Planning Commission Agenda Packet 09-11-1984AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTIC U,0 PLANNING COMMISSION
September 11, 1984 - 8:01 P.M.
Members: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Richard Carlson, Don
Cochran, and Ed Schaffer.
8:01 P.M. 1. Call to Order.
8:03 P.M. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held on August 14, 1984.
8:05 P.M. 3. Public Hearing - Rezoning Request to Rezone from
I-1 to B-3 - Applicant, Burger King Corporation.
8:20 P.M.
4. Public Hearing - Variance Requests:
1) To allow additional pylon sign height than
the maximum allowed.
2) To allow a crushed rock truck parking lot
surface rather than the hard surface.
3) To allow a 30 -Loot driveway entrance instead
of the required 24 -foot driveway entrance.
Applicant, Burger King Corporation.
8:35 P.M.
5. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow lens
than the Required 10 -foot Sideyard Setback -
Applicant, Jay Miller.
8:58 P.M.
6. Public Nearing - Variance Requests:
1) To allow additional pylon sign height than
the maximum allowed.
2) To allow driveway access width in excess
of the maximum 24 teat allowed.
Applicant. Wendy -c.
9:05 P.M.
7. Public Hearing - Concept plan and Preliminary
Plan for Proposed Planned Unit Development -
Appiicants, Jim Powors and Kant Kjellborg.
Additional Information Items
9:45 P.M.
1. To oat the next tentative dlato for the Monticello
Planning Commission meeting for October 9, 1984,
at 7:30 P.M.
9:45 P.M.
2. Adjournment.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
September 11, 1984 - 8:01 P.M.
Members: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Richard Carlson, Don
Cochran, and Ed Schaffer.
8:01 P.M. 1. Call to Order.
8:03 P.M. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held on August 14, 1984.
8:05 P.M. 3. Public Hearing - Rezoning Request to Rezone from
I-1 to B-3 - Applicant, Burger King Corporation.
8:20 P.M. 4. Public Hearing - Variance Requests:
1) To allow additional pylon sign height than
the maximum allowed.
2) To allow a crushed rock truck perking lot
surface rather than the hard surface.
3) To allow a 30 -foot driveway entrance instead
of the required 24 -foot driveway entrance.
Applicant, Burger King Corporation.
8:35 P.M. 5. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow leen
than the Required 10 -foot Sidoyard Setback -
Applicant, Jay Miller.
8:58 P.M. 6. Public Roaring - Variance Requests:
1) To allow additional pylon sign height than
the maximum allowed.
2) To allow driveway access width in excona
of the maximum 24 foot allowed.
Applicant, Wendy'o.
9:05 P.M. 7. Public Hearing - Concept Plan and Preliminary
Plan for Proposed Planned Unit Development -
Appllcants, Jim Powers and Kent Kjollborg.
Additional Information Items
9:45 P.M. 1. To sot the next tentative data for the Monticello
Planning Commission meeting for October 9, 1984,
at 7:30 P.M.
9:45 P.M. 2. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - 14ONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
August 14, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Richard Carlson,
Don Cochran.
Members Absent: Ed Schaffer.
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Thomas Eidem, John Simola,
Roger Mack, Walter Keck, AlLert Meyer.
The meeting was called to order by President Jim Ridgeway at
7:34 P.M.
Motion was made by Don Cochran, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to
approve the July 10, 1984, regular Planning Commission meeting
minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Public Hearing - Pinal Plot Approval, Meadow Oak 3rd Addition -
Applicant, Ultra 11omes, Inc.
Mr. and Mrs. Dickman Knutson were present to propose the final
plat for the Meadow Oak 3rd Addition. Mr. Knutson indicated
that it had been a long, drawn out process since the application
was originally made back 1n November of 1983. He also indicated
that he felt very comfortable with the decision that was done
by an outside engineering firm, Barr Engineering, on the EAW.
