes some hardship in the locations of the house and garage on the site. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed variance request; Copy of the site plan. -5- 7 — \\ .w ' � s } .y \� _ `♦♦♦` \\ Variance request to allow construction z \ ♦♦ of an attached garage within the sideyard \ setback requirement. William Sparrow. I \ --------------------- I ♦\ T \ iii ,�.____—._._��� �: �;�.!'--' \ ♦ \ ----------------- I 1 ' • (L Planning Commission Agenda - 8/11/87 7. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow construction of a detached gera?e, front entry, and front open porch within the front yard setback i'equirement. Applicant, Daniel Anderson. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Nr. Daniel Anderson is proposing to construct a front entry and a front open porch and a garage within the front yard setback requirement. The house when built for its former owner was constructed at the minimum front yard setback requirement, that being a 30 -foot front yard setback. As there is only one entrance to the front part of this house, that being from the front, the applicant would like to put an attached entry onto the front of the house with a roof covered open porch entry to a detached, two -car garage. The situation of this lot in the development is at the corner of West County Road 75 and Hillcrest Circle. Thin house, when it was constructed, was set up for a garage to be attached onto the house but with no provisions to enter from the garage into the house except for going outside the garage to enter the front entrance of the house. The applicant's request merely is to be allowed to construct the front entry and front open porch and the detached garage within the front yard setback requirement. If allowed to do this, the applicant would then have a roof covered entry from hie proposed detached garage to his front entrance of his house. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the variance request to allow construction of a detached garage, front entry, and front open porch within the front yard setback requirement. 2. Deny the variance request to allow construction of a detached garage, front entry, and front open porch within the front yard setback requirement. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In looking at the site location for the applicant's request and how the applicant's request would fit within the other proporties in this development, staff recommends approval of the applicant's request to allow construction of a detached garage, front entry, and front open porch within the front yard setback requirement. Staff feels this would be a definite improvement to the applicant's property and to the other properties in the Hillcrest Circle cul -ds -see. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the variance requests Copy of the site plans for the variance request. -6- 1 ' 1 11j 1 � Variance request to allow construction of a detached garage, front entry and front .� open porch within the front yard \\� setback requirement. Daniel Anderson. -------------- • ,�' �=�i,�� jam; ��� �• • 1. 11 y '1•�. .1 1 rtf � ��.. S .� �' -�' .� .1. •d•1. x`11'.' V. J� l , / \ • t, I'• '{ ir• ,moi„ •�,/ /. �oe� Sro,�✓, As�w�rSa,���us zyo�6- (R uO4) X3=0'1 �S, Q. t a ArQ.i � .rk7MTi.✓fi �i M2t i+�+., z��H MO✓L EXliirt/F E�M+rY Oee7-- dow { + ' Cr«os atfc4rrt ��! t oow i « s�XvYWef67 69.0 S,c„rb ToAM�� Vay ' �a� Pr. cvx+� 2M6 P. r.. L�T,,�S• /t«7fC «at .• Ger«t tE! U �/2 / , w !amu� o % •; t3 1(Z —o SNfcrRbcxft� %ilREi% ts�rtcc�'. { ty car tx ricrrc�C yxOt V n C-Q O y Planning Commission Agenda - 8/11/87 8. Public Hearing - A conditional use request to allow a beauty shop an a home occupation in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zone. Applicant, Joann Hoorchler. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mrs. Hoerchlar would like to operote an in-home beauty shop out of their recently purchased home. Some of the conditions under the home occupation definition in our ordinance have been satisfactorily met or exceeded by the applicant. One thing that is not mentioned In here but might be considered as an additional condition put on by the Planning Commission may be the hours of operation of such a business. But most generally, this type of home occupation would be hardly noticed by the residents in this area once put into use. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the conditional use request to allow a beauty shop as a home occupation in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zone. 2. Deny the conditional use request to allow a beauty shop as a home occupation in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zone. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends approval of the conditional use request to allow a beauty shop as a home occupation in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zone. The applicant, at her former location in another community in Minnesota, did operate such a business out of her home, so the nature of her business In not different than what she has done in the past. One additional condition that is not mentioned under the hom occupation definition may be a limitation as to the hours of business in which she may operate the beauty shop. