Planning Commission Agenda Packet 02-11-1986AGENDA
REGULAR MERTING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
February 11, 1986 - 7:30 p.m.
Members: Richard Carlson. Richard Martie, Joyce Dowling, Marren
Smith, Barbara Koropchak.
7:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order.
7:32 p.m. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held
January 7, 1986.
7:34 p.m. 3. Public Hearing - A Conditional Use Request to Allow
Construction of a 24 -unit Apartment Building. A
Variance Request to Allow Less than the Minimum Lot
Square Footage for Construction of a 24 -unit Apartment
Building. Applicant, Lionel Kull.
7:49 p.m. 4. Public Hearing - A Replatting Request to Replat an
Existing Residential Lot into Three Residential Lots.
A Variance Request for Lose Lot Width and Lot Square
Footage than the Minimum Roquired. A Rcquoot to
Allow a Lot with No Street Frontage. Applicant.
John Sandberg.
8:09 p.m. S. Public Hearing - A Final Plat Request for a Proposed
New Subdivision. Applicant, John Sandberg.
8:24 p.m. 6. Continuance of a Variance Request to Allow Placement
of a Sign in the Railroad Right -of -May. Applicant.
John Sandberg.
Additional Information Items
6:29 p.m. 1. Discussion of possible adoption of a new toning map.
8:39 p.m. 2. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Cemmiseion meating for March 11, 1986, 7.30 p.m.
8:41 p.m. 3. Adjournment.
a
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
January 7, 1986 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Richard Martie, Richard Carlson, Joyce Dowling.
Members Absent: Jim Ridgeway, Ed Schaffer.
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Thomas Eidem, Richard Wolfsteller
The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson, Richard Carlson,
at 7:42 p.m.
Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the
minutes of the November 12, 1985, regular Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. Public Hearing - A Replattinc`Request to Re41at an Existing Lot into
Bight Townhouse Lots and One Common Area Lot - Applicant, Jay Miller.
Jay Miller was present to propose the final replat of an existing
lot into eight townhouse lots and one common area lot. Mr. Miller
indicated he had discussed it with Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson,
and met all the requirements of the ordinance. Acting Chairperson,
Richard Carlson, opened the hearing for input from the public. There
being no input from the public, motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded
by Richard Martio, to approve the replatting request to replat an
existing lot into eight townhouse lots and one common area lot. Motion
carried unanimously.
4. Public Hearin% - A Conditional Use Request to Allow an office Buainsos
in a Proposed Nov Zone, PZ -M (Performance Zone Mixed) - Applicant.
seestrom Company.
Mr. Wayne Seaetrom was present to propose his conditional use request
to allow an office business in the proposed now zone, PZ -M (Performance
Zone Mixed). Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, explained to the
public Mr. Seostrom'o proposed requoot. Acting Chairperson, Richard
Carlson, opened the hearing for input from the public. Mr. Keith
Kubort queationed as to why this request wao being hoard when there
is a new sons that hasn't boon approved yet, and aren't we putting
the cart before the horse. Zoning Administrator Anderson answered
that oven though it is a proposed now zone and is subject to adoption
by the Monticello City Council at their next City Council meeting,
January 13, 1986, the zone has bean in place and there has been very
little negative reoponso from the public? and Mr. Seestrom's request
would be based solely in anticipation of the now sono being approved.
Should the now zone not be approved, Mr. Seastrom's conditional use
request would be null and void. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated
to Planning Commission members that there aro conditions that apply
CAS
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/7/86
to this conditional use request. He must meet the minimum parking
requirements, landscaping requirements, and also some screening requirements
because we are trying to blend a business into A predominantly single
family neighborhood. Although this may not be the best design for
off-street parking and should his business increase and we have more
congestion or traffic around his site, he would have to install additional
off-street parking to the rear of his garage with an entrance to that
new lot off of East Broadway.
There being no further input from the public, A:Ling Chairparran,
Richard Carlson, then closed the public hearing and asked for a motion.
Motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve
the conditional use request to allow an office business in a proposed
new zone, PZ -M (Performance Zone Mixed), subject to the now zona being
approved at the nest City Council meeting; and should the off-street
parking for this site become too congested, Mr. 8eestrom must install
additional off-street parking to the rear of the garage and extend
the screening fence south along the east aide property line. Motion
carried with Planning Commission members Richard Martie and Joyce
Dowling approving, and Planning Commission member Richard Carlson
abstaining.
S. Public Hearing - A Reelattin8 Request to Allow Construction of a Zero
Lot Line Duplex on Existing Lots - Applicant. Vic Hellman.
Mr. Vic Hellman was present to propose his replotting request to allow
construction of a zero lot line duplex on existing lots. Mr. Hellman
indicated the minimum requirements of the ordinance have been exceeded
in that it is currently zoned R-0 (single and two family residential)
with the minimum lot size requirement of 10,000 sq. ft. and the proposed
new zoning would be R-1 (single family residential) in which the
minimum lot area is 12,000 sq. ft. Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson,
indicated to those present some background on Mr. Hallman's request.
It is currently zoned R-2, which is single and two family dwelling,
and is proposed to be zoned as R-1. The request has been filed before
the rezoning has taken place and is subject to approval by the Planning
Commission and City Council. Construction of this zero lot line duplex
could take place even with a new zoning attached to it before the
duplex is built. Acting Chairperson, Richard Carlson, opened the
meeting for input from the public.
Mr. Jack Reeves, neighbor in the area, questioned an to why we would
allow duplexes if wo ars going to rezone to R-1. Currently, within
the R-1 zona, he could recall three duplexes in the immediate area.
Zoning Administrator Anderson countered that the applicant could build
the duplex on the existing lot without going through the replotting
procass. However, the applicant is proposing this raplatting request
to allow a zero lot line duplex to be split to allow two single family
rosidences with a common wall between them. Therefore, with a new
R-1, single family, zone attached to this prior to construction completion
-2-
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/7/86
of this zero lot line duplex, this duplex could be sold off as two
single family housing units and meet the requirements of the R-1,
single family residential, zoning. Mr. Keith Kubert questioned why
we should allow any duplexes at all when we have single family residential
out there and we are trying to put duplexes into the single family
residential neighborhood. Mr. Kubert also questioned the square footage
requirements. Looking at the square footage for the proposed site,
he felt that it was too small to accommodate the zero lot line duplex.
