Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 09-04-1979 SpecialAGENDA SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 4,, 1979 - 7:30 P.M. a Members: James Ridgeway, Fred Topel, Dick Martie, :d Schaffer, Dave Bauer. Loren Klein (ex -officio) 1. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of July, 1979. Q (Note: There was no meeting in August, 1979). 4 y 2. Consideration of an Application for Subdivision of Lots - Harold Ruff. go", �5` , o.G p �t 3. Consideration of Subdivision Application - Hick Longley. ,•' z5 Please Note, Of the two additional Public Hearing items that ware originally scheduled for this meeting, the subdivision and conditional use application for Curtis Hoglund have been postponed until a future date - probably the September 18th meeting, and the development of Parcel "A" of the I-94 Tri -Plaza wa o completely withdrawn. I MINUTES I REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 17, 1979 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Fred Topel, Dick Martie, Ed Schaffer. Laren Klein (ex -officio). Members Absent: Dave Bauer. 1. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Dick Martie and unanimously carried to approve the Minutes of June 19, 1979, as presented. 2. Consideration of a Variance Request - Glen Nelson. Mr. Glen Nelson, who is the prospective now tenant in the now existing Monticello Meats building on Cedar Street (Parts of Lots 14 s 15, Block B, Upper Monticello) was requesting a variance from the City's off-street parking requirements. Property is currently zoned P-4. The applicant was proposing to change the business to a TV Repair and Sales Business, and wanted a variance to not be required to provide the tan (10) off-atreot parking spaces as provided by City ordinance. Presently, there is only one (1) off-street parking space on the property, and according to ordinance data on required parking lot sizes, there wouldn't be enough area to develop the spaces for nine more cars an he would be required to provide. Presently, the bare parts of the lot aren't large enough to allow a parking lot. In either case, an a moat market or a TV i Radio store, only ten (10) parking spaces would be required. Mr. Glen Nelson and real estate representative, Ralph Munatertaiger, with Sandberg Realty, indicated that the new business would not likely require any more perking than Hinilicollo Moats had required previously. Gary L/iebor, City Administrator, also pointed out that the property owner who purchased Denton Eriekoon'o home indicated he had no objection to the variance request from tho provision to provide hardaurfaced parking. Thin individual property owner did have own concern if parking were to he provided to have this parking offoctivaly screened from his residence. A motion wan made by Fd Schaffer, seconded by Fred Topol and unanimously carried to approve of the variance request. 3. Oonaidoration of a Variance Roqunnt - John Prauqht. Mr. John Praught, who to presently building a now hone on Lot 29, Block 2, Ritzo Manor, would like a variance to build a 26' x 30' garage in addition to the attached 24' x 30' garage being built onto the home. Mr. Prauqht would need a variance to allow a second garage because Monticello Ordi- nanco Unction 110-3-2-(D)-01 states that no permit shall be issued for more than one (1) private garagn ntrueturo for each dwell(nq. Minutes - Planning Comm. - 7/17/79 Mr. Praught indicated that the intent of the extra building would be to provide storage for such items as a boat, travel trailer, small camper, lawn equipment, etc. Mr. Praught indicated that in no way would he be V using this extra building for repair of cars or any commercial type of usage. A motion was made by Fred Topel, seconded by Dick Martie and unanimously carried to approve of the variance request. 4. Consideration of a Variance Request - Vance's Service Center. At their last meeting, the Planning Commission chose to table action on the following item to give themselves time to review the site from the Freeway. Vance's service Center, in the I-94 Tri -Plaza at the Intersection of I-94 and highway 25, made application to extend his pylon sign 10'0" higher than it presently was. Under the present Ordinances, this pylon sign may he 32'0" high plus the difference between the business property elevation and the height of the road abutting it, if the road is higher. In this case, the Intersection of the 1-94 east approach and Minnesota Highway 25 is approximately 101 higher than the property where the Standard Station is located, thus the 10' difference has been added to make the present pylon sign 421 high. Mr. Floroll was asking that he be allowed to raise his sign to 5210" in height. < Members of the Planning Commie3clon diacussed their visual observation of the height of the present sign and also heights of other signs in the same area, and it was the consensus of the members that this sign was very visible from the Freeway. A motion was mado by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Fred Topol and unanimously carried to deny the variance request. 5. Consideration of Rorrmnt to Altar Lot Linen - key Ieurinq - River Terrace. Mr. Roy Louring would like to alter lot lines between Lots 1, 2, 3, 16, 17, c 16, Block 3, River Terrace, and in effect, would make four lots out of the present six lots, and would make the existing lots conform with the present lot site requirement. Presently, the Lots range, in site from 9,000 square foot to 10,000 square fact, and Mr. fauring would like to create two (2) 16,000 square foot lots, and two (2) 13,000 square foot lots. 7beco now proposed Iota would require no foroseablo variances and the minimum front width would be provided. A motion was made by Ed Schaffer and seconded by Fred 7bpol to recosttend approval of this subdivision provided a Certificate of Survey was received and proof of recording was provided. This motion was carried unantmouDly. Notion wan made by Fd Schaffer, seconded by Dick Martin and unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting. Gary Micher, City Administrator 2 / I V 2. Consideration of Application for Subdivision of Wts - Harold Ruff. Mr. Harold Ruff has made application for a simple subdivision of Lots 4 6 5 of Block S. Presently, Lots 4 s 5 are 66' x 165' each. Mr. Ruff would like to make two lots 82.5' x 132' each as shown on the enclosed Certificate of Survey. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial of subdivision request. REFERENCES: Enclosed certificate of survey and plat map. APPLICANT: Harold Ruff. 3. Consideration of Subdivision Application - Rick Lonqlev. V Nr. Rick Longley has made application for subdivision of his lot on South Highway 25. Presently, he has one large lot, but would like to make six (6) smaller lots of approximately 14,000 to 15,000 square feet each, each lot meeting the 100' frontage requirement. Since the park dedication fee was previously paid, another would not be necessary. Although some of the blacktop area for the Glass Hut would be lost to some of the proposed abutting lots, parking spaces can be altered to maintain the present amount, and no other variance would be necessary. The Glass Hut would be situated on Lot 3. Recommendation of approval should possibly be contingent upon sub- mission and recording of an easement to allow Lots 1, 2 6 3 and the Viet property to the North of the Glass Hut to permanent use of the frontage road across Lots 1, 2 5 3 and also a maintenance agreement for upkeep and snow removal, etc, of that road. Also, contingent should be the requirement for a permanent 30' ease- ment, 15 feet from the north side of Lot 6 and 15 feet from the south side of Lot 5, for servicing the utilities which lie there to serve lots 1 6 2.• The building setback lines on Lots 5 6 6 should be 15' on the north side of Lot 5 and 15' on the south side of Lot 5. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of recommending approval or denial of subdivision application with recommended contin- gencies. REFERENCES: Enclosed plat map APPLICANT: Rick Longloy •Note: This easement is necessary since the City is now putting in newer and water abutting lots 4, 5 5 6, and in order to service lots 1 6 2, this easement would be necessary. For your information, the City has already received a previous easement on the north side of Lot 4 that would then to effect nn..w utilities buavice to Lot 3.