Queo tiono were raised by Planning Commission membora as to when
the development of an outlet from the Meadow Oak Development
Lor storm water drainage out of the holding ponds within the
development would occur. Mr. Knutson indicated the outlet would
be installed sometime in the futur*, not knowing just when it
would occur. City Administrator. Tom Eidem, indicatod that
City staff would work with Mr. Knutson to come up with a plan
of the staged development when it tomos to a point when an outlet
would be needed to be put 1n. Motion van made by Don Cochran,
seconded by Richard Carl oon, to approve the o ubdivioion request
for final approval of the oubdivloion plat to be known so Meadow
Oak 3rd Addition, with the condition that the developer work
with City otaff to coma up with a workable time table for the
ina tallatlon of an outlet from the holding ponds within the
Meadow Oak Development. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Public liearinq - Rozoninq Request to Rezone from 0-4 to R-3 -
Applicant, City of Monticello.
M,. Tom Eidem, City Administrator, was pr000n t to explain tho
_1-
Planning Commission Minutes - 8/14/84
rezoning request. The basic intent of the rezoning request
is to allow for a proposed development of an elderly housing
project on Lots 130 14, and 15, Block 51. The proposed elderly
housing project would act as a buffer zone between the single
family housing on the north aide of River Street and blend in
with the Business District on the north side of East Broadway.
Due to the location of the north S of Blocks 50 and 51, it is
not conducive to be continued as a Business District, as our
business is expanding further southward instead of in a northward
direction, with the actual pedestrian traffic for businesses
in this area being very minimal. Planning Commission Chairman,
Jim Ridgeway, opened up the hearing to comments from the public.
Mr. Gustafson, representing his mother, Marie Gustafson, had
questions on the zoning change and wanted an explanation of
B-4 and R-3 zoning, which was explained to him by the City Administrator.
He also had a question as to the devaluation of the land of
his mother's property once the rezoning would take place from
B-4 to R-3. City Administrator, Thomas Eidem, answered that
in his estimation the valuation would increase with the zoning
being changed from B-4 to R-3. Planning Commission Chairman,
Jim Ridgeway, questioned as to whether it shouldn't be zoned
to R -B, which would allow all the residential uses of R-3 allowed
in an R -B Zone. City staff had not considered R -B for zoning
and looked at the R -B zoning aspect of it. It would be very
compatible with this area and would also allow Mr. Gustafson's
mother's property to be developed either as residential or a
residential with a business entity in it. Zoning Administrator,
Gary Anderson, was asked if a public hearing deadline could
bo met for a public hearing to be hold at the next City Council
meeting on August 27, 1984; and he answered that we would have
to let the newspaper know very shortly, and if they had space
available. it could possibly bo done. If there was apace available
in the Times, a public hearing notice could be published in
time to meat the deadline for the next Council meeting on August 27,
1984. Mr. Bred Larson, representing Riverview Manor Apartments,
expressed desire that the Commission members seriously look
at holding the public hearing at the next Council meeting because
further delay with a public hearing hold at the next Planning
Commission meeting could oat their project back approximately
6 weeks. Considering the above information, motion was mado
by Don Cochran, seconded by Joyce Dowling, that the Planning
Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning
request from B-4 to R -B and further recommend that tho Planning
Commission would like the public hearing to be hold at the next
regularly scheduled City Council meeting on August 27, 1984.
Motion carried unanimously.
Planning Commission Minutes - 8/14/84
5. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow a 20 -toot Rear Yard
Setback instead of the Required 30 -foot Rear Yard Setback -
Applicant, Riverview Manor Apartments.
Mr. Brad Larson, partner in the Riverview Manor Apartments,
was present to request a 20 -foot rear yard setback instead of
the required 30 -foot rear yard setback in the southwest corner
of the proposed elderly housing apartment building. Mr. Larson
iterated to the background of how the project came about and
the proposed development of the property for his proposed apartment
project. Mr. Larson indicated the proposed project would be
a 31 -unit elderly housing project, including a two-bedroom caretaker's
apartment, with the other 30 units being one -bedroom apartments.
Motion was made by Richard Carlson, seconded by Don Cochran,
to approve the 20 -foot rear yard setback instead of the required
30 -foot rear yard setback in the southwest corner of the proposed
elderly apartment building. Motion carried unanimously.
G. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to Allow More than
a 12 -unit Apartment Building in an R-3 Zone - Applicant, Riverview
Manor Apartments.
Mr. Brad Larson, partner In the proposed Riverview Manor Apartment
Building, is requesting to bo allowed to build a 31 —unit elderly
housing apartment building in an R-3 Zone. Chairman Jim Ridgeway
asked Mr. Larson if he was aware of the R -B Zoning proposed
in an earlier public hearing for the property; and he said he
wan already aware of it. He had discussed with Zoning Administrator,
Cary Anderson, the possibility of R -B Zoning for their project
also. With no Input from the public, motion was mado by Don
Cochran, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve the conditional
use request to allow more than a 12 -unit apartment building,
a 31 -unit apartment building, with the condition that the rezoning
be approved by the City Council for the rezoning of the affected
property from B-4 to R -D Zoning. Motion carried unanimously.
7. Public Hearing - Concept Plan and Preliminary Plan for Planned
Unit Development - Applicanto. Jim Powers and Kent Kiollberg.
Mr. Brad Largon, repreoonting Jim Powers and Kent K jollborg,
the appllcanto, prcoonted a proposal for a Planned Unit Development
on approximately 12.48 acro❑ of land previously owned by Mi.
Larry Flake adjacent to Monticello Ford property. Mr. Larson
indicated that the piano weren't as olaborato as what would
be done by professional planners, but they were adoquato to
moot the needs of the City and conditions that have been addrossed
by the Consulting Plannor'o comments have all boon addressed
by the applicanto. They aro willing to abide by whatever the
City wieheo to expodlto the project. Mr. Larson indicated the
urgency being that one phase of the project would bo a Wondy'e
Restaurant, and they are anxiously awaiting to commence with
-3-
Planning Commission Minutes - 8/14/04
construction. From the City's standpoint, we see no problem
with them getting started with their project, as the Wendy's
project could be built on one corner of the site but would be
the only allowable building to be built on the 12.48 acre site
until the P.U.D. is approved by the Planning Commission and
City Council. Much discussion centered on the proposed roadway
through the P.U.D., whether it be a public or private roadway,
and also the water and sewer lines, whether they be private
or public lines. The applicants agreed that they intend to
put in whatever the City wishes. The City has very strong feelings
that the public utilities, the underground water and sewer lines,
be public lines so we could monitor the lines when they are
installed and also take care of the lines once they are installed.
We had no problem with a private street being run through the
property, but we did have a problem with the public street,
Sandberg Road, dead -ending at their property and a private road
starting from there. We wanted a continuation of the public
road, Sandberg Road, directly through to Oakwood Drive or go
westward and hook up with Marvin Road. Mr. Larson indicated
that if the City wishes, it would be a public through roadway
to Oakwood Drive. Chairman Jim Ridgeway asked if there were
any comments from the public. Mr. Dan Goeman questioned if
there would be any effect on any development of Sandberg South
Addition from this proposed P.U.D. 'toning Administrator Anderson
countered that there would be no effect on Sandberg South Addition.
Motion by Don Cochran, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to recommend
to the City Council that it approve the conveyance by a meeto
and bounds of a parcel not more than 1 acre legal description
attached as Exhibit A provided that: 1) said parcel contain
access to a public street; 2) the appropriate utility casement
shall be retained around its perimeters; 3) said parcel ohall
be given a future designation by lot number as part of a proposed
P.U.D. to be developed and recorded; 4) prior to the conveyance
there be drafted, given approval by the City Attorney, and signed
by the City Administrator of the City (and Jim Powers, Kent
Kjcllborg, the owners/developers of the proposed Wendy -o and
all owners of record as dovolomcnt portion) a development
contract to be recorded as a dead restriction over and on the
remaining acreage which will guarantee the timely completion
of the proposed P.U.D. Motion carried unanimously.
The meeting recessed at 9:28 P.M. for a 5-minuto recess.
The meeting was reconvened at 9:37 P.M.
