Planning Commission Agenda Packet 03-11-1986AGENDA
REGULAR NOTING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
March 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.
7:37 P.M. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held on
February 11, 1986.
7.36 P.M. 3. Public Hearing - A Final Plat Request for a Proposed
Now Subdivision, Pitt Addition. Applicant, Doug
Pitt.
7:49 P.M. 4. Public Hearing - A Conditional Use Request to Allow
an Addition to the Shopping Center to be Constructed
In a B-3 (Highway Business) Zone. Applicant, Lincoln
Monticello Commercial Partners Ltd. Partnership.
8:09 P.M. 9. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow Placement
of an Attached Garage in the Roar and Sidc Setback
Requirements. Applicant, Jimmy Kaisarlik.
8:24 P.M. 6. Public Hearing - A Conditional Use Request to Allow
an Office Building in a PZ -M (Porformance Zone -Mixed)
Zone. Applicant, David Anderson.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
8:49 P.M. 1. Set the nest tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for April S. 1986, 7:30 p.m.
8:91 P.M. 2. Adjournment.
MINUTES
V REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
February 11, 1986 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Barbara Koropchak, Marren Smith.
Members Absent: Richard Martie, Joyce Dowling.
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Richard Molfsteller.
The meeting was called to order by new Chairperson Richard Carlson
at 7:43 p.m.
Motion by Marren Smith, seconded by Barbara Koropchak, to approve
the January 7, 1986, Planning Commission Meeting minutes. Motion
carried unanimously.
3. Public Hearin0 - 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.
Mr. Lionel Kull, along with one of his partners, Mr. Stave Upgran,
was present to propose their request to build a 24 -unit apartment
building. To meet the minimum requirements of the ordinance to
construct the 24 -unit apartment building consisting of 12 one -bedroom
and 12 two-bedroom apartments, the applicant was short 1,350 sq.ft.
in meeting the minimum square footage requirements. Mr. Kull indicated
they are proposing to use one driveway entrance, which would be
the existing entrance for Rivarroad Plaza, to be shared with the
proposed 24 -unit apartment building.
Richard Carlson opened the meeting for input from the public. Zoning
Administrator Anderson handed a letter to Mr. Carlson to read which
he had received from Kra. Kleinsteuber with soma concerns as to
the possible rents for the apartment building and if it couldn-t
be constructed as a townhouse complex instead of an apartment building.
The developers indicated that the market rents were to run about
$400.00 to 8430.00 and that it is not coot effective for them to
construct a townhouse project. Townhouse resident Ellen Maxwell
indicated that members of the Townhouse Association had mot, and
she was there to voice their approval for the proposed 24 -unit apartment
building, supporting their request for the variance on minimum lot
square footage. Anna Hoglund, former owner of the proposed apartment
building land site, questioned Planning Commission members as to
why the debate Is so negative when there is only one negative response
from an abutting property owner. Planning Commission Chairperson,
Richard Carlson, then closed the public hearing and asked for Input
from Planning Commission members.
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/11/86
.4- Commission member Barb Koropchak questioned es to the City staff's
recommendation and where the hardship was in the variance. The
developers countered that they are creating just a shared driveway
instead of putting in their own driveway and that they are meeting
the requirements of the new proposed roping ordinance as far as
landscaping; they are also installing a booster pump to increase
the water pressure for the proposed 26 -unit apartment building.
Motion was made by Marren Smith, seconded by Barbara Koropchak,
to approve the variance requcat to allow construction of a 26 -unit
apartment building consisting of 12 one -bedroom units and 12 two-bedroom
units and also approved the conditional use to allow such construction.
Notion carried unanimously.
a. Public Hearing - A Replatting Reauest to Replat an Existing Residential
Lot into Three Residential Lots. A Variance Request for Lees Lot
Width and Lot Square Footage than the Minimum Required. A Request
to Allow a Lot with No Street Frontage. Applicant. John Sandberg.
Mr. Sandberg was present to propose his replotting request of a
residential lot into three residential lots. Chairperson Richard
Carlson questioned Zoning Administrator Anderson as to why the request
would be before them when it is not complete according to staff -n
recommendation. Zoning Administrator Anderson answered that Mr.