Zoning Administrator, Cary Anderson, answered Mr. Kubert-s questions
that the duplexes are an allowable use in the R-1 zoning and
could have been constructed upon meeting the minimum requirements
for the building permit application. However, the applicant has chosen
to replat this to allow him another alternative if he would so choose
to sell it at some point in time in the future. To sell it in the
future, this would be an allowable use within the new zoning which
is proposed to be attached to this property, R-1 (single family residential).
The square footage requirements have been exceeded in that he has adhered
to the new proposed zoning for thin area with 12,000 sq.ft. lot area
required rather than the 10,000 sq. ft. of lot area. He does meet
the minimum frontage, which is 80 feet.
There being no further input from the public, Acting Chairperson,
Richard Carlson, closed the public hearing and asked for any input
from the Planning Commission members. There being no input from the
Planning Commission members, motion was made by Richard Martin, seconded
by Joyce Dowling, to approve the replatting request to allow construction
of a sero lot line duplex on existing late. Motion carried unanimously.
6. Public Hearing - A Replotting Request to Allow Construction of a Zero
Lot Line Duplex on Existing Lots.- Applicant, Jerry Barthel.
Mr. Jerry Barthel, owner of the proposed replotting request, asked
Zoning Administrator, Cary Anderson, to explain his roplatting request.
Zoning Administrator Anderson explained to the public and Planning
Commission mem re present that Mr. Barthol-a request which was published
as a public hearing notice should have been changed to a simple subdivision
request, as we are not changing lot lines, we aro merely adding square
footage to existing lot to make it more conforming and than creating
enough lot area to allow a zero lot line duplex. Mr. Barthel -a request
in to take the easterly 6 feat of Lot 9 and dedicate it to Lot B to
make his existing house in conformance with the minimum oideyard setback
which is required in R-1 (single family residential) zoning, which
is 10 fest. With the axiating lot line between Lots 9 and 10 would
be created the zero lot line duplex. With the proposed conatruction
of the zero lot line duplex, the minimum oideyard setbacks would be
met on both halves of the duplex, with the front yard setback being
half the distance between the two existing front yard setbacks of
the adjoining houses to the east and wast of the proposed sero lot
line duplex request. Actino Chairperson, Richard Carlson. opened
the public hearing for any input from the public. Mr. Jack Reeves
-3-
U
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/7/86
questioned as to the triangular area at the northwest corner of Lot 10.
Who owns that property, what is being done with that, and why it is
not included with this request. Zoning Administrator Anderson countered
that this was originally platted as part of a street; and in the Certificate
of Survey which was filed for it, it did not denote any ownership
to Mr. Barthel even though he has been maintaining this property all
these years and that the property Is still owned by the City. It
is up to the City Attorney to check into it to see if this can be
vacated to the adjoining property owner or owners. Mr. Reith Kubert
questioned if we are going to allow duplexes south of this property,
why would we allow duplexes on the south side of River Street when
predominantly all of the houses east and west on River Street are
single family residential houses. Zoning Administrator Anderson countered
that the proposed new zone to be attached would be single family residential
and that Mr. BarthelOe request for creation of a zero lot line duplex
would allow him to sell off each half of the proposed zero lot line
duplex for single family residential, even though there is a common
wall separating these two single family units. Thus, this would be
an allowable use in the R-1 zoning and would bring it more in conformance
with the predominantly R-1 zoning around it. Acting Chairperson,
Richard Carlson, then closed the public hearing and asked for any
input from the Planning Commission members.
There being no input from the Planning Commiasion members, motion
wan made by Richard Martie, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve
the simple subdivision request to allow construction of a zero lot
lino duplex. Motion carried unanimously.
7. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow Additional pylon Sign
Square Footage than the Maximum Allowed - Applicant, Citizens Task
Force.
Mr. Jack Jonsineki was present to represent the Citizens Tank Porce
and their variance requent. The Citizens Task Force is proposing
to construct a pylon sign at the Monticello Junior/8onior High School.
Tne maximum square footage allowed for a pylon sign in thin area in
90 sq. ft. The sign they are proposing would be 60 sq. ft., therefore
needing a 10 -toot variance. They aro also looking into the poacibility
of a seven line massage pylon sign, which would be an 8-x10%' oign
(84 sq. ft.). therefore needing a 30 -foot variance. The variance request
before you tonight was to go to the maximum 84 sq. ft. sign with a
30 -toot variance.
Acting Chairperson, Richard Carlson, opened the meeting for input
from the public. Mr. Jack Reovoo ouggeoted that this would be a very
worthwhiLo variance request in that the sign would be very beneficial
to the whole community, listing the numerous events that take place
at the Monticello Public Schools.
-a-
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/7/86
L With no further input from the public. Acting Chairperson, Richard
Carlson, closed the public hearing and asked for comments from Planning
Commission members. There being no additional comments from Planning
Commission members, motion was made by Joyce Dowling, seconded by
Richard Carlson, to approve the 34 -toot variance request to allow
the additional pylon sign square footage. Notion carried unanimously.
8. Public Hearing - A Simple Subdivision Request to Subdivide One Existing
Residential Lot into Four Residential Lots - Applicant. Douq Pitt.
Mr. Doug Pitt was present to propose subdividing an existing lot into
four residential lots. With the proposed split, each of the Iota
does most or exceed the minimum requirements for single family lots.
which is 12,000 sq. ft. of land area and a minimus of 80 feet of frontage.
Acting Chairperson, Richard Carlson, opened the meeting to any input
from the public. Mr. Keith Kubart said that he was opposed to the
proposed lot subdivision with the adjoining lots surrounding this
being single family lots. He felt that cutting this up into four
lots would greatly devalue the properties surrounding this. And creating
smaller late in the front could lead to smaller, less costly homes
to be built on these two front lots. Mr. Moose Sherritt was also
present to question as to the residential area along side his house.
It was explained to him that he is in an R-1 (single family residential)
sone only. Mr. Richard Kelly expressed his concern as to Mr. Pitt's
` intention* o1 the residential character o1 these houses, that the
new iota not merely be sold off just to sell the iota and allow any
type of residential housing to be constructed on them. The adjoining
neighbor to the went, Mr. Robert. Hemmagren, who owns the lot that
fronts on River Street, was concerned that there were too many Iota
on this proposed subdivision and that there should only be two lots
at the most. Mr. Jack Reeves stated he was neither for nor against
the proposed request, but did voice his concern that he felt Mr. Pitt
would not call the Iota to anybody to put up any type of house they
so chose, that being of the low quality typo house. He felt any lot
that would be sold and the typo o1 house that would be built would
be of the quality and architecture that would compliment the existing
houses.
Acting Chairman, Richard Carlson, then closed the public hearing and
asked for any input from the Planning Commission members. Joyce Dowling
questioned as to whether staff had any input on the title opinion.