8. Public Iloaring - Subdivision of a Residential Lot for Proposed
0 -unit Townhouoco - Applicant, Jay Miller.
Jay Miller woo present with his proposal to oubdtvido existing
Lot 9, Block 4, Into eight separate lots with a common area
around the eight townhouoco to be owned jointly by an Incorporated
Planning Commission Minutes - 8/14/84
Townhouse Association- Jay indicated he would be short on the
south sideyard approximately 1-2 feet and that before the final
plat would be recorded he would make up the difference by expanding
the overall lot size 1-2 feet to accommodate the shortage in
the south sideyard setback area. Motion by Don Cochran, seconded
by Richard Carlson, to approve the subdivision request to subdivide
an existing lot into eight separate lots for eight townhouses
with the common area around the eight townhousee to be owned
jointly by an Incorporated Townhouse Association, with the condition
being that the lot width be increased so that the south sideyard
setback area be a minimum of 10 feet as required by the City
Zoning Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously -
9. Public Clearing - Variance Request to Allow a 15 -foot Sideyard
Setback instead of the Required 30 -foot Sideynrd Setback - Applicant,
Key Tool 6 Plastic, Inc.
Mr. Mary Cull, partner in Key Tool 6 Plastic, Inc. , was present
to propose a 15 -foot sideyard setback on the west side of the
property instead of the required 30 -foot sideyard setback.
Mr. Cull presented Planning Commission members with the proposed
stage development of Key Tool 6 Plastic. In the staged development,
Mr. Cull indicated they are proposing to build the initial building
with proposed additions to the existing building in future years.
The reason in applying for the variance is that the Iota are very
narrow lots with more depth than width and to set a considerably
sized building on there you need a lot of depth to the building
than the width will allow. Therefore, Mr. Cull would like to
have the building not as close to the westerly portion of Lot 10
as he would be allowed. Fifteen feet is what he is requesting
to accommodate a wider building with lase depth. Also, the
unloading facilities would be off to the aide of the building
instead of on the roar of the building. In doing co, with future
staged expansion, thio will allow expansion to occur with a
minimum of hardship to the developer. Motion by Joyce Dowling,
seconded by Don Cochran, to approve the variance request to
allow a 15 -foot oldoyard setback instead of the required 30 -foot
sidayard setback, with the condition that the variance apply
to the entire parcel, the wont ti of Lot 10, and all of Lot 11,
Block 2, Louring Ililloido Addition. Motion carried unanimously.
10. Public Ilooring - Conditional Use Request to Allow Outdoor Storage
in an I-1 Zone - Applicant, Rainbow Entorprisoo, Inc.
Mr. Darrell Anderson, par Lner in Rainbow Enterprises, Inc.,
is requeoting to be allowed outdoor storage in the roar of his
lot. The material to bn otorod is metal f111nga, ❑mall pieces
of metal shavinga, currently to be stored in barrels. If it
hocomna more feasible , they would be stored in dumpotoro with
a ocrocning fonco around the entire outdoor otorage area. Motion
by Don Cochran, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve the conditional
use request to allow outdoor storage in an I— 1 Zone, with the
-5-(17
Planning Commission Minutes - 8/14/64
condition that the entire area around the outdoor storage containers
have a screening fence around them. Motion carried unanimously.
11. Public Hearing - Residential Unplatted Land Lot Subdivision
by Registered Land Survey - Applicant, Marvin Kramer.
Mr. Marvin Kramer was present to discuss his proposal to subdivide
his currently unplatted land, 3.00 acres, into possible lots
for multiple family housing. It is currently zoned R-3, Medium
Density Residential, which would allow this to be done. Mr.
Kramer's property currently lies in the center of a proposed
collector roadway to be constructed at some time in the future.
At this point, the City would like to negotiate with Mr. Kramer
for purchase of a portion of his land for either an 80 -foot
roadway easement or possibly a 40 -foot roadway easement on his
property and another 40 -foot roadway easement on the adjoining
property to the south owned by Mr. Tom Brennan. Mr. Tom Holthaus,
property owner just east of Mr. Kramer'a property, was concerned
about the 80 -foot roadway easement and how close it would come
to his property. Mr. Holthaus indicated he would like to do
some landscaping around his property, but he doesn't intend
to do it until he knows where the roadway would be going through.
