Planning Commission Agenda Packet 05-14-1985AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
IL May 14, 1985 - 7:30 P.M.
Members: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Richard Carlson, Richard
Martie, Ed Schaffer.
7:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order.
7:32 p.m. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held on April 9, 1985.
7:34 p.m. 3. Public Hearing - A Preliminary Plan and a Concept
Plan Request for a Planned Unit Development -
Applicant, John Kornovich.
7:59 p.m. 4. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow
an Attached Garage to be Built in the Side Setback
Requirement - Applicant, Russell Anderson.
8:14 p.m. 5. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow
an Attached Garage to be Built in the Side Setback
Requirement - Applicant, Bruce Tvodt.
8:29 p.m. 6. Public Hearing - A Variance Roquent to Allow
an Additional Sign to be Placed on Existing Building
Site - Applicant, Dave Peterson Ford.
8:44 p.m. 7. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow
I) a Garage to bo Placed in the Front Yard of
e Lot; 2) the Garage to be Placed in the Front
Setback Requirement; 3) the Garage to be Placed
Within 10 foot of Another Building; 4) the Garago
to be Built in Exc000 of 1000 eq. ft. - Applicant,
Douglas Stokoo.
Additional Informational Itome
9:04 p.m. 1. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello
Planning Commioolon for Juno 11, 1985, 7:30 p.m.
9:06 p.m. 2. Adjournment.
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/14/85
., 3. Public Hearing - A Preliminary Plan and a Concept Plan Reguest
for a Planned Unit Development - Applicant, John Kornovich. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. John Kornovich is proposing to replat the existing unplatted
land adjacent immediately west of the existing Northern States
Power building, which is adjacent to our City maintenance shop.
In replatting this land, he is proposing a Planned Unit Development
which will consist of 3.94 acres. He is proposing to build
five buildings, of which four will he 12 -unit buildings and
one will be an 8 -unit building. All building unite will consist
of one 2 -bedroom handicapped unit, with the remaining unite
in each building being 2 -bedroom units. On the concept plan,
you will note the proposed locations of the five apartment building
sites with the garage spaces and the open parking areae. Each
apartment building unit contains the minimum number of garage
spaces with the minimum number of open parking spaces as required
by ordinance. City staff has reviewed the entire concept plan
which has been submitted. I will not gat into any further detailed
information on each of the apartment units and how they are
run. That is explained in their enclosed packet as part of
their concept stage requirement.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the preliminary plan and concept plan request for
a Planned Unit Development.
2. Deny the proliminary plan and concept plan request for a
Planned Unit Development.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff rocommando approval of the preliminary plan and the concept
plan for a Planned Unit Development. City staff has reviewed
the entire preliminary plan and concept plan of this proposed
now Planned Unit Development. Wo have found everything to be
In order and have already made suggestive commonto to them on
what we would like to coo for proposed development otago should
they got to that point.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed preliminary plan and concept plan; Copy
of the site plan showing the location; Copy of the report from
Consulting Engineering Firm, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Ubon, Inc.,;
Copy of the report from the Consulting Engineer, OSM.
IM
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/14/85
4. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow an Attached Garage
to be Built in the Side Setback Requirement - Applicant, Russell
Anderson. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Russell Anderson, resident at 154 Hedman Lane, Salboul Estates
Addition in the City of Monticello, is requesting a sidayard
variance to build an attached garage to within 6 feet of the
side property line. A variance was granted to the adjoining
property owner, Matt and Sally Theisen, about one year ago,
at which time they were granted a sideyard variance to come
within 6 feet of their side property line that la shared with
Russell Anderson. If the variance request is allowed, we would
have a minimum of 12 feet between the abutting garages. A6
you will note on the enclosed plot plan, if the house would
have been pushed further south to within 10 feet of the side
property line, we would have only needed a 1 -foot variance with
hie proposed garage.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow a garage to be built
within the sidoyard setback requirement.
2. Deny the variance request to allow a garage to be built
within the eideyard setback requirement.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommendo approval of the variance roquoo t to allow thio
garage to be built and that the diatanco between the prop000d
attached garage and the oxioting garage In the adjacent property
be more than the minimum, which is 10 feat. In thin case, they
will have 12 fact between garagoo.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed location of the variance roquoot; Copy
of the plot plan showing tho cotback of the proposed garage.