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the conditional use request; Copy of the definition section of the ordinance for home occupation. -7- Conditional use request to allow a beauty shop as a home occupation in an R -I (Single Family Residential) Zone. -Joann Hoarchler. --------------------- G I-------------- -6 I 4, I tic] -IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: An artificial or natural surface X� through which water, air, ar root# cannot penetrate. more than five (5) feet from the building, between the building and a line five (5) feat from the building, (GEj GRADING: changing the natural or exising topography of land. (GF) GUEST ROOM: A room occupied by one (1) or more guests for compensation and in which no provision is made for cooking, but not including room$ in a dormitory for sleeping purposes primarily. (HA) HOLIDAY SIGNS :• Signs or displays which contain or depict a message pertaining to a national or state holiday, and no other matter. (H8) HOME OCCUPATION: Any gainful occupation engaged in by the occupants of a dwelling at or from the dwelling. Such activity shall be clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises. Parmissable home occupations shall not include the conducting Of a retail business other than by mail, manufacturing business, or a repair shop of any kind on the premises, and no stock in trade shall be kept or sold. No other than persons residing on the Premises shall be employed, and no mechanical equipment shall be employed that is not customarily found in the home and no more than one (1) room may be devoted to home oc%:upatian use. Such home occupation shall not require internal or external alterations or involve construction features not custormarily found in dwellings. The entrance to the apace devoted to such occupations shall be within the dwelling. There shall be no exterior display, no exterior signs except an allowed in the sign regulations for the zoning district in which such home occupation is located. ••• -• There shall be no exterior storage of equipment or e— materials used in the hems occupation. No home occupation shall be permitted which results .in or generates Dore traffic than one (1) car for offotreet parking at any given point in time. Permicsable home occupations include, but are not limited to the following: art studio, dressmaking, special offices of a clergyman, Sawyer, architect, engineer, accountant, or real estate agent or appraiser, when located in a dwelling unit occupied by the same, and teaching, with musical, dancing and other instruction limited to one (1) pupil at one time. INC) HOTEL: Any building or portion thereof occupied an the more or loan temporary abiding place of individuals and containing six (6) or more guest rooms, aced, designated, intended to be used, let or hired out to be occupied, or which are occupied by six (6) or more individuals for compensation, whether the compensation be paid directly or indirectly. (IA) IDENTIFICATION SIGNS: Signs in all districts which identify the busineas at owner, or manager, az resident and set forth the address of the premises where the sign is located and which contain no other material. V (Ia) ILLUMINATED SIGN: Any sign which is lighted by an artificial light source either directed upon it or illuminated from an interior source. tic] -IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: An artificial or natural surface X� through which water, air, ar root# cannot penetrate. Planning Commission Agenda - 8/11/87 Additional Information Items 8. Open discussion of a proposed zoning map amendment. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As par Jim Ridgewayte request, City staff has prepared some possible zoning changes to the area which is known as the Jim Boyle property which is unplatted property in the City of Monticello. It is bounded on the south by our southerly city limits and on the vest by Fallon Street, on the north by the south portion of I-94 and on the east by County Road 118. This is the area which we have concentrated on to establish some type of down zoning as we go into the middle school which is proposed to be open Sate November, early December of this year. we concentrated our efforts strictly on this area assuming we would not have any of the area in the Monticello annexation area to deal with at this time. we did consult our Consulting Planner, John Uban, and what they felt would be some appropriate zoning dealing only with this area that is within the city limits. The Planning Consultants had proposed an estimate in the range of $4,500 to 87,500 to establish a proposed type of zoning for this area. with that type of a high range of fees to do this, the City staff than eat down to apply some type of zoning which we felt would be appropriate subject to input from the Planning Commission and/or City Council and/or the public. This is still unplatted lands. There aro no lots and blocks to go by, so we applied the zoning strictly to the section linos which currently exist with this property. Consulting Planner, John Uban, did indicate to us that he would give us a brief synopsis of a recommendation as to how he would fool with the zoning which we did apply as more of general commmnto in a letter form to us. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS3 1. Approve the proposed rezoning in this portion of the City of Monticello. 2. Deny the proposed zoning which has been attached to this area in the City of Monticello. 3. Approve the proposed rezoning as presented in a portion of the City of Monticello and set a public hearing for this zoning map amendment for the August 24, 1987, City Council meeting. -6- Planning Commission Agenda - 8/11/87 C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION: The proposed zoning map which is attached is a compiling of proposed zoning changes to this particular area of our existing zoning map. Commission members may have other input into other types of zoning which they would like to see in this area in or around the school. If you do look favorably at this, we would like to set a public hearing data at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting on August 26, 1987. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed zoning; Copy of the existing zoning for this area; Copy of the proposed rezoning for this area. -9- 1 1 \\ � )1 Area of 4t1%11� , ,� 't >• top Ame ° i rf � •Y " ,1 rr r 1 a� r� �r �i t: • �,�� `tee ��^+yi3(�%�-_�.�`-_`�y� .ate `� 41 � '!. .'r '".► 4 ��r�frQo� �' ��'r«r - - Q O Planning Commission Agenda - 8/11/87 14- Additional Information Items 9. open discussion of the Planning Commission applicants. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you are aware, Barbara Koropchak will be leaving her position with the Monticello Planning Commission effective the and of our meeting on August 11, 1987. We have submitted an advertisement in the Monticello Times and most recently in the Monticello Shopper to solicit for potential Planning Commission member applicants. As of this writing, I have received two written and one oral applications and I am expecting two more written applications to be delivered to my office late this afternoon. Each of the applicants have been sent a formal letter from myself asking them to attend the August 11, 1987, Planning Commission meeting to nee how the Planning Commission works and how the members deal with particular requests that do come before them. I did also indicate to the applicants that there was a specific agenda Item which the Planning Commission members may or may not ask questions of each of the individuals in attendance. I also indicated in my lottor, of which a copy to enclosed, that Planning Commission members may or may not make a recommendation to the City Council for a Planning Commission member at the August 11, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. " It In at your discretion if you would like to make a formal recommendation to the City Council which will be presented to them at their August 24, 1987, Council meeting. Of the applications received so far, the experience ranges from existing experience on previous planning commissions in other communitieo to absolutely no experience whatsoever. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Upon form introduction, and any questions of each individual applicant, Planning Commission ---bare make a formal recommendation to the City Council for the new Planning Commission member position. 2. Upon introduction of the applicants, and after discussion with each of the applicants, Planning Commission members not make a formal recommendation to the City Council for a now Planning Commission membnr. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff would like to not make a decision on the proposed applicants. We fool this to a Planning Commission decision to make if they would like to make a formal recommendation to the City Council. We do suggest that you most each of the individuals if they do attend the August 11, 1987, Planning Commission mooting, ask each of them any Planning Commission Agenda - 8/11/87 questions which you choose to ask, and make a formal recommendation after the meeting has ended. Commission members may feel a little easier after the public has left to make some sort of formal recommendation to the Monticello City Council. D. SUPP'ORTIM DATA: Copy of the invitation sent to each of the prospective applicants; Copy of the submitted applicants letter. fSID _ caw 4 Monlic-A MONTICELLO. MN 66382.9245 August 7, 1987 Plana le121295.2711 Me" 2)333-5739 Na. Ellen Maxwell 149 Riverview Drive, unit 05 Morar Monticello, NN 55362 MW GOMM Dear Ms. Maxwell: wFran �FMw The Monticello Planning Commission will hold its regular monthly Jack MLnvW meeting on Tuesday, August 11, 1987, beginning at 7:30 p.m. As a Monticello Planning Commission applicant, you are invited AOm6Wtrdmr: to attend this meeting. On the enclosed agenda you will note Tom V40 an agenda item for Monticello Planning Commission applicants. Rance DWwAor. The Monticello Planning Commission members may ask questions Rick WCOSUSS PuAec Y1wMM: of you at this time. Jo1n SWWW Pdnnrq &Zonrq: The Monticello Planning Commission members, after their conversations Oary Mannon with you and other Monticello Planning Commission applicants, E may choose to make a recommendation to the Monticello City Council members at this time or at a later date. Their recommendation is subject to the approval of the Monticello City Council-am re. We encourage your attendance at the Tuesday. August 11, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please foal free to contact me. sincerely, Cary Anderson Zoning Administrator cA/kd Enclosure cc: Fila 250 Eap 810001AW 01 /� 1 657-924 65 (�/ y Sincerely, // Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator GA/kd Enclosure cc: Pile 250 Est 9rorrowy /,.