Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 06-14-1983MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLn PINNING CO14ISSION May 17, 1981 - '/:IU P.M. Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Ir wlIng. Ed Schaffer, Richard Carlson and We Cochran. Members Absent: None. 2. Approval of Minutes. A motion was made by Dowling, seconded by Schaffer and unani- mously carried to approve the minute:: of the regular meeting April 12, 1987. J. Public Hearing - Variance Request for a Separate Pylon Sign - Country Kitchen. The Country Kitchen Restaurant in tl,e Monticello Mall re- cently decided to move their pylon sign from the north lido of the building to the south aide to .lain better exposure from I-94. The pylon sign alca was raised to 32 feet al,ovo 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 to change the wording daily to advartioc their specials. In addition, this reader board is alno used for meseagea not nvrvenarily related to the Country Kit,:ltvm, but for ouch things as advertising civic events, etc. Mr. Bryan Tachida, manager of the Country Kitchen, noted that when the sign was raised in height and moved to its now location, the reader board hos become vary difficult to reach easily to onablo the employc,-r to change moasagoo. Hr. Tochida requested that they h, all"ad to place the reader board portion of the sign back in its former location at the north and of the building near the front entrance. Ile noted that Country Kitchen has always had this o1gn utnce 111174 and he would not he ankintl for any additional uigna, tut only to allow It to be grardfathored in in its old location. It wou not d by the Planning C,.mtaoiun that the giand- fathered clause would no longer apply on.o ti -.0 sign woo moved to a now location and it wadi th, oum.onsuo of the committee that similar requests have 1. on made by other rentauranta to allow for addittnnal advurticinn aigna uhieh have boon deniod in the poet. Planning Commisaion Minutes - 5/17/83 As a result, a motion was made 9y Carlson, seconded by Dowling and unaraisously carried to reco®ond denial of the variance request for the separate message board sign. 4. Public Hearing - sideyard Variance Request - Matt Theisen. Mr. Hatt Moisen requested a sideyard variance to build a 26 by 26 foot attached garage to his homo to within 7� feet of the property line located at 156 Heciman Ione, Lot 1, Block 2 . Balboul Estates. Mr. Thelsen's home is currently setback 20 feet from the north proporty 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 b.a within 7% 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. 1 Because Mr. Theisen was not present at the Planning Com- 1 mission osoting, a motion was mado by Schaffer to table any action on the request at this time . Tho motion died because of a lack for a second. A motion was then made by Carinon, seconded by Dowling to fccumn;nd approval of the variance request allowing the garup to be built to within 7ti feet of the property lino wince the abutting property owner did not object. Voting in favor were Carlson , Ridgeway, Dowlinc and Cochran . Schaffer abotainud. 5. Public Warinq - Variance from Minimum FAuaro Footaqo Roquiremento - Hal trohmann. Mr. Hal Hohmann, who has built four cartdominiumo/apartmont unito oar tato 3 and 4, 5 and 6, of 91=k 1, Holker'o Hillaidlo Terrace, has requooted a varianco to develop the balances of the property in that block with 3 additional tour uraitcondominiume and one ddplox. Mr. Mohmann has lndicatedplane to acquire a small triangular portion of proport y loeatcd within the block from Roy Louring to square off the property into one owncrnhip. - 2 - 7 V planning commission Minutes - 5/17/83 Previously, when Mr. Welmiinn built the first four units on Lots 3 through G, he had been granted variances from the minimum lot arze requirements for each of the four buildings amounting to approximately 6y% for ear•h 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 M. Mehmann 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, ho would have to address how the situation of square footage shortages would be resolved on tlu remaining 4 late of Block 1, Ilillside Terrare. Mr. wehmevu's response in July of 1982 was that of the 7% lots which wove available in Block 1, (without Mr. laurinq's triangular prolv:rty) his intentions wets to Wild only 7 foul unit hwldurg: and the half lot which remained would be used to olf set the shortages an the first developments. if only 7 Pour unit buildings were to bo built on the entire block withrnN o-tr. lauring's parcul, there would be an overage of square In,htagv by approximately 1,u00 squame teet. Tho Wannimt o:unmrrai•m approved tho pro- viima variance request asmuming that. tin• entire development within the block would tnt•vL City nrolinanren as a whole. Ya. Weltm..nn now feels that lh • yuh ars I.Lx k could be developed Ivatet it he could acquire the -I land track Mr. laurim.q. Thy additional cost of acquiring LhJ , I,ucul of land would square off the block but Mr. Wohmrnn Ivelu it would only be fcauible to acquire thin property which would create 4 lots orrailar to the first half of the bl,hck if the property eonld contain 3 four unit buildinqu and 1 dul•l,;x. In reviewing tl,h• entire Block l develtymuent, the 7 tour unit buildings arid 1 duploz would have a square footage iequiremont of 119,000 uquaru feet according to the City ordinances l'ut the property only contains 109,072 square feet. 11,ia would r,.sult in the entire block having approximately Bti4 shortage of land area to meat City ordinancou. Sutlharl. variances were uL,u requem.ted for two of the buildinqu a:: prop•oied to allow fnr a 20 f( -,t .,thiel: on one building vhere 10 feet wan requite,i (Scinq Iautinq lane and a setback Lit la teal ini the duplex wit.