Water and cover would have to be extended up Minnesota Street,
approximately 600-800 foot, up to Mr. Kramer's property to service
his proposed development of multiple family dwellings. The
basic intent of the public hearing at thio time is to get approval
or denial of Planning Commission members on Mr. Kramer's proposed
subdivision idea. This not needing a motion, a verbal consent
was given by each of the Planning Commission members that wore
present. Joyce Dowling, Jim Ridgeway, Don Cochran, and Richard
Carlson all voiced their approval of the concept of Mr. Kramor-s
proposed subdivision of his property.
Additional Information Items
1. The material is not done yet, so there in no work session to
be scheduled yet.
2. Motion by Richard Carlson, seconded by Don Cochran, to approve
the next tentative meeting data for September 11, 1984, at 7:30 P.M.
Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Don Cochran, to adjourn
the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 10:32 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
� !/ X> ,/ ,G. /li'
Gary Andbroon
Zoning Administrator
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/11/84
3. Public Hearing - Rezoning Request to Rezone from I-1 to B-3 -
Applicant, Burger King Corporation. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Burger King Corporation is proposing to have Lots 1 6 2, Block 2,
Lauring Hillside Terrace Addition, rezoned from I-1 to B-3 to
accommodate their proposed new Burger King restaurant. In talking
with our Consulting Planning Firm, Howard Dahlgren 6 Associates,
and John Uban, Consulting Planner, Mr. Uban indicated that when
the City zoning areas were set up that they usually ran on one
side of the street, and they didn't intersect through lots or
parts of lots in a block. He did, however, indicate that he
saw no problem with rezoning Lots 1 6 2, Block 2, Lauring Hillside
Terrace Addition, from I-1 to B-3 and that it is adjoining a
B-3 Zone and it is conducive to the type of businesses in the
B-3 Zone in this area. As of today's writing of the agenda
supplement, September 7, 1984, we have heard no comments from
the public in regard to the rezoning from I-1 to B-3 either
in the negative or the positive response.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the rezoning request to rezone Lots 1 6 2, Block 2,
Lauring Hillside Terrace Addition, from I-1 to B-3.
2. Deny the rezoning request to rezone Lots 1 6 2, Block 2,
Lauring Hillside Terrace Addition, from I-1 to B-3.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff rocommends approval of the rezoning request to rezone
Lots 1 6 2, Block 2, Lauring Hillside Addition, from I-1 to
B-3. The rezoning io conducive with the Monticello Compreheneivo
Plan.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed rezoning; Copy of tho alto
plan of the proposed Burger King rootaurant.
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/11/84
4. Public Hearing - Variance Requests:
1) To allow additional pylon sign height than the maximum allowed.
2) To allow a crushed rock truck parking lot surface rather
than the hard surface.
3) To allow a 30—foot driveway entrance instead of the required
24 -foot driveway entrance.
Applicant, Burger King Corporation. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Burger King Corporation is proposing to build a new Burger King
restaurant on Lots 1 6 2, Block 2, Lauring Hillside Addition.
In doing so, they are proposing three variance requests before
you, which aro quite similar in nature to other requests which
have been prosented to you in the past. The first one is additional
sign height. The Ordinance requires a maximum sign height of
32 feet. Burger King is proposing a maximum sign height of
50 feet, which would be an 18 -foot variance. In the past, we
have allowed variance requests for additional sign height to
other restaurants and other businesses along the freeway.
Burger King is also proposing to have a hard surfaced parking
lot for the entire car/small truck parking area. According
to the number of o paces required under our Ordinance,
Burger King will exceed the minimum amount of parking spaces
required. The variance before you is Burger King would also
like to have a somi-truck parking lot to accommodate semi -truck
parking within their property. On the lot that they are proposing,
they would like not to have the surface blacktopped at this
time. But they would like to have a crushed rock or a decorative
rock surface at this time.