�1 City o/ KnticA MONTICELLO, MN 55382.9245 August 7, 1987 Ftwru cet s1 seavt t Me" 1e1213u5T3e Me. Candi Thilquist 116 eedman Ione tA.yo.: Monticello, MN 55362 Arve GrW mo Dear Ms. Thilquiet: Fran F0t Wa!•m FeY The Monticello Planning Commission will hold its regular monthly ,parM"W" meeting on Tuesday, August 11, 1987, beginning at 7:30 p.m. As a Monticello Planning Commission applicant, you are invited Adff&*V w: to attend this meeting. On the enclosed agenda you will note Tom Etaem an agenda item for Monticello Planning Commission applicants. F The Monticello Planning Commission members may ask questions PVsao Yvarb: of you at this time. John BnoY ppruep a 2arip: The Monticello Planning Commieelon members, after their conversations Gwy Andwm with you and other Monticello Planning Commission applicants, Dly may choose to make a recommendation to the Monticello City Council ome Ko me- at this time or at a later date. Their recommendation is subject to the approval of the Monticello City Council mambere. We encourage your attendance at the Tuesday, August 11, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, // Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator GA/kd Enclosure cc: Pile 250 Est 9rorrowy /,.�1 V Phar (91 4) 295 2 711 August 7, 1987 moko (914)33&5739 M"W- Arve GeditSnm Om .111%. iron Fair 1YBmn AW J� Tom ENim Fiance OVeeta: Mak WCfttlft pubes t+yake: den i=6 PbWJf9 5 Zor": cry Aroweon City O/ InORtLCBLf. MONTICELLO, MN 66362.9245 Mr. Patrick Paltereack 1010 Meador Oak Drive Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Mr. Psltersack: The Monticello Planning Commission will hold its regular monthly meeting on Tuesday, August 11, 1987, beginning at 7:30 p.m. As a Monticello Planning Commission applicant, you are invited to attend this meeting. On the enclosed agenda you will note an agenda item for Monticello Planning Commission applicants. The Monticello Planning Commission members may ask Questions of you at this time. The Monticello Planning Commission members, after their conversations with you and other Monticello Planning Commission applicants, may choose to make a recommendation to the Monticello City Council members at this time or at a later date. Their recommendation is subject to the approval of the Monticello City Council members. We encourage your attendance at the Tuesday. August 11, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. If you have any Questions, please feel free to contact me. 8incorely, Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator GA/kd Enclosure cc: Pile 950 esu eaesrry monfteft55M.02 (91/ 260 Eat MoOmy / 1 OU82-9245I / City o/ Vottlice[[o MONTICELLO, MN 563829245 ' August 7, 1987 Pho,r(el 2)295- 711 Metro (812) 373-6739 Ms. Cindy Lem Route 2, Box 145A Monticello, MN 55362 mayor Ork== Dear Ms. Lemur: �aAne Dn =0 - Fran The Monticello Planning Commission rill hold its regular monthly yyfftern FeW dark AWwel meeting on Tuesday. August 11, 1987, beginning at 7:30 p.m. As a Monticello Planning Commission applicant, you are invited to attend this meeting. On the enclosed agenda you vill note Adninit91or. Tom EIOem an agenda item for Monticello Planning Commission applicants. FtnFUck rKe� The Monticello Planning Commission members may ask questions of you at this time. Pu010 Wako: Jahn Unale The Monticello Planning Commission members, after their conversations Gary N"Broon with you and other Monticello Planning Commission applicants, Eosenk Deve1oPmet may choose to make a recommendation to the Monticello City Council Of K&OPOW members at this time or at a later date. Their recommendation is subject to the approval of the Monticello City Council members. We encourage your attendance at the Tuesday, August 11, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. If you have any questions, pleneo fool free to contact me. Sincerely, 106W44/4-7 Cary Anderson Zoning Administrator GA/kd Enclosure cc: Pile 260 Eat MoOmy / 1 OU82-9245I / My name is Cindy Lemm, and I would like to be considered for the vacancy on the Monticello City Planning Commission. I live 4 miles east of Monticello on County Road 39, and before that lived for 5 years on West River Street in Monticello. Until August 3rd I worked full time as an Assistant Quality Circle Facilitator for the Cornelius Company in Anoka. I taught groups of employees how to identify, analyze and solve problems in their work areas until I was laid off due to position elimination. i I am 3 classes away from my A.A. degree at Anoka Ramsey Community 1 College, and then plan to continue my education by completing my B.A. in Business Administration. I would like to serve on the Planning Commission because decisions made now will determine the future of Monticello, and although I do y_ not currently resido in the city of Monticello, I expect the area where we live to be annexed sometime in the future. I have a lot of free time now, and would like to do something worthwhile with it, as well as to become involved in the community. I don't have a lot of