14r. Thomas Eidam, City Administrator, addressed the Planning Commission
members stating that a title opinion was issued to Mr. Doug Pitt,
and the City Attorney Is inaioting that a new title opinion be done
for the City of Monticello and to the City of Monticello.
Motion by Dick Martie, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve the simple
subdivision request to subdivide one asioting residential lot into
four residential lots with the following conditions: 1) provide a
copy o1 the utility eassmonts for Lots 2 and 3; 2) provide a list
-S.
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/7/86
of restrictive covenants for the proposed lot subdivision; 3) provide
a title opinion naming the City of Monticello as the recipient for
the property. Notion carried unanimously.
9. Public Rearini - Variance Request to Allow a Building to be Constructed
in the Front Yard Setback Requirement - Applicant. Raindance Properties.
Tom Godlewski, partner in the Raindance Properties, was present to
propose their variance request. The variance request is to be allowed
to place the aide of the proposed now Maus Foods building within 10 feet
of the front property line off of Cedar Street.
Acting Chairperson, Richard Carlson, opened the public hearing for
any input from the public. There being no input from the public and
no additional information from the Planning Commission members, motion
was made by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Dick Martie, to approve the
variance request to allow a building to be placed within the front
setback requirement. Motion carried unanimously.
10. Public Nearing - A Rezoning Request to Rezone F:xistinc3 R-1 (Bingle
Family Residential] Lots into R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential)
Lots - Applicant, John Sandberg.
Mr. John Sandberg was present to propose hie rezoning from R-1 (single
family residential) to R-2 (single and two family residential).
With .the existing zoning ordinance intact, Mr. Sandberg explained
that there -Is R-3 zoning across the streets and what he is proposing
is more than the zoning which is attached to the property, but leen
than the zoning which is immediately across the street. With the
proposed rezoning, it would allow him construction of a duplex on
the lot.
Acting Chairperson, Richard Carlson, opened the meeting for input
from the public. Larry Mushlbauer objected to the spot zoning and
the rezoning from R-1 to R-$. The character of the homes in this
area is for single family housing, and he wants it to remain as
that. Mr. Sandberg responded to Mr. Mushlbauer's objections that
Mr. Muohlbsuer is objecting to any typo of request that he has had.
Mr. Lyle Olson objected to the rezoning request stating that he
just built a now single family house, and he would like the root
of the area to remain single family housing. Mr. Sandberg responded
to Mr. Olson's request that he was allowed to place his house within
30 feet of the front property line as was requested and not placed
back to be in line with the root of the houses. Mr. Olson responded
that his intent was, when he received the letter, to attend the
meeting to express his opinion on Mr. Sandborg's request.
Mr. Tom 6idem, City Administrator, spoke representing the City staff
stating that City staff is objecting to Mr. Sandberg's rezoning
request and that the proposed R-3 zoning across the street would
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/7/86
y be reduced to R-1 (single family residential) zoning with the new
zoning ordinance map. They definitely felt that for this size of
land that he would like rezoned would be a type of spot zoning.
Fran Fair questioned as to whether or not Mr. Sandberg's parcel
could be simple subdivided. City Administrator, Thomas Eidem, answered
that yes, it could be subdivided under the present zoning ordinance.
Mr. Jack Reaves questioned as to the front setback of 30 feet which
exists when the existing houses are placed farther than 30 feet
back. City Administrator, Thomas Eidam, indicated that the new
ordinance addresses front setbacks indicating the setbacks be more
than 30 feet where appropriate to line up with existing housing.
Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, handed to Acting Chairperson,
Richard Carlson, a letter of a phone conversation he received this
afternoon from Mr. David Richardson. Being an adjacent neighbor
across the street from Mr. Sandberg -s request, he objected to the
rezoning and felt it was spot zoning. Acting Chairperson, Richard
Carlson, then closed the public hearing and asked for additional
Input from the Planning Commission members.
With no additional information from Planning Commission members,
motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to
deny the rezoning request to rezone existing R-1 (single family
residential) Iota into R-2 (single and two family residential) Iota.
Notion carried unanimously.
11. Continuance of a variance Repast to Allow Placement of a Sign in
tho Railroad Right-of-way - Aoclicant. John Sandberg.
Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, quoationed Planning Commiasion
members of their determination of the request for tabling Mr. Sandbarg-o
request. Acting Chairperson, Richard Carlson, pointed out that
the reason for tabling the request is that Mr. Sandberg is to got
the approval or denial from the Burlington Northern Railroad. Zoning
Administrator Anderson asked that Planning Commission members consider
some sort of time table for Mr. Sandberg to receive written commitment
from Burlington Northern Railroad for approval or denial of placement
of his sign. A time period of 90 days was indicated. The general
consensus of the Planning Commisoion members present was to cat
a 90 -day limit for receiving approval or denial from the Burlington
Northern Railroad.
12. Continuance of a Tabled Conditional Una Regueot to Allow Open and
Outdoor Storage and Rental Equipment in a B-3 (Highway Business)
Zone - Applicant. Suburban Gas. Inc.
zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members
that he and City Adminietrator, Thomas Eidom, had met with the manager
of the Suburban Gas facility and had tomo up with a proPcaod screening
and landscaping plan for their site. Zoning Administrator Andercon
-7-
c�>
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/7/86
Indicated to Planning Commission members on a site plan the proposed
landscaping, screening, and hard surfacing requirements for this
facility. Acting Chairperson, Richard Carlson, opened the meeting for
any input from the public. There being no input from the public,
he closed the public hearing and asked for a motion from Planning
Commission members.
Motion was made by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Dick Martie, to approve
the conditional use request to allow open and outdoor storage and
rental equipment in a B-3 (Highway Business) Zone with the following
additional conditions: a) A screening fence approximately 60 feet
in length be installed in the front, and a screening fence of approximately
150 feet in length be installed to the west of the existing screened -in
facility. This fence is to be a minimum of 6 feet in height and
no more than 8 feet in height, and to be of a solid screening wood
type fence. b) Some type of tree planting or shrub planting as
proposed on the enclosed site plan be implemented. c) The tree and
shrub planting, the solid screening fence, and the relocation of
the existing security fence be done on or before June 1, 1986.
d) The hard surfacing of certain areae of the parking lot and driveway
be done by September 1, 1986. Mution carried unanimously.
Additional Information Items
1. Update on the Variance Reguest to Allow Additional Pylon Sign Square
Footage than the Maximum Allowed and a Request to Allow a Non -conforming
Sign to be Erected - Applicant, Burger King.