Burger King to proposing to have a wider driveway access than
the maximum accono width allowed, which is 24 feet. In doing
so, Burger King io proposing a 30 -foot driveway entrance to
accommodate somi- tractor trucks and also vehicles pulling campers
to allow them plenty of room to turn into Burger King and also
to coma back out of Burger King onto Codar Street.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the V oriance Request to allow a 50 -toot sign height,
which would bo an 18 -foot variance.
2. Deny the variance request for additional sign height for
a 50 -foot sign where Ordinance requires a 32 -foot sign,
which is an 16 -foot sign hoight variance.
3. Approve the Variance Request to allow a crushed rock truck
parking lot surface rather than the hard surface.
4. Deny the Variance Request to allow a crushed rock truck
parking lot surface rather than the required hard surface.
-2-
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/11/84
5. Approve the Variance Request to allow a 30 -foot driveway
entrance instead of the required 24 -foot driveway entrance.
6. Deny the Variance Request to allow a 30 -foot driveway entrance
instead of the required 24 -foot driveway entrance.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Variance to allow additional
pylon sign height than the maximum allowed, a 50 -foot pylon
sign where the Ordinance allows a 32 -foot pylon sign, which is
an 18 -foot pylon sign height variance.
Staff recom.aends approval of the Variance Request to allow a
crushed rock truck parking lot surface than the required hard
surface.
Staff recommends approval of the Variance to allow a 30 -foot
driveway entrance instead of the required 24 -foot driveway entrance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed site plan for the proposed Burger King
restaurant; Copy of the location of the new Burger King restaurant;
Copy of the pylon sign for the new Burger King restaurant.
-3-
mu
1, .GER KING*
SIGN 'A'
Double -face sign with two piece.
prescreened faces of polycarbonate
Faces are pan embossed to a depth
of 2j" with "Burger R_inn and the
bun embossed an anti 1-3/4".
Sign box is 14V wide extruded
sluminwu. The support column(s)
will be re -used.
Cdo
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/11/84
V 5. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow Less than the Required
10 -foot Sideyard Setback - Applicant, Jay Miller. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Jay Miller is before you again to ask for a Variance on the
sideyard setback in his proposed 8 -unit townhouse building.
The sideyard setback would be on the southwest portion of the
1 at. Jay admits that It was an error on his part in the actual
laying out of the building on the site, indicating a question
mark on the rear lot pins for the lot, which were given to him
by the Engineer, Meyer-Rohlin 6 Associates, and they were different
when they came back to actually measure up the building foundation.
Whether it was Jay Miller's fault or the Engineer's fault, Mayer-Rohlin,
there still is a Variance before you for a sideyard setback.
Much discussion was held on this at the peat Monticello City
Council meeting on August 27, 1984. There seems to be some
discrepancy in the Ordinance or an oversight when we get into
R-2 Zoning. Like R-1 Zoning, we only need a 10 -foot sideyard
setback. When we get into R-3 Zoning, it is required to have
a 20 -foot sideyard setback. The interpretation of the Ordinance
should have been with the conditional uses allowed in an R-2
Zone, that being a 4-plex or an 8 -unit townhouoe building, that
the sideyard setback should have been increased to a 20 -foot
sideyard setback, the same as in R-3 Zoning. Tho Council than
placed a moratorium on any more townhouses to be constructed
f3howing lose than a 20 -foot eidoyard setback. In going through
the Ordinance in our Comprehensive Plan, we will no note this
change in it as a conditional use in an R-2 Zone, a 4-plax as
a condition to the conditional uoe in an R-2 Zone. Four-plaxen
and 8 -unit townhouse buildings will have to have a 20 -foot sideyard
setback. The developer of this addition and also the developer
of this property, John Sandberg and Jay Miller respectively,
have both indicated that there would be at least 40 feet left
between the two buildings once a now building 1a conotructed
on either Block 4, Lot 0, or Block 5, Lot 1, which aro the lots
ourrounding the lot In question.
13. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the Variance Roquaet to allow loon than 10 -toot
eidoyard cotback inatoad of the required 10 -foot oidoyard
cotback.
2. Deny the Variance Roquoot to allow loon than a 10 -foot oidoyard
ootback inotoad of the required 10 -foot oidoyard ootback.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff rocommondo approval of the Variance Roquoot to allow lone
than a 10 -foot oidoyard setback where a required 10 -foot ootback
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/11/84
is needed, with the condition noted and brought out at the public
hearing to the applicant that no more townhouses will be allowed
to be built unless they can show a 20 -foot sideyard setback.
In this case we are recommending that the next building to be
constructed on either side of this lot in question maintain
a 40 -foot setback between buildings.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
copy of the proposed 8 -unit townhouse building; Copy of the
location of the property.
'g-
{ rr \
G \ \
yaxianeo Requt to ello \ pa to n tho
'• ' roquirad id -I —tdfdb�td ibaCk:\
Jay Millor + �
in
t . t�`"!: err �11 ,'^ ."l , �, . `!r''� 1 ` :' • ,�� �, f1
r
—r 1
r�
LIEFERT DRIVE
1 S . aat ,. • ,• M •a So
h•+nrruOnN LrrarJ IS tah4. "—C feat[ rr eell
10, IQ"
ZONING R-2
pr 0 w�" -•.I I
FOR
vi ♦nn+' �••t♦00•. .•t4.0o •'. 1M.+j r tL 04..,.. y100•.., �' I
tMgRJ.M.TZtGEZZ
4l.4. titfJrtE 54Ta 5556?
T 1 i 1 i
T 1 PREPARED BY
1
s 3 s »„ .. i JYRER-ROHUNPVC
...-_.......
SIM ti
............. t _ .. •.......... � ••; «frMrfs"�"Or��4�A"a�°lbttf
' I
t H t a saM
I? C h = Si•+ = aaN Mf/ t r at so t• arr 'w » : ( Description
I 2 s 3 4 3 S t g ;'•i I;t 1 rLOT 9. IWO a
Q, Q� I rn:c+rr trou.rT. ,r..scsm.
fS
S � f,ur. ••-r l''i o ^ t � 'rl ao e Q not•:
L►00 'tl tltl •i -, '.*-h ro ^ l I Otaogloll• to luurbat lea at . Tnrnndur:ea
t b�' ` 44 OI -'�'` 1100 '• '�i a� Lt Oa• "'- Li AP i � sr• actual awaautnd dlatancea
l hdtgduN lot rldtna •ra r
as cttiwlon ..U#Gave not trees oat 1.blab2ann
TYAtcol 4Ar4ea al+ U tent by Ia tore
Typlul drraa •r. is feet uy 10 Inns
V {}� :N 6awl•s{su '% ;' taco 1dl it •rrvM ny' tndrvldu•1
V b•vrTaw+• 4th ►1 Alf r „ aavrr and atrr •nrvacw
} PLAT DATA
"� •,+' TOTAL 'Fl;A
Le
�,. Ya CC. ii.
IAT 1 I.,tt f:. IT.
f I W1 t 1,462 60. f7
tA7 .
5 J.4N b^. it.
._ i\ t a, _ . •. _ I LM M I.1119 Co. VT.
.Itit IT
- ta•t R :^n E:. iT.
�' "T
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/11/64
6. Public Hearing - Variance Requests:
1) To allow additional pylon sign height than the maximum allowed.
2) To allow driveway access width in excess of the maximum
24 feet allowed.
Applicant, Wendy's. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Wendy's Incorporated will be in the process of constructing
a new Wendy's Family Restaurant next to the Larry Flake Ford
building on West Oakwood Drive. Wendy's is requesting two Variance
Requests, one being to be allowed additional pylon sign height
than the required maximum 32 feet. They are looking at a 28 -foot
sign height variance, the pylon sign being a maximum 60 feet
in height. We have other variance requests in similar properties;
located next to the freeway.
Wendy's is also requesting a Variance to allow adclitional driveway
access width than the maximum 24 feet allowed. They are requesting
a 30 -foot driveway access width instead of the required 24 fact.