experience with city planning, but have strong communication and leadership skills, and feel that I could serve the Commission well. l Cindy Lem �� �r►M. Rt. 2 Box 145A ' Monticello, MN 55362 295-2602 (Unlisted) July 6, 1887 Planning Commission City of Monticello Monticello, MN 55362 Planning Commission: 1 am interested in serving on the Monticello Planning Commission. Community development is an interest to me. Previously, 1 was chairman of the Planning Commission for the City of Madison Lake, MN for five years. In addition to that I served as a volunteer fireman and police reserveman for the City of Madison Lake. If there 1s any additional Information you need to know, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, y FFG Patrick Faltersack 1010 Meadow Oak Drive Monticello, MN 55362 (612) 285-4803 July 31, 1987 Candi Thilquist 116 Hedman Lane Monticello, MN 55362 Mr.' Gary Anderson Monticello City Hall Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Mr. Anderson, Per our phone conversion regarding my application for the Planning and Zoning Committee position that will be available soon, here is a brief personal description. My name is Candi Thilquist. I currently reside at 116 Hedman Lane, Monticello. Minnesota. I have lived and worked in Monticello l8 years. My current position is with NSP at hte Monticello Training Center as an Administrative Aid. My duties are to maintain all personnel `— records for Monticello Nuclear Plant personnel, oraer all supplies, and general secretarial duties. I have had several diverse positions locally, one of which was with the City of Monticello as a cashier at Hi -Way Liquors while under the monageagnt of Mark Irmiter. I have three high school age daughters currently attending Monticello Senior High. I am interested in the Planning and Zoning Committee position for at least two reasons, one being personal change. The second, additional knowledge of perhaps state and certainly local laws and ordinances. 'There also seems to be a series of issues in my neighborhood recently regarding everything from petc,to domestic arguoments, to the care of one's homu and property. Hopefully this experience will help all of us to solve these problems In a civil manner. Thank you for the opportunity to present thin application and your attention to this mutter. Slgcerely, � Candi Thilquiot LATE ADDITION Planning Commission Meeting - 8/11/87 Consideration to Approve Modification 02 for Tax Increment Finance Plan of the Redevelopment District 02. (O.K.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In late 1985, the Tax Increment Finance Redevelopment District 02 was modified to include the four parcels known as Hollenback, Stelton, Gustafson, and the now River Park View (Modification 01). The original redevelopment district included the parcels of Hass. Teelow, Metcalf 6 Larson, Capps, Monticello Ford, Jones, O -Connor, and the City of Monticello. The district was modified to enhance future HRA projects and to capitalize on the Increment of the Elderly Project to assist in other projects. Upon the execution of the HRA resolution, the HRA becomes a willing buyer of the Monticello Ford property. In pursuant of the Minnesota Statute, Section 273.74, Subdivision 4, the Tax Increment Finance Plan must be modified by the authority if 1) increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred; 2) increase in the portion of the captured assessed value to be retained by the authority; 3) increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures or designation of additional property to be acquired by the authority shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required by for approval of the original plan. ESTIMATED BUDGET FOR MODIFICATION 02 Property acquisition $75,000.00 Demolition Cost 13,000.00 Administration Coat 2,000.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $90,000.00 Leas downpayment $25,000.00 Leve demolition 13,000.00 Lean administration 2,000.00 HRA General Fund $40,000.00 Contract for Dead $50,000.00 The HRA plans to retire the bonded indebtedness (contract for deed) by the increment generated from the Elderly Project (ootimatod annual tax increment is $17,300.00). Contract for Dead tormo aro 10% interact rate for 4.5 years. The HRA has the right to prepayment, without penalty, on the Contract for Deed payment schedule. Average annual debt service is 514,000. After full payment of the contract for dead, increment generated from the Elderly Project will replenish the HRA General Fund for expenses incurred. Request for confidentiality on this item. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve Modification 02 of the Tax Increment Finance Plan for Redevelopment District 02. 2. Deny approval of Modification 02 of the Tax Increment Finance Plan for Redevelopment District 42. -12- 9 Planning Commission Agenda - 8/11/87 C. STAFF REC014D3RDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Modification i2. The RRA adopted the resolution for Modification I2 to the TIF Plan for the Redevelopment District 12 and requested the City Council to set a public hearing date for the purpose to modify the finance plan, thereby insuring the purpose of Modification 11 and the original purpose for the creation of Tar Increment Finance District 12. D. SUPPORTING DATA: