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