-ty 311 lit L u, normally required. WEI Planning c'umni:::ien•Minutes - `/17/B•t TIw basic cunucu::uu ul lite Pl.uenoy "wmu n,e wd•, LhdL the development was very aesthctic-ilty plea :inq and well thought out but the ermpaittee meaner_. expressed concerns over the entire development out mi•etiny the minimum square footage requirements as originally planned. 14r. 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 minim - 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 lose than 14 units more. It was noted by Mir. 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 ltavo only 4 units per building maximum, rather than ore large apartment complex. Although the Planning Coamission agreed that the dovelopment is well planned and aesthetically pleasing, a motion was made by Dowling, seconded by Catluon am] unanimously carried to deny the variance request from minimum square footage requirements because the uriganal imp,tuucion left with the Planning Catmint ion in July 1982 .at to meet the aquaro footage requirements on the unt ur drv,•]rqtm•nr, [.. Puhlic Wdt'Lnq - Variance I tr,m M_:I,,_r.u_m I_It h Requirumont Brad Larson. Mr. Drat tarsan, partner 4•Lth K'tCr111 .url cerate,, WLn own, parts of Wto 9 and 10, Olnck :u, Tcwnnitu ,•t Mot,t,cq-llo, have requested a variance frim City Otdrn.,ncou to allow fur the conntruetion of a two nt.ury upl it. wet ry, 6400 uttuare foot office buildang an thin parcel. The property is located adjacent to their law office on the currier of Broadway and Locust. The property, according to the certificate of survey proaantod, is 39.2 feet wide along Broadway and 102.84 foot defy, along Locust Street. It in the developor'o intent to acquire approximately throe quarters of a foot from the ad- joininy proputty owner owned by notcalf and Larson to coke this new parcel 40 foot wide, to latch the building sire pro- posed. -4- C Planning Commission Minutes - 5/17/63 Mr. Jim Metcalf and Ralph Munaterteiger reviewed with the Plan- ning Commission their proposal to build the 6400 square foot building and provide five 6 foot wide parking spaces at the rear of the property aux] requested a variance to allow an additional 11 parking spaces along time City's right-of-way (boulevard) along locust Street (diagonal parking). The diagonal larking as proposed would rt -quite the existing curb to be removed and the 20 foot long parking stall would ex- tend approximately 6 feet into +hat is cu,rently the street area between the curb. This would lurve a 14 foot driving lane from the center of the ruid to the and of time parkin) stall compared to 20 feet that now exi:tz trim tire• center line to the curb of Locust. Mr. Metcalf noted that even if the buildinq were to tic cut to OLZ,•, the I.,L is very small and additional parking spaces on site would W hard to obtain no matter how small the building w,r:. lie 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 thin typo of parking. The Planning Commission had reservations about diagonal parking being allowed as it was noted that during the w 77 Street Improvement Project, many businesses lost diagonal parking when the now curb and gutter was installed. Thera 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 Iv po•u,ibly 3 Lo 4 tenants her floor which could ronult in 5 to 10 employeso needing parking for the now office buiMiml. ntt.lu.ugh the typos of buuinoaceu that would po,,nibly I, lu,•,tt,•d in this office buildinq mny not re.purr slot of I•trking, some of the lmtking would take place alcm.l .-oh, r Broadway or I,r•wt Stl'eeL. Mr. Metcalf frit thin- w.t, I-lenty of parktnq spaces available in tux• d,auu,wn arra to trout the needs of the busrncasttten. hltl,.ntyu.tht• Imrucular larcel ss outuide tits at.orvcn•nt dig tract for thr ,Ifwntown larking lute, it waa the Planning Ccntmtrnnion's recomaendatitn that tiro develuporn work with tLe City Statt to possibly agree cm ,:oma nort of nn asnosament allowing this parcel tn be 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. 71n: Planning Ceemission noted that it was not in favor of allowinq diagonal parking on the City boulevard. As a result, the Planning Ccmmiasion tabled any action on this variance reynest 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 buildinq with reduced on site parking requirements. A motion was made by Schaffer and :«condod by Carlson to edjourn. Itick kblfateller Aunistant Administrator Planning Commission Agenda - 6/14/83 AGENDA SUPPLEMENT V 3. Public Hearing - Sideyard Variance Request - Tom and Shirley Giroux. Mr. Tam Giroux requested a sideyard variance to build a 26 X 26 foot attached garage to his home to within 9 feet of the property line. His home is located at Rt 1, 132 Marvin Elwood Road, Anders Wilhelm Estates. According to the site plan enclosed with the agenda, the house is currently set back 22 feet from the northwest property line which currently meets City ordinance require- monts. By adding on a 26 X 26 foot garage, a variance would be necessary as the northwest corner of the garage would be within 9 feet of the property line and the rear corner of the garage would be approximately 15 foot from the southwest corner property line. Ordinances require a 10 foot set back unless a variance is requested. If the variance is granted allowing a garage to be built within 9 feet of the property line, it should probably be noted that the minimum, distance recommended between the otructuroo should