The City Council acted at its Deoembor 9, 1985, meeting to grant
the additional pylon sign square •footage and the additional pylon
sign height, but denied the non -conforming message board sign.
The two variances are that the pylon sign height be increaoed to
75 feet, and the pylon sign be increased to 256 sq.ft.
2. Update on the Rezoning Request to Rezone from R-1 (Single Family
Residential) to R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential), and R-2
(Single and Two Family Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential).
A Request to Roplat Existing R-1 and R-2 Lots into R-3 Loto. Applicant,
John Sandbort.
At the December 9, 1985, City Council meeting, City Council members
addressed Mr. Sandberg's request for rezoning of portions of thio
and that the comprehanoive zoning map be amended. An approved motion
by the Council was to direct the City staff to placa on the proposed
new comprehensive zoning map Mr. Sandberg's rezoning request of
portions of existing R-1 and R-2 into R-3 zoning.
fS-In
C��
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/7/86
�l 3. Update on the Proposed New Comprehensive Zoning Mel..
City Administrator, Tom Eidsm, explained to Planning Commission
members the proposed changes as indicated by City Council on the
new comprehensive zoning map. The two changes of significance were
the rezoning back to R-2 from B-4 in the block immediately west
of the Maus Foods building, and the proposed PZ -R zoning along the
north half of East River Street to go back to R-1, single family
residential, zoning. The other notable change was the Council agreed
to look at some type of R-3 zoning in the Meadows Addition, and
it was placed on the now zoning ordinance map. There are some provisions
that were put in to protect the City in the new comprehensive zoning
for this area. Mr. David Anderson was also present to propose some
type of zoning change along Nest Broadway in the location of the
and of the 400 block. The proposed use would be for retail office
use of an existing residential house. The current zoning is R -Z,
single and two family residential, and he is suggesting that we
Look at some type of peformance zone to allow residential and commercial
mix in this area.
4. Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Dick Martie, to set the next
tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting for
February 11, 1986, 7:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
S. Motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to adjourn
thin meeting. The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
GaryAid•�
Zoning Administrator
-g-
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/11/86
�.i 3. Public Hearing - A Conditional Use Request to Allow Construction
of a 24 -unit Apartment Building. A Variance Request to Allow Lose
than the Ninimum Lot Square Footage for Construction of a 24 -unit
Apartment Buildinq. Applicant, Lionel Kull. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Lionel Kull and his partner, Steve Upgren, are proposing to
build a 24 -unit apartment building on the lot in back of the Riverroad
Plata. Thin proposed multiple family dwelling residential lot consists
of 58,170 sq. ft. To construct the proposed 24 -unit apartment building
with 12 one -bedroom apartments and 12 two-bedroom apartments, the
total square footage needed would be 59.500 sq. ft. The variance
request will be for 1,330 sq. ft. short from the minimum amount
of square footage required. In the variance process, you have to
show a hardship. In this case, we fail to see where the hardship
is. A 24 -unit building could be constructed consisting of 9 two-bedroom
unite and 15 one -bedroom units.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the conditional use request to allow construction of
a 24 -unit apartment building.
2. Deny the conditional use request to allow construction of a
24 -unit apartment building.
3. Approve the variance request to allow a 24 -wit apartment building
to be constructed with lase than the minimum square footage
required.
4. Deny the variance request to allow construction of a 24 -unit
apartment building with lase than the minimum square footage
required.
5. Approve the conditional use request to allow construction of
a 24 -unit apartment building and deny the variance request for
lose than the minimum lot square footage for the construction
of a 24 -unit apartment building consisting of 9 two-bedroom
unite and 15 one -bedroom unite.
C. STAFF RECONMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use request to allow
construction of up to 24 units consisting of 9 two-bedroom apartments
and 15 ono -bedroom units. we do recommend denial of the variance
request with the applicant failing to show the hardship for such
variance request.
D. SUPPORTINO DATA:
Copy of the location of conditional use and variance requests$ Copy
of the proposed site plan.
ME
w
7=A
It �. .
• .� A conditional use request to allow conetrnction
of a 24 -unit apartment building -
Lionel Kull.
S.
M
v
9!5`33
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/11/86
4. Public Rearing - A Replatting Request to Replat an Existing Residential
Lot into Three Residential Late. A Variance Request for Less Lot
Width and Lot Square Footage than the Minimum Required. A Requ
sot
to Allow a Lot with No Street Frontage. Applicant, John Sandberg. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you will note on the enclosed site plan for Mr. Sandberg -s request,
we have. as City staff, adopted a new format for reviewing of such
plate. Mr. Sandberg's initial public hearing notice should have
read a preliminary plat for proposed new subdivision even though
it is very small in nature consisting of only three residential
lots. As you will note in your enclosed supplement, there is a copy of
City staff review with Mr. John Sandberg on an item by item basic
for each requirement under the preliminary plat section for proposed
subdivisions. Adopting such a format allows less room for any question
as to whether or not it is included on the proposed preliminary
plat.
Mr. Sandberg is proposing to replat an existing large residential
lot into three residential lots. with two lots facing River Street
and the other lot facing the Mississippi River. The Iota in which
Mr. Sandberg is proposing to subdivide are lose than the minimum
lot width required, which is 80 feet, and also lees than the minimum
lot square footage for the front two lots which front River Street,
which is leas than the 12,000 eq. ft. minimum requirement. The
other variance request is that Mr. Sandberg is proposing to have
a lot that would front on the Mississippi River with no street access.
Mr. Sandberg Is proposing a 10 -foot easement to allow the proposed
new property owner access to the rear lot. The minimum easement
allowed for a proposed shared driveway is a 30 -foot easement, which
MIs. Sandberg has indicated he Is willing to provide. Mr. Sandberg
has also indicated on the enclosed punch lint that he will meet
all of the requirements which were omitted at our initial review
of his proposed subdivision by the time the Planning Commission
mento, with City staff having enough time to roview this.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the preliminary plat for proposed subdivision.
2. Deny the preliminary plat request for proposed new subdivision.
3. Approve the preliminary plat for proposed subdivision with the
granting of 4 variancos. The first four varioncos would bo on the
two lots that front River Street on minimum lot width and minimum
lot square footage, and the fifth variance would be to allow
e lot with no street frontage.
u' C. STAFF RECWODQIDATIOP:
IL
t
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/11/86
The initial response from staff is subject to Mr. Sandberg meeting
all of the its= on the check list as to approval of this request,
but the proposed plat does have some merit in that he is proposing
single family residential lot splits and not multiple family lot
splits. Also, ve do see the problem vith the number of variances
to be granted for this proposed small subdivision. The land, as
it site by itself, is a rather expensive piece of land for somebody
to develop for a single family house. Some type of variance is
needed in order to subdivide this lot into residential lots to meet
the minimum requirements of our ordinance.
D. SUPPWTIM DATA:
Copy of the proposed location of the replattiag request; Copy of
the proposed site plan; Copy of the subdivision check list.
-3-
a
CITY OF MONTICELLO
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW WORKSHEET
FOR CITY USE
Staff in olved in review process Date Filed Z 8
Date of Review/
Copies Filed
i. Fee
Instructions to Applicant: This review worksheet is intended to assist an applicant
in preparing a preliminary plat, and the City in doing a thorough. impartial review
of a proposed preliminary plat. The checklist contains all data required by City
Ordinance. A preliminary plat will be considered incomplete it all required information
is not submitted. NOTE: This is a worksheet, not a section of the ordinance. Applicants
may request copies of the ordinance text. Please feel free to contact City staff
if there are questions on the requirements.
Applicant Name �oi�RJ v `1Nt l Qiek&— Phone 295- 2 2-1 -
Subdivision Name PCOpOSC-� SJ Q o%%) tS iON ?
For
For
Design Standards
Applicants
City
Non -
Use
Use
Conforming Conforming
O
1.
Abstractors certificate, properly certified,
identifying owner of property, and owners
of all proportion within 3:0' of boundary
of subject property.
O2.
proposed name of subdivision.
[21'3•
Location of boundary lines in relation to
e known section, quarter section or quarter -
quarter section lines comprising a legal
deacription of the property.
Q0
•.
Names and addressee of the record fee
owner.
0
10,9.
Scale of plat, not lass than one (1) inch
to one hundred (100) teat.
/
U 6.
Data and northpoint.
O
7.7.
Boundary line of proposed subdivision.
O
Q S.
Existing zoning classifications for land
within and abutting the subdivision.
For
For
Design Standards
Applicants
City
Hon -
Use
Use
Conforming Cora:•,rming
+ Q
Ln 9.
Approximate acreage and dimensions of
Iota.
/
Q[21,10.
Location, right-of-way width, and names of
y
existing or platted street$, or other public
ways, parks, and other public lands, perma-
nent buildings and structures, easements,
school districts, section and corporate lines
within the plan and to a distance three
hundred fifty (750) feet beyond shall also
be indicated.
Q
0 11.
Boundary lines of adjoining unsubdivided or
subdivided land, within three hundred fifty
(350) feet, identified by name and ownership,
Including all contiguous land owned or
controlled by subdivider.
Q
12.
Topographic data, including contours at
vertical intervals of not more than two
(2) feet. Mater courses, marshea, rock
outcrops, power transmission poles and linea,
sire, location, and elevation of all
1
appurtenances of existing public utilities
and all quasi -public utilities, including the
name and operating authority of each utility,
and other significant features shall be eltown.
U.S.O.S. data shall be used for all topo-
graphic mapping where feasible: (1929 sea
level data shall be used for all topographic
mapping.) The flood alevation of all lakes,
rivers, and wetlands shall also be shown.
aa
13.
An accurate soil survey of the subdivision
prepared by a Qualified parson.
a
Q 16.
Saver and water feasibility study completed
by a regieterad civil engineer.
0
0 15.
A survey prepared by a qualified person
identifying tree coverage in the proposed
subdivision in Lerma of type, weakneoo,
maturity, potential hazard. Infestation,
vigor, density, and spacing.
Q
Q 16.
A copy of all proposed privets restrictions
and covenants.
0
Q 17.
A proposed grading plan shoving the present
and existing contours at a two (2) foot
✓
contour Interval.
For
For
Design Standards
Applicants
City
Mon-
Use
Use
Conforming Conforming
oa
ia.
Layout of proposed streets shoving the
right-of-way widths, canter line gradients,
_-
typical crone sections, and proposed names
of streets.
/
M
IH"11*9•
Locations and widths of proposed alleys and
!/
pedestrian ways.
aEY-20•
Layout, numbers, preliminary dimensions of
/
v
lots and blocks, and dimension of street
frontage.
Q
O 21.
Minimum front and side street building
setback lines. When lots are located on a
curve, the width of the lot at the building
setback line.
a22.
Areae, other than streets, alleys, pedestrian
ways and utility easements, intended to be
dedicated or reserved for public use, in-
cluding the size of such area or areas in
acres.
aZ3.
A statoment of the approximate square footage
and dimension of the individual lots.
_v
` Q
O 24.
Statement of the proposed use of lots stating
type of residential buildings with number of
proposed dwelling units and type of business
or industry, ao as to reveal the effect of the
development on traffic, fire hazards, and
congestion of population.
Oa
25.
Provision for surface water disposal, drainage,
and flood control.
O
Q 28.
If any zoning changes are contemplated, the
proposed zoning plan for the areae.
aO
27.
A plan for soli erosion and sediment control
both during construction and after develop-
ment has been completed. The plan shall
include gradients of waterways, design of
velocity and erosion control measures, and
landscaping of the erosion and sediment
control system.
O
r7 28.
A vagitation preservation and protection plan
that shove those tress proposed to be removed,
those to remain, the types and locations of
trees and other vegetation that are to be
planted.
For For
Design Standards
Applicants City
Non-
ose 0'se
Conforming Conforming
p19.
Where the subdivider owns property adjacent
to that which is being proposed for the
subdivision, the Planning Commission shall
require that the subdivider submit a
sketch plan of the remainder of the property
so as to show the possible relationship
between the proposed subdivision and the
Q30.
future subdivision.
Where structures are to be placed on large
lots (over thirty thousand (30,000) square
feet), the preliminary plat shall indicate
placement of structures so that late may be
further subdivided. Where potential sub-
division and use of excessively deep (over
three hundred (300) feet) lots exist, the
preliminary plat shell indicate placement
of structures so that lots may be further
subdivided.
QQ 31.
Other information requested by Engineer,
Surveyor, Planning Consultant, Planning
Commission, and/or staff. (Attach
additional shoot(s) if necessary)
Statement of Planning Conaultant attached?
Statemeut of Engineering Consultant attachad7
yes no
yea no
O
0
Y�
Staff recommendation to Planning Commission.
(attach separate sheet(e) if necessary)
Planning Commission recommendation to City Council.
_g_
U
r
CITY OF MONTICELLO
SUBDIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS
The following is a general checklist for design standards for subdivisions within
Monticello.
In all
cases, the Monticello Ordinance should be referred to for more
detailed aspects of
each design standard.
For
For
Design Standards
Applicants
City
Non -
Use
Use
Conforming Conforming
11-5-1: BLOCKS
�.
BLOCK LENGTH. The maximum block length is
1�
1320 feet. Special considerations may be
needed, however, in any blocks greater than
800 feet.
O
dB.
BLACK WIDTH. A minimum of two lots shall be
v
provided between streets. Business and/or
industrial blocks shall provide apace for
parking and shipping and receiving.
11-4-2: LATS
OOZ�A.
The minimum lot area shall conform to the
v
current zoning standard.
a
B.
Corner lot shall be slightly larger to allow
for proper setbacks.
Q
�C.
Side lot linea should be at right angles to
streets.
D.
OoR
Every lot must have a minimum frontage as
currently required by the Zoning Ordinance.
O
Q E.
Setback or building Since shall be shown on
all plata and shall be as required by the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
11-5-I: STREETS AND ALLEYS
Q
A.
Whenever possible, streets should normally
project through a subdivision to align with
existing streets. Spacial consideration
should be given to street alignment. The
maximum number of lots should not be the
only determining factor.
Q1�•�{'B.
,,gy�p�((
Minor streets should not be used as
Y�
collector@. While dead-end streets are
prohibited, cul-de-sacs may be used. A
maximum length is 600 feet with a 60 -toot
radius for the right-of-way.
r
r
I
For
For
Design Standards
Applicants
City
Non -
Use
Use
Conforming
Conforming
When only a portion of a piece of property
-_
Is developed, a plan for the proposed future
street system should be provided.
Q
�`
AD.
Puture street needs should be addressed in
TTS
subdivisions having extremely large lots.
0
E.
Streets should be laid out as to intersect at
TT
right angles.
OF.
on subdivisions adjacent to state highways or
main thoroughfares, service roads should be
considered.
Q
0.Alloys
shall be provided in commercial and ✓/
industrial districts but should not be provided
in residential districts.
a
"'���TTT OH.
Dedication of half streets will only be approved
under special conditions.
adi.
The minimum right-of-ways and paved surface for
/
v
__
each street ahall conform to that which is
outlined in the ordinance. Greater widths of
right-of-way may be required in some special
Instances.
0
J.
87REET GRADES. The maximum grade on all
thoroughfares shall be 6%. all other streets
8%. Minimum grade on all streets is .Ss.
SIC.
M
�+
STREET ALIGNMENT. The horizontal and vertical
alignment standards shall be as those set
_
forth in the ordinance.
a
th L.
CURB RADIUS. Curb radii shall be as shown in
._
the ordinance.
11-6-4: EASEMENTS
C3
GBIA.
Utility and drainage easements shall be
/
provided on ail lots. Six (6) feet shall
_v
be provided along side lot lines, and twelve
(12) fest shall be provided along the front
and rear of each lot. Special cases in some
Instance* may require greater widths.
-2-
CU
i
Design Standards
Per
Rox
Applicants
City
Non
use
U130
Conforming
Conforming
y Q
S.
utility assamants shall connect with ease-
ments established in adjoining properties.
Once approved. easements shall not be
changed without the consent of City Council.
Q
Q�
1 C.
"`"
Additional easements should be provided at
the outside of turns for utility pole guys.
11-5-5: EROSION i SEDIMENT CONTROL
Q
Q A.
The ordinance provides for specific
construction requirements during development
to control erosion and sediment. When top
soil is removed, it shall be replaced after
excavation. The soil shall be restored to
a depth of four (8) inches. Refer to the
ordinance for specific requirements in the
area of erosion and sediment control.
11-5-6: DRAINAGE
Q
A.
Where municipal storm sewer systema do not
i
exist, ponding facilities shall be designed
and provided.
Q8.
No existing ditch, stream, drain, pond.
or draiaags canals shall be deepened, widened,
rerouted, or filled without permission from
the City Council.
Q
If artificial channels must be constructed,
they may be planned as part of a recreation
system.
0
k�r►f(0.
The drainage system shall be constructed and
in operation during the initial phases of
construction.
11-5-7: STEER SLOPES
0
Q A.
maximum slope is 1St.
11-5-8: WETLAND SYSTEMS
Q
A.
In some instances, there may be land containing _r
_
(�
drainage ways, water courses, floodable areas.
or wetlands which ars unsuitable for development.
please refer to the ordinance for specific ways
in which these areas may be handled.
CHAPTER 6
PARRS, OPEN SPACE, AND PUBLIC USE
I
w
For For
Design Standards
Applicants City Non-
ose Use Conforming Conforming
11-6-1: DEDICATION REQUIREMENT
Q a A. The City requires that all developers
requesting platting or replatting of land in
the City of Monticello contribute 101 of the
final plat gross area to be dedicated to
the City for recreational purposes. The City
can require a cash dedication in lieu of the
land or any combination thereof.
11-6-2: CASH CONTRIBUTION
0 A. All cash contributions collected are placed in
a special fund to be used for park a d
recreation purposes.
11-6-3: DELAYED DEDICATION PAYMENT
a 0 A. The City may approve a delayed dedication
payment. However, interest in due and payable
on such delayed payments.
11-6-6: PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION OF LANDS
Q Q A. This portion of the text refers to proposed
parks, playgrounds, or public grounds which
have been indicated on official maps or master
plans. This part of the ordinance provides
protection for those areas.
11-6-5: LOCATION AND CONFIGURATION OF DEDICATION
a A. The City Council reserves the right to
determine tho geographic location and
configuration of said dedication.
Al
-4- 04;11�
CHAPTER 7
REQUIRED BASIC IMPROVEMENTS
SECTION:
11-7-2: Street Improvements
.11-7-3: Sanitary Sever and Mater Distribution Improvements
11-7-4: Public Utilities
11-7-1: GENERAL+
(A) Before a final plat is approved by the City Council, the owner or
subdivider of the land covered by the said plat shall execute and sub-
mit to the Council an agreement, which shall be binding on his or their
heirs, personal representatives and assigns, that he will cause no pri-
vate construction to be made on said plat or file or cause to be filed
any application for building permits for such construction until all
improvements required under this Ordinance have been made or arranged
for in the manner following as respects the streets to which the lots
sought to be constructed have access.
(8) Prior to the making of such required improvements, the City Council
shall require the Owner or Subdivider to pay to the City an amount equal
j to a minimum of 25• and up to 100% of the estimated total coat of such
improvements, including not only construction but all indirect costs.
The actual percentage to be determined by the City in each case based
on its review of:
1. The financial background of the developer.
2. The normalcy of the unit charge for putting in the improvement.
3. An evaluation of the cost recovery potential through the sale
of the land.
4. "he likelihood of success of the development.
5. Hao the developer defaulted on any outstanding aececomont pay -
mento in the past twelve (12) months.
Thio payment must be made to the City prior to the City Council adopting
the resolution ordering the project. The balance of the total project
cost will be assessed 100% against the benefited property, payable in not
more than ton (10) annual installments with interact at a rate of at least
1.5% (rounded up to the nearest .25%) over the rate paid on bonds issuad
to finance the Improvements, or, if financed internally, over the then
equivalent rats the City dotermined it would have to pay on bonds issued
at that timer provided, however, that the entire assessment balance out-
standing against a given parcel is to be paid in full prior to the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy permit for principal use of new conotruction
on that parcel, or within 180 days after a building permit for new con-
struction is issued, whichever comes first. In the event a building per-
mit is applied for prior to completion of installation of the improvements,
y the payment to the City shall be in an amount equal to 125% of the osti-
mated total assessment. Upon completion of the project and dotermination
of the actual cost to be assessed, any overcharge will be refunded and
any additional cost will be due the City within 30 days of notification
11-7-1 11-7-1
of such additional cost. If, for any reason, subsequent to having made
such advance payment to the City, the developer should withdraw from �-
the project, the City is entitled to retain an amount equal to the City's%..
cost related to the project to that time, and the balance shall be re-
funded to the developer. (Ord. Am. 3/26/79 066)
(C) No final plat shall be approved by the City Council without first
receiving a report from the City Engineer certifying that the improvements
described herein, together with the agreements and document. required
herein, meet the minimum requirements of all applicable ordinances. Draw-
ings showing all improvements as built shall be filed with the City Clerk.
(D) No final plat shall be approved by the City Council on land subject
to flooding or containing poor drainage facilities and on land which
would make adequate drainage of the streets and lots impossible. How-
ever, if the subdivider agrees to make improvements which will, in the
opinion of the City Engineer, make the area completely safe for residential
occupancy and provide adequate street and lot drainage, and conform to
applicable regulations of other agencies such as the U.S. Corps of Engineers
or the Department of Natural [resources the final plat of the subdivsion may
be approved. In addition, such plats may not be approved if the cost of
providing municipal services to protect the flood plain area would impose
an unreasonable economic burden upon the City.
(E) All of the required improvements to be installed under the provisions
of this Ordinance shall be inspected during the course of their construc-
tion by the City Engineer. All of the inspection costs pursuant thereto,,.
shall be paid by the owner or subdivider in the manner prescribed in Par:
graph (B) above.
(F) Water, sanitary cower and storm sewer, lateral lines shall be assessed
100% against the benefited property within the proposed subdivision.
These assessments shall be made on a residential housing unit basis.
(G) Water, sanitary and storm sower, trunk lines shall be assessed 100%
against the benefited property, whether or not the services are made im-
modiatoly available to the property, on a net platted area basic. Tho
assessments will utilize a per acre unit for large undeveloped areas and
a par square foot unit for platted properties.
(H) The coat of constructing permanent atroctn, including curb and gutter,
will be 100% acooaaod against benefited property based on front footago.
Cornor lots shall be accessed for frontage only with no charge made for
the long aide lot footage. Costo resulting from interouctions and aide
lot footage shall be included in the total amount to be accessed and ap-
portioned over the not assessable footage. In the case of off -shaped
Iota, the footage shall be as measured at the building act -back linai how-
ever, in no event shall the acsessablo footage be logo than the minimum
lot width as required by the City.
69
11-7-3
(I) At the request of the owner or subdivider, the City may agree to
spread all of the assessments against the subdivision on a per lot or
i residential housing unit basis, rather than on the various methods set
forth in (F), (G) and (H) above.
(J) In all cases, the procedure for local improvements prescribed in
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, shall be followed.
(X) The requirements of this ordinance are intended to be compatible
with the assessment policy ordinance 13-1-1 through 13-1-3. (6-12-78 157)
11-7-2: STREET IMPROVEMENTS:
(A) The fuil:width of the right-of-way shall be graded, including the sub -
grade of the areas to be paved, in accordance with standards and specifi-
cations for street construction as required by the City Council.
(B) All streets shall be improved with pavement in accordance with the
standards and specifications for street construction as required by the
City Council.
(C) All streets to be paved shall be of an overall width in accordance
with the standards and specifications for street construction as required
by the City Council.
(D) Curb and guttor will be constructed as required by the standards and
specifications for street construction as required by the City Council.
(E) Storm severe, culverts, storm water inlets, and other drainage facil-
ities will be required where they are necessary to inaure adequate storm
water drainage for the subdivision. Where required, such drainage facil-
ities shall be constructed in accordance with the standards and spocifi-
cations for street construction as required by the City Council.
(F) Street troes and boulevard sodding shall be planted in conformance
with the standards and specifications as required by the City Council.
(G) Street signs of the standard design as may be required by the City
Council shall be installed at each street intareaction.
(H) Sidewalks of standard design as may be required by the City Council.
11-7-31 SANITARY SEWER AND WATER DISTRIBUTION IMPROVEMEMBI
(A) Sanitary sowers shall be installed as may be required by standards
and specifications approved by the City Council.
(B) City water facilities, including pipe fittings, hydrants, etc., shall
be installed as may be required by standards and specifications approved
by the City Council. Where City water facilities are not available for
extension into the proposed subdivision, the city Council may by ordinanco
grant a franchise for such water facilities, to serve all properties with-
in a subdivision where a complete and adequate neighborhood water distri-
bution system is designed in conjunction with the subdivision, and com-
plete plans for the system are submitted for approval of the City Council.
(Cl Where City sewer and water facilities are not available for extension
11-7-4
into proposed subdivision, the Council may permit the use of individual
i rater and sever systems in accordance with appropriate State regulations„
f
11-7-4g PUBLIC UTILITIESt
O
(A) Where feasible, in the opinion. of the Engineer, all utilities lines
for telephone and electric service shall be placed in rear line easements
when carried on overhead poles.
(B) Where telephone, electric and/or gas service lines are to be placed
underground entirely, conduits or cables shall be placed within easements
or dedicated public ways, in such a manner so as not to conflict with
other underground services. All drainage and other underground utility
installations which traverse privately owned property shall be protected
by easements furnished by the subdivider.