-2-
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/14/85
v 5. Public Hearing - A Variance Reguest to Allow an Attached Garage
to be Built in the Side Setback Requirement - Applicant, Bruce
Tvedt. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Bruce Tvedt, current resident at 124 Marvin Elwood Road,
Anders Wilhelm Addition in the City of Monticello, is proposing
a variance request to allow him to build an attached garage
within 4 feet of his sideyard property line. As you will note
on the enclosed plot plan, Mr. Tvedt is proposing to set the
front part of the garage back 2 feet from the existing front
line of the house, with the back of the garage extending 4 feet
beyond the back of the house. With Mr. Tvedt`s proposed attached
garage, there will be in excess of 24 feet between the proposed
garage and the existing house immediately north of Mr. Tvedt's
lot. As you will note on the enclosed site plan, the house
could have been set closer to the south sideyard property line
to allow a larger garage to be built than a single car garage.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow a garage to be built
within the sideyard setoack requirement.
2. Deny the variance request to allow a garage to be built
within the aidoyard setback requirement.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow
an attached garage to be built, with the proposed garage being
in excess of 24 feet from the existing houoo immediately north
of the applicant'a lot.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed location of the varianco request; Copy
of the plot plan showing the setback of tho proposed garage.
-3-
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/14/85
6. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow an Additional Sign
to be Placed on Existing Building Site - Applicant. Dave Peterson
Ford. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Dave Peterson, owner of Dave Peterson Ford, is proposing
to place an additional pylon sign on his property. The location
for the proposed pylon sign would be immediately to the right
approximately 10-15 feet north of the main driveway entrance.
On November 7, 1977, a public hearing was held and a variance
request granted to allow two pylon signs at the proposed new
Monticello Ford building site. Mr. Peterson is requesting the
additional sign to display Ford Trucks. The proposod now pylon
sign will be very close 1n size to the existing Monticello Ford
Mercury pylon sign.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow an additional pylon
sign to be constructed on an existing building cite.
2. Deny the variance request to allow an additional pylon sign
to be placed on an existing building site.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends denial of the variance request for the
following reasons: 1) City staff, Planning Commission, and
City Council have gone to great longtho to establish the sign
ordinance. By allowing additional pylon signs or additional
sign footage merely makes the ordinance more nonconforming.
2) We would, however, suggest that he go with one pylon sign
to accommodate his existing Monticello Ford pylon sign and incorporate
into it his used car pylon sign and his proposed truck pylon
sign. A combination of all three on one pylon would loom more
appropriate than allowing throe ooparato pylon oigno. 71 We
could also look at some typo of variance for additional square
footage of pylon sign should these throe oigno be incorporated
into one.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed location of the variance roquo ot; Copy
of the o ito plan showing the location of the prop000d now truck
pylon sign.
-4-
Planning Commission Agenda - 5/14/85
7. Public Hearin - A Variance Request to Allow 1) a Garage to
be Placed in the Front Yard of a Lot; 2) the Garage to be Placed
in the Front Setback Requirement; 3) the Garage to be Placed
Within 10 feet of Another Building; 4) the Garage to be Built
in Excess of 1000 sq. ft. - Applicant. Douglas Stokes. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Stokes is before you again with a request very similar to
his original request. In the last public hearing notice that
was filed, I made the mistake of not including all the variances
that would be needed for this proposed project. In the new
public hearing notice, you will see all of the variance requests
which might be needed for Mr. Stokes' request. You original
action was denial of one variance request. Before you will
be four variance requests for you to review. Under Section
10-23-8 as enclosed in your supplement, you will note that whenever
a variance has been considered and is up for reconsideration,
there shall be a six month waiting period. The Planning Commission
Chairman, Mr. Ridgeway, can grant or deny approval to hear Mr.
Stokes' reconsideration of his variance request.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the four variance requests as submitted.
2. Approve any combination of the four variances.
3. Do not acknowlodgo his request to be heard Tuesday night.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has no recommendation for thio item.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the variance ooction of our ordinance; Copy of Mr. Stokes'
proposed garage placement on hio property site.
-5-