Sandberg has the right to appear before the Planning Commission
with hie request for a replat on the enclosed site plan an presented
even though it does lack numerous items to be finished on the site
plan. Mr. Sandberg indicated that to go to a full blown subdivision
would require a considerable amount of money for just three single
family Iota. He would be willing to do so; but for the enormous
expense that would be required for thio, it would not be very cost
effective for him to market the property with going through the
whole subdivision request. Nr. Sandberg van therefor proposing
just to replat the existing lot into three Iota, with a minimum
of five variances needed. The variances would be for lase than
the minimum lot width, lass than the minimum lot square footage,
and a variance for a lot with no street frontage.
Chairman Richard Carlson opened the meeting for any input from the
public. Kra. Lyle Olean questioned so to what the sire of the lots
would be. Mr. Sandberg gave those figures to her. Nr. Carlson
than closed the public hearing and opened it to comments from the
Planning Commission.
Notion by Warren Smith, seconded by Barbara Koropchak, to approve
the replat of the existing residential lot into three residential
lots and approved two variances for minimum lot width and two variances
for minimum lot square footage and one variance for a lot with no
street frontage. Notion carried unanimously.
-2-
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/11/86
S. Public Hearing - A Final Plat Request for a Proposed New Subdivision.
Applicant, John Sandberg.
Mr. Sandberg was present to propose a final plat request for the
proposed new subdivision, Kealy Heights Addition. Mr. Sandberg
indicated to Planning Commission members that with the new zoning
in piece, the current Meadows Addition has now been rezoned to R-3,
medium density residential. Chairman Richard Carlson questioned
Mr. Sandberg why he didn't have everything ready for them. Mr.
Sandberg indicated that it is exactly the same thing which he had
presented to the City Council and received approval. Discussion
than centered around what the City Council is requiring of Mr. Sandberg
to put on his final plat before recording. Zoning Administrator
Anderson informed Planning Commission members that the City Council
would like to see Lots 9 6 10 be screened prior to recording of
the plat, and also that Marvin Elwood Road be extended to West River
Street, and that the proposed street be dedicated to the City as
a street; and whether or not Mr. Sandberg puts it in at this time
that Mr. Sandberg is responsible for the improvements to that street
from Marvin Elwood Road to West County Road 75. Mr. Sandberg countered
that he is not willing to landscape or screen from the abutting
residential neighbors at this time. But should a building permit
application be taken out for an apartment building on either Lots
9 or 10 that he would be willing to start landscaping and screening
at that time. He also addressed the problem with the request for
the extension of Marvin Elwood Road to West River Street and countered
that he would not extend Marvin Elwood Road to West River Street
c until the plat was recorded. And also that he probably wouldn't
extend it until at such time he is reedy to apply for a building
permit for an apartment building. He also indicated that he wan
not in favor of developing the street from Marvin Elwood Road to
Went County Road 75 from Kealy Circle. He is willing to dedicate
Lot 8 for street purposes but is not willing to put in the improvements
at this time or at any time in the future.
With no further input from the public, Chairman Richard Carlson
then closed the public hearing and ankod for input from the Planning
Commission members.
Notion by Barbara Koropchak, seconded by Marren Smith, to deny the
final plat roquest for proposed new subdivision. Reason for denial
to that Mr. Sandberg's final plat was not in Ito final plat form;
it was lacking the extension of Mervin Elwood Road to River Street,
the dedication of Lot S to the City for street improvements, and
also the street Improvements wasn't proposed to be put in from
Marvin Elwood Road at Kealy Circle to West County Road 751 and Mr.
Sandberg had not proposed any screening for Lots 9 i 10. Motion
carried unanimously.
oo=?-
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/11/86
i
� 6. Continuance of a Variance Request to Allow Placement of a Sign in
the Railroad Right -of -ray. Applicant, John Sandberq.
Mr. Sandberg indicated to Planning Commission members that he has
sent the appropriate information to Burlington Northern for their
approval or denial for the placement of the sign in its present
location. As soon as he receives comment from Burlington Northern
he will bring the approval or denial letter to the City Planning
Commission for their information.
Additional Information Items
1. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members
that at Monday night's City Council meeting, February 10, 1986,
they did approve the zoning ordinance map as presented in the paper
with the area along Rant and Meet River Street to remain R-1. They
also made a motion for the new zoning ordinance text to the map
to become effective upon a motion by the members at the City Council
meeting that night. It was approved unanimously.