(C) Each public utility company installing underground facilities must
file with the City an as built drawing within one hundred eighty (180)
days of installation, indicating the location of the utility in relation
to the property lines, elevation of the facility, and the ground elevation
at each service or at each one hundred (100) foot interval. The type,
size, voltage, or pressure of this facility including location of appur-
tonances along the lines for shut off control shall also be included.
Planning Comaiasion Agenda - 2/11/86
V 5. Public Hearing - A Final Plat Request for a Proposed New Subdivision.
Applicant. John Sandberq. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. John Sandberg will be before you with the proposed final plat
for the Kealy Heights Addition in the former Meadows Addition in
the City of Monticello. The early stages of his request is the
last time that you had seen any indication of what Mr. Sandberg
is proposing. The City Council has since heard that and approved
his preliminary plat request with the following conditions: 1) Both
Marvin Elwood Road extension and Kealy Circle extension are platted
into the final plat; 2) Screening would be required on Lots 9 & 10
as proposed. On the enclosed map you will note that Mr. Sandberg is
calling the preliminary plat the same as his final plat,
even though at the writing of this supplement Mr. Sandberg has not
submitted to City staff a copy of the proposed final plat for the
Kealy Heights Addition. Again, the request before you is for approval
or denial of Mr. Sandberg -s request for a final plat of the Kealy
Heights Addition to the City of Monticello.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the final plat for the proposed new subdivision to be
called Kealy Heights Addition.
2. Deny the final plat request for the proposed new subdivision
to be called Kealy Heights Addition.
3. Approve the final plat for the Kealy Hoighta Subdivision with
the following conditions: 1) Marvin Elwood Road be extended
to West River Street and the Keely Circle extension be extended
all the way to County Road 75; 2) Screening be required on Lots
9 & 10.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Having not soon the final plat as drawn for the Kealy Heighto Addition
and assuming that Mr. Sandberg is proposing the same thing as he
proposed in his preliminary plat, the staff is recommending approval
of the final plat for the Kealy Heights Addition to the City of
Monticello with the conditions that Marvin Elwood Road be extended
all the way to West River Street, Kealy Circle be extended to County
Road 79, and also that some type of landscaping be installed on
Lots 9 & 10.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed final plat for the Koaly Heights Addition;
Copy of the location of the final plat) Copy of the Council Minutes
i on Mr. Sandberg's preliminary plat request.
`i�
-4-
i
I'
A final plat request for a proposed
new subdivision.
\� �\ John Sandberg.
o �
I
- --_�---------------------
-------------
----------- --------- �'-.-�.• �/----------------
17 v
---- ,cv
• 5,.�' I C. �1
r 9 `
r7
�
z c
On
I
THE MEADOWS
City Of Monticello
' C�td� b r�Jrt �•____
Proposed R-2 Rezoning P t PnOe..d R-S R.:oninpl .
Let 1 8. eb,k ILet I. BbcY I
-• •4 �i,..r •. I• I �' �� `` \ \!yR \\ L.t. 12 TW 14 • La 24. Stock • L.t. I t.n 10. BbcY t '
'"'f r+•+.rt ..�wa �Q� r1 U4 1 Th 8. 8411 J
La. 1 Ter. I I, Bbc4
19
1141, 0
J IL
qf
10 t-
r it
Ioi,twb 4. K• t.d,i7sa brit. II' \ 1
1 i 91 Ip 1.911 s..•./ . Y t 7�
A 1\�, w _ I I1.•{/1rJ' ' .� �, :// /C�'�^► R 2 iq ~V•`' \ \ `
to 0 �` �� Y � • `•�'•'. V � ' I tt•
�/ t• �•,•,�``•i�4_�.NrLI.•`..�•��C'',L•tl�'yt=` Y}"r"r~ •.^"ii
' I I/���-! .a'pOJ��`Cr d I���'II t • . o �j'� • ~�o
�,. �i I — I�'--�� (r 1 Via..,, ��� I �• i'[�� �.p.•....... c..
4Y,1u}l..Y� / / r ruf t9t •.K f� �p•�i '•r'�a'.• F` / • 11 11
1.s,t.•�1 y.pw �I I 9 t�000 8
I.d•a4 �� / 1.911 •'1:.'�� `.�4
tae .P� — 11 . ••
MT
tt��is
NOt Y u'ji
Fuel q NOi 19
t11 :N: I I� I
ISL
F,'N.... .
...in.. r�Tlr a a/ -'•aaf fbu ^dl'... ���y � f,.
Council Minutes - 1/13/86
12a. Consideration of a Preliminary Plat in the Meadows.
Mr. John Sandberg presented for Council review a preliminary
plat on the replotting of the Meadows Subdivision to create
multiple family sites within the plat. Although the Planning
Commission has not yet reviewed the preliminary plat, Mr. Sandberg
requested Council consideration of the plat at this time.
In reviewing the plat, the City staff has noted acme areae of
concern mainly with how the property will be screened from the
abutting single family residences already in existence and street
accesses to County Road 75. The preliminary plat as presented
proposes to extend Marvin Elwood Road to connect with River
Street and indicates that Lot 8 would be proposed for future
road extension of Kealy Circle to County Road 75. The extension
of Keely Circle to County Road 75 through original Lot 8 was
recommended by the City staff to help eliminate traffic problems
that may occur along Prairie Road if this multiple zoning plat
was to be approved. Although the plat only indicates this as
a proposed future extension, it is the otaff-a recommendation
that the final plat for Kealy Heights contain a platted street
for both Marvin Elwood Road extension and the Kealy Circle extension
Mayor Crimsmo questioned whether the two road extensions would
be necoosaxy to be developed at the present time. It was noted
by the City Engineer that although the Marvin Elwood Road extension
to River Street may not have to be developed immediately, he
would recommend that to eliminate a dead-end road, the right-of-way
now be platted as part of this replatting process. Council -ember
Fair questioned what screening the developer would do to protect
the current residential properties abutting the proposed multiple
sites, and Mr. Sandberg did agree to screening with treea, etc.,
the multiple lots that abut the exioting residential structures
but questioned properties that are not currently developed.
After further diocusoion, motion was made by Maxwell, eeconded
by Bill ►air, and unanimously carried to grant approval to the
preliminary plat provided both Marvin Elwood Road extension
and Kealy Circle extension are platted in the final plat and
that screening would be required on Lots 9 a 10 as proposed.
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/11/86
r 6. Continuance of a Variance Request to Allow Placement of a Sign in
the Railroad Right-of-way. Applicant. John Sandberg. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Sandberg has contacted the Burlington Northern Railroad and
has sent them the pertinent information and is awaiting their reply
on his request.
-5-