Planning Commission Agenda Packet 09-10-1985AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
September 10, 1985 - 7:30 P.M.
Members: Jim Ridegewy, Joyce Dowling, Richard Carlson, Richard
Martie, Ed Schaffer.
7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order.
7:32 P.M. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Special Meeting
Held August 26, 1985.
7:34 P.M. 3. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow
a Driveway Entrance Within 40 Feet of an Intersection -
Applicant, Winkelman Building Corporation.
7:49 P.M. 4. Simple Subdivision Request to Subdivide Existing
Mates and Bounds Description Land to Residential
Lots - Applicant, Harold Ruff.
8:04 P.M. 5. Request for Final Approval of a Subdivision
Request to be Called Victoria Square Addition -
Applicant, Mike Reher.
Additional Information Items.
8:24 P.M. 1. Sot the Next Tentative Date for the Monticello
Planning Commisoion Meeting for Tuesday, October 8,
1985, 7:30 P.M.
6:26 P.M. 2. Adjournment.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
August 26, 1985 — 6:30 P.M.
Members Present: Joyce Dowling, Richard Carlson, Richard
Martie, Ed Schaffer.
Members Absent: Jim Ridgeway.
Staff Present: Gary Anderson.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Elect Richard
Carlson, at 6:37 P.M.
Motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve
the minutes of the August 13, 1965, Planning Commission meeting.
The motion carried unanimously with Jim Ridgeway absent.
3. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to Allow Construction
of a 24 Unit Apartment Building in an R-3 Zone - Applicant,
Wayne Wie ber.
Mr. Wayne Wicber was present to propose construction of a
24 unit apartment building on Louring Lana. Mr. Wiobor explained
the apartment unit would consist of 23 - 1 bedroom units and
1 handicapped bedroom unit. Laundry facilities would be provided
on the first and third floor. Mr. Wisher indicated the number
of parking spaces would exceed the minimum required by ordinance
which would be 48; he is proposing 57 parking spaces. Of
the total 57 parking apacoo, 24 of those spaces would be enclosed
garage spaces. Mr. Wfeber is also propooinga 30foot driveway
access rather than the maximum required driveway width of
24 fact. Hr. Wiabor was also proposing and did show to Planning
Commission members the pictures of existing apartment building
sites with treated timbers used as curbing in certain areas
of the parking lot. Mr. Wiabor is proposing to use treated
landscape timbers on the oast, woGt, and north oidas of his
parking lot. With no input from the public and a motion by
Ed Schaffer, seconded by Richard Martio, to approve the Conditional
Use Requeat to allow construction of a 24 unit apartment building
in an R-3 zone. Also as part of the motion, to approve the
30 foot driveway access width and the treated landscape timboro
for curbing on the north, oast, and wout aides of the parking
lot. Tho motion carried unanimously with Jim Ridgeway absent.
4. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow a House to
be Built Within the Sidoyard Gotback Requirement - Rick and
Jan Iano.
Commission member, Richard Martis, woo present to prop000
the Vari anco Request for his daughter and son -in -lav, Rick
and Jan Sano. Mr. Martie oxplainod the reason for the Variance
Request is it is only an 01 foot lot and they aro proposing
to build a 62 foot vide house and garage.
0-51
Planning Commission Minutes - August 26, 1985
Therefore, needing a one foot variance on the side of the
Property. Chairman Elect Richard Carlson asked for any input
from the public on this, and the abutting neighbor, Mrs. Hedtke,
questioned as to the amount of feet there would be between the
proposed existing attached garage on this new house and her
house. Zoning Administrator Anderson countered that there
would be 20 feet between her existing house and the new proposed
garage. Chairman Elect Richard Carlson also asked if there
was any additional input from the staff, and the staff indicated
to Mr. Carlson, that we see no problem with the Variance Request,
even though it is only a one foot Variance Request, it still
needs to go the proper procedures for a Variance Request. Motion
by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Ed Schaffer, to approve the
Variance Request to allow a house and garage to be built within
nine feet of the side property line, therefore, needing a
one foot.Variance. The motion carried unanimously with Richard
Martie abstaining, and Jim Ridgeway absent.