We have also granted variances in the past on driveway access
width. The main point in question is the need for additional
width to allow oemi-truck tractors to turn in and out of this
driveway entrance and exit.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the Variance Request to allow additional pylon sign
height than the maximum allowed.
2. Deny the Variance Requeot to allow additional pylon sign
height than the maximum allowed.
3. Approve the Variance Requent to allow a 30 -foot driveway
acc000 entrance than the required 24 -foot driveway entrance.
4. Deny the Variance Request to allow a 30 -foot driveway ontran ao
than the requircid 24 -foot driveway access entrance.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff rocommando approval of the Variance Roquoat to allow additional
pylon sign height, with the maximum sign height of the propoced
Wendy's pylon oign to be at 60 foot.
Staff aloo recommends approval of the Variance Roquoot to allow
a 30 -foot driveway acc000 entrance rather than the required
24 -foot driveway acc000 entrance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the prop000d location of the now Wendy'o Family Roataura nt;
Copy of the pito plan for the now Wondy'o Raotourant.
-6-
jJ�J �Ot�Yi. OJ►°C� AT WEST
pia A9jlrH 61vav ell- W�,HLVYIP
_:`o _
a WveFz 6ja11ON
IVY
a �
'foT�L p��«:�NG - �irrc•ur �.�e
v
61 T c MAH / rw4t l N�, Lss,'�pt1;
i2/.. -
S
. ZA-u ---jr<m
* 64McA LGtRkS
ti-
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/11/84
7. Public Hoar ins - Concept Plan and Preliminary Plan for Proposed
Planned Unit Development - Applicants, Jim Powers and Kent Kjellberg. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As of the writing of this agenda supplement, Friday, September 7,
1984, late afternoon, we have not received anymore additional
information or any information at all on the Concept Plan and
Preliminary Plan for the Planned Unit Development. we were
supposed to have received it today at the latest, and we have
not received it yet today as of this writing. They have indicated
it will be here for sure on Monday. That time on Monday is
not known. Knowin3 that to be a fact, we as City staff feel
we cannot, at this time, promise to you whether or not we will
have time to review the Concept Plan or the Preliminary Plan
for your approval or denial by Tuesday night's Planning Commission
meeting.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the Concept Plan for the Planned Unit Development
as prosented.
2. Deny the Concept Plan for the Planned Unit Development an
procent ed.
3. Approve the Preliminary Plan for the Planned Unit Development
as prom ented.
4. Deny the Preliminary Plan for the Planned Unit D ovolopment.
5. Having notrcceivod any conacnoua from the City o taff on
approval or denial of the Concept or Preliminary Plan, deny
hearing the applicanto- req ueot for approval or denial of
the Concept and Preliminary Plan for the Planned Unit Development.
G. After not hearing that City otaff hao reviewed t ho Concept
Plan or Preliminary Plan for the Planned Unit Do velopment,
to deny hearing anymore information in regard to the Preliminary
Plan and Concept Plan for the Planned Unit Development.
7. After reviewing the commonto from City staff on tho Concept
Plan and Preliminary Plan for the Planned Unit Dovelopmont,
to approve the Concept Plan and Preliminary Plan for the
Planned Unit Development.
B. After hearing City otaff-o report of the review of the Concept
Plan and Preliminary Plan for the Planned Unit Development,
to deny the Concept Plan and Preliminary Plan for the Planned
Unit De volopment.
EM
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/11/84
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff, at this time, recommends not hearing the Concept
Plan and the Preliminary Plan review for the Planned Unit Development,
having not been able to review the Concept Plan and Preliminary
Plan for the Planned Unit Development. If we do get them in
time to review the plans before Tuesday night's Planning Commission
meeting, and our comments of our review of the Concept Plan
and Preliminary Plan for the Planned Unit Development, you could
then hear public testimony of the Concept Plan and Preliminary
Plan of the Planned Unit Development.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Having not received any data to present to you, there will be
no data with your supplement at this time. If any does come
in sometime Monday for our review, we will pass them on to you.
-e-