be at least 15 foot. The abutting property owner has mot ordinance requirements and has etayod 30 foot from the property lino, no there would be at leant 22 foot between the garage atructuro and the abutting property owner's house. Except one notation should be noted hero, that the neighbor hao a fence abutting hio houoo to the back part of hia property oncloning the back part of hio property. Tho abutting fence will project approximatoly 11 foot, 4 inehoo to the cl000at portion of the garage. POSSIBLE ACTION: Cenoidoration of approving or denying variance roquesta allowing the garage to be built within 9 foot of the property lino, a one foot variance. REFERENCESs A map depicting the location of the property and a pito plan noting the location of the attached garage. - I - IN 7 J 1, SIMARD VARIANCE - To build a 261 X 26' attached garage to within 9' of property line. 7homau S Shirley Giroux. Planning Commission Agenda -6/14/83 4. Public Hearing - Sideyard Variance Request Or Additional Garage on Residential Lot - Leo Mazer. Mr. leo Mazer requested a side yard variance to build a 10 foot by 22 foot addition to his attached garage to the home to bring it within 5 feet of the property line. The home is located at 18 Eagle Circle, Country Club Addition. According to the site plan enclosed with the agenda, the garage is currently set back 15 feet from the side from the oast property line which meets City ordinance requirements. By adding a 10 foot by 22 foot garage addition, a variance would be necessary as the southeast corner of the garage would be within 5 feet of the property line. Ordinance requires a 10 foot set back unless a variance is granted. If the variance is granted allowing the garage addition to be built within 5 feet of the property, it should probably be noted that if an abutting property owner should evor build a hoe .a or garage, the minimum distance recommend- ed between the utructures should be at Icaot 15 feet. If the abutting property owner mot ordinance requirements and otayed 10 feet from the property line, there would be at least 15S foot between the garage structure and his house or garage whichever would koo built which should he adequate for access to the rear of Cho property. Mr. Ino Mazer rcquoutod an additional garago be built to the rear of his proporLy if the addition to his existing would not be allowed. Mr. Mazer has plenty of allowable square feat on his property to build an additional garage to the rear of his property. He aloo has an oncloaod back yard which is approxirxmtely two feet off the property line both aide yard and rear yard. His proposed garage would be approximately 24 feet by 24 feet and would be used only for storage of his recreational vehicle and lawn anti garden equipment. Ordi.znanco requires that a variance be obtained boforo a now garago could be built in addition to the existing garage, no more than one garage per residential unit. if the variance is granted allowing Mr. Mazur to build an additional dotac?tod garage, it uhould be noted that the garage to be built should be built within the required roar and aide yard out backs for a detached acccusory tui lding. J 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 6/14/63 Ili POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approving or denying the variance request allowing the garage addition to be built within 5 feet of the property line, 5 foot variance, or allowing an additional detached garage to be built to the rear of the property. REFERENCES: A map depicting the location of the property and a site plan noting the location of the proposed attached garage and/or new garage to the rear of the property. - 3 - Mi VARIANCE - TO allow more than one garage per property pursuant to Monticello ordinances. lao Mazer 4 -4. Planning Commission Agenda - 6/14/83 5. Public Fearing - A Variance to Build a Privacy Fence Adjacent to Property Line and to Allow Construction of a Deck Adjacent to Property Line - David Brouillard. Mr. David Brouillard is requesting a variance to allow con- struction of a privacy fence and a deck abutting his house to the proposed privacy fence in a B-4 zone. His home is located at 103 North Locust Street, Monticello Original Plat, the north one half of Irate 11 and 12, Block 50. According to the site plan enclosed, Brouillard would like to build the privacy fence and the deck to within one foot of the existing abutting property owner's fence. In a B-4 zona, you are allowed to build right on the lot line if so desired. Mr. Brouillard would like to build the privacy fence with a maximise height of 8 feet which in a B-4 zone, a fence can be no higher than 6 foot maximum. Also, he would like to build a doclk approximately 10 by 15 which is a non -conforming use in a B-4 zone, therefore requiring a variance. If the variance ware granted allowing the privacy fence to be built within one foot of the abutting property line, the fence would be no leoo than 6 foot high and no more than B foot high. The prop000d dock, if built, would be built according to the uniform build ing code with frost footings down at leaot 42 inches into tle ground. POSSIBLE ACTION: Conoideration of approving or denying the varias:co request to allow a privacy fence to be constructod in a 13-4 zone and a dock to be built within a 0-4 zone . BCFF.RENCF.S: A map depicting tho location of the property and a sits plan noting location of prop000d privacy fence and dock. - 4 - 0 ImpmPTo allw construction ') \ fence adjacent to property lane and construction of �\ deck. moo.;`. •• +44 • •/ry ` ,.. ••• 'li JL AL— j r "ar^►r, o6a66rrrinrr O O 0