5. A motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Richard Martie, to
adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 6:<9 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gary Anderson
Zoning Adminiotrator
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/10/85
3. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow a Driveway Entrance
Within 40 Feet of an Intersection — Applicant, Windleman Building
Corporatl on. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND.
Mr. Keith Schupp representing Winkleman Building Corporation
is proposing to be allowed to construct a driveway entrance
within 40 feet of an intersection. Winkleman Building Corporation
is the proposed developer for a new office retail building
for the owners Warren Smith, Monticello Office Products, and
Rick Borden, partner in Gries, Johnson, and Associates. As
you will note the proposed variance request is for the driveway
access in the southeast corner of the proposed building site.
We do see a problem with the new driveway entrance being that
close to an intersection, even with the proposed one lane
of traffic with an entrance only at this access. If the parking
lot was full, and the driveway entrance also with a vehlc to
in it, we could see care starting to back up in the right
turn lane off of Walnut Street. We also forsee a possible
problem with the proposed driveway entrance in the southwest
corner of the proposed building olte. With the proposed extension
of Seventh Street to the west we would note a possible problem
with the alignment of the driveway access with the new prop000d
Seventh Street extension.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS.
1. Approve the variance requeot to allow a driveway entrance
within 40 foot of an interooction.
2. Deny the variance roquact to allow a driveway entrance
within 40 foot of an intersection.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Staff rocommando denial of the variance request to allow e
driveway entrance within 40 foot of an intorooctlon, 000 ing
numorouo traffic problemo arrising from an entrance co cl 000
to on intoroaction. We do, however, ouggoot that the layout
of the parking lot to the oouth of thio property be realigned
to adjuot for an entrance further north of the prop000d oouthcaot
driveway entrance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA.
A copy of the location of the prop000d variance requoot.
Copy of Tho alto plan for the prop000d now building alto.
04&w4A
C6446"')
I
gl •
LOT 9 BLOCK 6 OPI13INAL PLAT
I'
Opplca
BUILDING -� I
V ! LOT a
�- -r
LOT O
ru.r
� �'� a� � � � yr i• J
i►� .1I.� Iw.�p' ���
1 I
WALNUT AV@.
PLOT PLAN LAYOUT
moo,..• �,.us � �"
k
C3
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/10/85
4. Simple Subdivision Request to Subdivide Existincj Meets and
Bounds Description Land to Residential Lots - Applicant,
V Harold Ruff. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND.
Mr. Harold Ruff is proposing to subdivide an existing unplatted
lot adjacent to the parcel which includes his home. The proposed
unplatted lot by metes and bounds description is approximately
2.60 acres in size. One of the proposed new lots would have
100 feet of frontage and 330 feet of depth, with the newly
created lot. The other lot would be of irregular shape to
accommodate future driveway access with forward development
of the rear part of these newly created lots, and the lots
immediately north of here, and the unplatted land immediately
north of this. Rather than have Mr. Ruff go through the entire
subdivision ordinance for this simple subdivision, we are
suggesting to allow this subdivision to occur with a new certificate
of survey. Also, if granted, to allow the park dedication
fees to come at another point in time when he would develop
the unplatted property further immediately north of this site.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS.
1. Approve the simple subdivision request to allow unplatted
land with the mates and bounds description to be subdivided
into two residential lots.
2. To deny the simple subdivision request to allow unplatted
land with the motes and bounda description to be subdivided
into two residential lots.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Staff recommends approval of tho oimplo subdivision request
to allow unplatted land of approximately 2.60 acres to bo
oubdivldod into two parcels, parcol A and parcel B. of block
1, Ruff's Addition to tho City of Monticello. Also, we recommend
waiving the park dedication f000 until a point somewhere In
the futuro when Mr. Ruff will plat and oubdlvido existing
unplattod land immodiatoly north of this proporty.
