Planning Commission Agenda Packet 10-08-1985AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
October 8, 1985 - 7:30 P.M.
Members: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Richard Carlson, Richard
Martie, and Ed Schaffer.
7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order.
7:32 P.M. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held September 10, 1985.
7:34 P.M. 3. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to
Allow a Day-care Center in a B-2 (Limited Business Zone) -
Applicant, NRM Partnership.
7:49 P.M. 4. Public Hearing - A Conditional Use Request
to Allow a Duplex Addition to be Built onto
an Existing House - Applicant, Ken Larson.
8:04 P.M. 5. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow
a House Addition to be Built within the Side Yard
Setback Requirement - Applicant, Pat Martin.
Additional Information Items
8:19 P.M. 1. Sot the Next Tentative Date for the Monticello
Planning Commioolon Meeting for Wednesday.
November 13, 1985, 7:30 P.M.
8:21 P.M. 2. Adjournment.
3. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to Allow at Day-care
Center in a B-2 Zone (Limited Business Zone) - Applicant,
NRM Partnership. (G.A.)
FAN0iN 98;1 x;I4 �RL7:2!w 41iI4�1: �1<
NRM Partnership, St. Cloud based firm is proposing to construct
a 46 foot by 64 foot, 2,940 square foot day-care center.
The proposed location of the new day-care center is out in
the new Victoria Square Addition. The building as proposed
meets the minimum setback requirements in B-2 zoning, and
also meets the minimum parking spaces as required on a parking
Ordinance. The proposed area does allow for future expansion.
A redesigning of the parking lot will accommodate future parking
spaces as needed. The entire area around the proposed day-care
center will be fenced in with a playground to the rear of
the property.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. To approve the Conditional Use Request to allow a day-care
center in a B-2 limited business zone.
2. To deny the Conditional Use Request to allow a day-care
center in a B-2 limited business zone. '
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Request to
allow this day-care center to be built in the B-2 limited
zone. This proposed building site, like other now building
oitoo, will meet the prop000d now landscaping Ordinance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A copy of the proposed location of the Conditional Doe Roqueot,
and a copy of the pito plan of tho prop000d Conditional Una
Roquoa t.
6. Public Hearing - A Conditional Use Request to Allow a Duplex
Addition to be Built onto an Existing House - Applicant, Ken
Larson. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Ken Larson is proposing to build a two story ahc:itlon
onto his existing house. The upper and lower unite of this
addition will accommodate additional. rental unite.
In R-2 Zoning (single and two family dwellings), single family
homes and duplexes are allowable uses. As a conditional use,
three or more units is allowable. Mr. Larson's lot is of
sufficient size to accommodate the proposed two story addition.
The proposed two story addition also meets the minimum requirements
for setbacks.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
t. To approve the Conditional Use Request to allow a duplex
addition to be built onto an existing house.
2. To deny the Conditional Use Request to allow a duplex
addition to be built onto an existing house.
C. STAFF RECOMlENDATIONS:
<- Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Request to
allow a two story duplex addition to be built onto Mr. Larson's
existing house.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
A copy of the location of the proposed Conditional Use Request,
and a copy of the site plan depicting the proposed duplex
addition onto existing house.
5. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow a House Addition
to be Built Within the Side Yard. Setback Requirement - Applicant,
Pat Martin. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Pat Martin is requesting a variance to allow her to construct
an 8 foot by 12 foot addition onto her existing house. The
proposed new addition would be built no closer than the existing
part of the house to the east side of the house. The problem
that exists with this existing house is that an addition was
built onto the house some years ago, and it was built within
one foot of the property line. She is requesting to build
her addition onto this existing part of the house and coming
forward no closer than the closest moat portion of the front
of her house. If the proposed addition were allowed, we see
no problem with the access between her existing house with
the proposed addition and the existing house immediately east
of her, as there is approximately 15-20 feet between the two
structures.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. To approve the Variance Request to allow an addition to
be built onto an existing house within the side yard setback
requirement.
2. To deny the Variance Request to allow an addition to be
built onto an existing house within the aide yard setback
requirement.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In talking to the immediate affected property owner to the
east of this oxiating property, we foroace no problom with
the proposed addition and with vary limitod objoction from
him, wo foresee no problem with the Variance Request being
approved as there is sufficient open area betwoon the proposed
addition and the oxiating houoo to the coot of thio proporty.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A copy of the location of tho proposod Variance Roquoot, a
copy of a site plan ohowing tho prop000d addition to thio
houoo.