Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 05-17-1983 . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PIiANNING COMMISSION May 17, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dc~ling, Ed Schaffer, Richard Carlson and Don Coohran. Members Absent: None. 2. Approval of Minutes. A motion was made by Dowling, seconded by Schaffer and unani- mously carried to approve the mi.nutes of the regular meeting April 12, 1983. 3. Public Hearing - Variance Request for a Separate pylon Sign - Country Kitchen. . The Country Kitchen Restaurant in the Monticello Mall re- cently decided to move their pylon sign from the north side of the building to the south side to gain better exposure from I-94. The pylon sign also was raised to 32 feet above the roadway (Hwy 25) in compliance with City Ordinances. As part of the pylon sign, the Country Kitchen has always had a small reader board attached to the sign which allowed them td change the wording daily to advertise their specials. In addition, this reader board is also used for messages,not necessarily related to the Country Kitchen, but for such things as advertising civic events, etc. Mr. Bryan Tschida, manager of the Country Kitchen, noted that when the sign was raised in height. and moved to its new location, the reader board has become very difficult to reach easily to enable the employees to change messages. Mr. Tschida requested that they be allowed to place the reader board portion of the sign back in its former location at the north end of the building near the front, entrance. He noted that Country Kitchen ha.s always had this sign since 1974 and he would not be asking for any additional signs, but only to allow it to be grandfathered in in its old location. . It was noted by the Planning Commission that the grand- fathered clause would no longer apply once the sign was moved to a new location and it was the consensus of the committee that similar requests have been made by other restaurants to allow for additional advertising signs ~hich have been denied in the past. - I - . Planning Commission Minutes - 5/17/83 As a result, a motion was made by Carlson, seconded by Dowling and unanimously carried to recommend denial of the variance request for the separate message board sign. 4. Public Hearing - Sideyard Variance Request - Matt Theisen. Mr. Matt Theisen requested a sideyard variance to build a 26 by 26 foot attached garage to his home to within 7~ feet of the property line located at l56 Hedman Lane, Lot l, Block 2, Ba1bbuili Estates. Mr. Theisen's home is currently setback 20 feet from the north property line which meets City ordinance require- ments, but by adding a 26 by 26 foot garage, a variance would be necessary as the southeast corner of the garage would be within 71.;. feet of the property line and the rear corner of the garage would be 9 feet from the property line. . The abutting property owner to the south was notified of the public hearing and did not express any opposition to the variance request. Because Mr. Theisen was not present at the Planning Com- mission meeting, a motion was made by Schaffer to table any action on the request at this time. The mo~ion died because of a lack for a second. A motion was then made by Carlson, seconded by Dowling to recommend approval of the variance request allowing the garage to be built to within 7~ feet of the property line since the abutting property owner did not object. Voting in favor were Carlson, Ridgeway, Dowlinq and Cochran. Schaffer abstained. 5. Public Hearing - Variance from Minimum Square Footage Requirements - Hal Wehmann. Mr. Hal Wehmann, who has built four condominiums/apartment units on Lots 3 and 4, 5 and 6, of Block l, Holker's Hillside Terrace, has requested a variance to develop the balance of the property in that block with 3 additional four unit condominiums and one duplex. Mr. Wehmann has indicated plans to acquire a small triangular portion of property located within the block from Roy Lauring to square off the property into one ownership. . - 2 - Planning Commission Minutes - 5/17/83 . Previously, when Mr. Welunann built the first four units on Lots 3 through 6, he had been granted variances from the minimum lot ~3ize requirements for each of the four buildings amounting to approximately 61.:1% for each building. The proposal as submitted for 3 four unit condominiums and 1 duplex would require a total land area of 57,000 square feet and the pro- posed property including the triangular portion Mr. Wehmann plans to obtain totals 54,750 square feet or approximately 4% short. . When previous variances were granted for the first 4 apart- ment buildings, the Planning Commission indicated that be- fore Mr. Wehmann developed the balance of the property, he would have to address how the situation of square footage shortages would be resolved on the remaining 4 lots of Block 1, Hillside Terrace. Mr. Wehmann's response in July of 1982 was that of the 7~ lots which were available in Block 1, (without Mr. Lauring's triangular property) his intentions were to build only 7 four unit buildings and thE' half lot which remained would be used to off set the shortages on the first developments. If only 7 four unit buildings were to be built on the entire block without Mr. Lauring's parcel, there would be an overage of square footage by approximately 1,000 square feet. The Planning Commission approved the pre- vious variance request assuming that the entire development within the block would meet City ordinances as a whole. Mr. Wehmann now feels that th," entire block could be developed better if he could acquire t.he parcel of land from Mr. W.uriny. The additional cost of acquiring this parcel of land would square off the block but Mr. Wehmann feels it would only be feasible to acquire this property which would create 4 lots similar to the first half of the block if the property could contain 3 four unit buildings and 1 duplex. In reviewing the entire Block 1 development, the 7 four unit buildings and 1 duplex would have a square footage :tequirement of 119,000 square feet according to the City ordinances rut the property only contains 109,072 square feet. This would result in the entire block having approximately 8~% shortage of land area to meet City ordinances. Setback variances were also requested for two of the buildings as proposed to allow for a 20 foot setback on one building where 30 feet was required facing Lauring Lane and a setback of 10 feet on the duplex where 30 feet is normally required. . - 3 - . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 5/17/83 The basic consensus of the Planning Commission was that the development was very aesthetically pleasing and well thought out but the c'ommittee members expressed concerns over the entire development not meeting the minimum square footage requirements as originally planned. Mr. Farrell, representing Mr. Wehmann who was not present at the meeting, noted that it was their original intent to develop the entire block with only enough units to meet the minimum square footage requirements but as the development progressed, the additional land they acquired became more costly and they feel it is unfeasible to consider building less than l4 units more. It was noted by Mr. Farrell that if these 14 units were built in one building, they would not have any problems meeting the square footage requirement and actually more units than 14 could be built if they were all in one building. It was his opinion that the development would more pleasing to the neighborhood and the community by staying with their original plan to have only 4 units per building maximum, rather than one large apartment complex. Although the Planning Commission agreed that the development is well planned and aesthetically pleasing, a motion was made by Dowling, seconded by Carlson and unanimously carried to deny the variance request from minimum square footage requirements because the original impression~eft with the Planning Commission in July 1982 was to meet the square footage requirements on the entire development. 6. Public Hearing - Variance from Minimum Parking Requirements - Brad Larson. Mr. Brad Larson, partner with Metcalf and Larsen, who owns parts of Lots 9 and 10, Block 50, Townsite of Monticello, have requested a variance from City Ordinances to allow for the construction of a two story split entry, 6400 square foot office building on this parcel. The property is located adjacent to their law office on the corner of Broadway and Locust. The property, according to the certificate of survey presented, is 39.2 feet wide along Broadway and 102.84 feet deep along Locust Street. It is the developer's intent to acquire approximately three quarters of a foot from the ad- joining property owner owned by Metcalf and Larsen to make this new parcel 40 feet wide to match the building size pro- posed. - 4 - Planning Commission Minutes - 5/17/83 . Mr. Jim Metcalf and Ralph Munsterteiger reviewed with the Plan- ning Commission their proposal to build the 6400 square foot building and provide five 8 foot wide parking spaces at the rear of the property and requested a variance to allow an additional II parking spaces along the City's right-of-way (boulevard) along Locust street (diagonal parking). The diagonal parking as proposed would require the existing curb to be removed and the 20 foot long parking stall would ex- tend approximately 6 feet into what is currently the street area between the curb. This would leave a 14 foot driving lane from the center of the road to the end of the parking stall compared to 20 feet that now exists from the center line to the curb of Locust. Mr. Metcalf noted that even if the building were to be cut in size, the lot is very small and additional parking spaces on site would be hard to obtain no matter how small the building was. He felt that some type of variance would have to be granted by the City if they wish to see this lot developed into an office building complex. The diagonal parking would provide more spaces although City ordinances currently do not allow for this type of parking. . The Planning Commission had reservations about diagonal parking being allowed as it was noted that during the 77 street Improvement project, many businesses lost diagonal parking when the new curb and gutter was installed. There were concerns that other businesses will request similar parking arrangements if a variance is granted to this development to allow diagonal parking on City boulevards. In addition, with the Post Office being near this location, it was felt that diagonal parking and backing into the traffic lanes might be a traffic hazard with a large volume of traffic in this area. It was noted that there could be possibly 3 to 4 tenants per floor which could result in 5 to 10 employees needing parking for the new office building. Although the types of businesses that would possibly be located in this office building may not require alot of parking, some of the parking would take place along either Broadway or Locust Street. Mr. Metcalf felt there was plenty of parking spaces available in the downtown area to meet the needs of the businessmen. Although this particular parcel is outside the assessment district for the downtown parking lots, it was the Planning Commission's recommendation that the developers work with the City staff to possibly agree on some sort of an assessment allowing this parcel to be . - 5 - Planning Commisison Minutes - 5/17/83 . included in the six block downtown parking assessment area to allow only 4 to 5 spaces to be provided on site with the additional parking being assessed. The Planning Commission noted that it was not in favor of allowing diagonal parking on the City boulevard. ,!. As a result, the Planning Commission tabled any action on this variance request for the time being to allow the developers to work with the City Staff and get recommendations from the City Council on alternatives avail- able to the developers to allow for the construction of some type of an office building with reduced on site parking requirements. A motion was made by Schaffer and seconded by Carlson to adjourn. . ~~F Assistant Administrator . - 6 -