D. SUPPORTING DATA.
A copy of tho location of the prop000d oimplo subdivision
roquost. Copy of certificate of of survey for the proposed
subdivision roquost.
i
JT
tsars
.21
KAMRA
iA )SGC`7••. • ... I 1 ,5.� I a� W � ywu � ,r..,t. OrV� �
C FI N!oO: .:--/
2 2 I . 6•••' � •
to 00 .400
o
sus � . •a'..
~ ' • ff
io1.4o3
n lL 1- a I ^may L
•7 10 t7 „
J ` o
a
.»....t......................IL
_...I
\.
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/10/85
5. Request for Final Approval of a Subdivision Recluest to be
Called Victoria Square Addition - Applicant, Mike Reher. (G A. )
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND.
Mr. Mike Reher, will be before you to request final approval
of his proposed new subdivision to be called Victoria Square
Addition. We have indicated to Mr. Reher to have everything
ready to be put onto hard-shell copies at this time. We did,
however, indicate to Mr. Reher not to have the hard-shells
prepared at tthie time, should there be any changes that would
come from any public comment or from Planning Commission members
at the meeting, Tuesday night, and/or the Council meeting
on Monday, September 23, 1985. With all the material that
has been submitted, Mr. Reherla subdivision request is in
its entirety, in its final form except for not being on to
the hard-shells and that is our suggestion not to put it onto
the hard-shells at this time.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS.
1. Approve the final stage plan of a subdivision request
to be called Victoria Square Addition.
2. To deny the final plan stage for a subdivision to be called
Victoria Square Addition.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Staff rocommonde approval of the final plan stage of a subdivision
to be called Victoria Square Addition. We are, however, suggesting
that the herd—oholla not be done at this time until any further
comment from Planning Commloaion mambera or any public input,
or City Council mambaro on any part of this oubdivioion roquoot.
D. SUPPORTING DATA.
A copy of the location of the propocad final plan stage request.
A copy of the final stage plan for a oubdivioion request.
, `t0 R I A SQUARE 1R.T. DOC. NO.
A100007'17'E 924.00 a!1 •i
,592.04 ♦000 ♦ado f♦iaof''7S7or- a -- —'r, --I— — � ,
—�'4.
•' - _ _ _ __ _ Ir _ ) I : 7000 bN bJ� .AY bJ. MJ• '.Y 7000 8 I
• •g a ti N 8,�
�• xx I � +� O I
T¢' ghl•°n �'el81ol8l8vED8a878 D84
h q •� N ^ ISO �� a •e e � o o e a� I
d
o p.
b00 .e 1, 6w ♦1/ to •e 1l'of, 7000 Z
/ '8rnw� •.0 isiuti�Q 8
` eiao
bI
' oo :e03 Moo p tim� 8 n?00 RI
q' O NO.07 17"E
10
a
it v e ro 4
600
?. I Ne9.OB M7 ti7e 8 boo
Q 3 a � eo•0•'7r"w ,, ree a iY a
O,a h _.clef. e,00 700.•' ,� rrw s boo
ei60
m/
2 ' w 8 •. 00 )i W '� b PO 1
55
♦ J•' ! boo A �I • uno
�a !a ,p a I
A�! X7100 a A I
••1 0 i 0� g p n e. 07 v_ g
a
-••n
6,00
•�G •
6.50. 00
t,0V7'.rr • t �a ! n
Q".._� --- ---{'Z—w—�—�O% •oal'')e c•e11 v boa I
r d!♦9 d•9'S�'72•' •h
Ol20/~ `y A irobJRIq 11 P
a� to
d•e '.900'0"
.` —i 7e9 ed R_iOo7e! d•�0�71" �. •. I ,•rv009O)•C ••.� ro➢!9 q,i \
phi — 1y➢9 a, \
� • e•io oo" 40
175 B♦ d • B'71'?7" ai 9 •t •non •U _ w
r J