2. Motion by Marren Smith, seconded by Barbara Koropchak, to Get the
next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting
for March 11, 1986, 7:30 p.m.
3. Motion by Marren Smith, seconded by Barbara Koropchak, to adjourn
the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
14.4�
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
0�1
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/11/86
3. Public Rearing - A Final Plat Request for a Proposed New Subdivision,
Pitt Addition. Applicant. Doug Pitt. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Pitt in proposing final approval of hie subdivision request,
Pitt Addition. As you may recall, this is the first time we will
be seeing the proposed subdivision request since it was brought
before you as a replatting request at an earlier meeting. With
Mr. Pitt creating four lots instead of two lots, even though they
were in two separate additions, staff felt that it was not a simple
subdivision. Therefore, it was a straight subdivision request even
though it was only four lots. The plat is basically the same thing
as what you've seen in the original simple subdivision request in
that Lots 2 & 3 will have one curb cut that will service two private
driveways extending to the rear Iota of this proposed subdivision.
Staff has reviewed Mr. Pitt's subdivision request, and he has made
all the necessary corrections. It Is in its final form with the
narrative portion of the subdivision request and also a restrictive
covenant to cover snow removal of Lots 2 & 3 onto Lots 1 & d, which
has been approved by the City Attorney.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the final plat request for a proposed now subdivision,
Pitt Addition.
2. Deny the final plat request for a proposed new eubdivieion,
Pitt Addition.
3. Approve the final plat for the proposed now aubdivision, Pitt
Addition, with the approved narrativo portion of the final plat
and the approved restrictive covenant as reviewed by the City
Attorney to handle the snow removal of Lots 2 & 3 onto Lots
1 & 4.
C. STAFF RF.COMl ENDATION:
Baeod on the fact that Mr. Pitt's subdivision request was started
under the old text of the ordinance, City staff feels we have no
grounds for dental. Mr. Pitt has mat all the minimum requirements
of the old text of the ordinance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed subdivision; Copy of the final
plat for the proposed subdivision, Pitt Addition; Copy of tta nrrrativo
statement; Copy of the restrictive covenant.
IINNESOTA
BLOCK
' TERRACE
CE is O. f0 � �•': \ \ \� a. alr w4t of
/'" , w,.»».. � � •/jam/` 0 � v` � »,tr.w.a•rb 1:
/ 1 • t / i 1 j ` / � ` tlrt nrl .1 G
, J w� w.t.ril Ilwr
�i 'a ♦ 4 1� + .. riy t ..raiw.awl. ti
BLOC
a •`6t• . err , I ^ ' / 2
J •'
,, r� `• ,�� �� r TAYLDR LAND SURVEYORS INC.
R•2/\,r `MMrICEuaorr. awlanwwa6r.0ar4o. s55oW
r«.rn,.. PHONE (612)2•- _
rnari I III I I I ❑�� I 11
GR Ap NIG FEEL
tN
w
\ t ivi6q'-O t 1°t S ntO
simP ids * %.%SVI'a
otsA
ap1L tai
A do \
OR
� '�'•••�.,' �';•-'. 1+ ''0r'(+ l•!l/ �•'f` 1 �j �/y�1�11.j!!}jj�``�r r . � r . �l. j/
p.FC-� r,' • 1 % r -"",��+r .'! t 1, '1((, +. ; �',�14�7 ��j�.^ ���4""�..
° �� • �� r j � 11' n �l I l .' ' t ( ����LLI, , t J : �'7 i��-T"�; .
a ?,'+t.. ' `S �. •• 7 1,,,,,R J Ej j j (j ,L t ' i rr. _' � � �•;�wt
N�-GI�. •fr ��p f , 1.".�+.:.;rJ•�t "t err i
i r
47 jf
N
P111 poR�.��o
�O�HOME BUIlOEIS
925W. River St. Monticello, MN 33762 617-2912173
w'i I:.':Gt:t'I i, nl' 1:.1.. II -IL ...c W :.L,NL TBE ro 3haT'i
IIi THL Pi`1'I ^D.r II'IQN NJ IJ Abr LLT M bUYLI, MAAANY
1` IPo:.1(JVL4Lty'('J l.�Ni.itiiIAU 'InhbJ, oUIi EIC.
fA UQLAS J. ?LJr
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/11/86
6. Public Hearin8 - A Conditional Use Request to Allow an Addition
to the Shopping Center to be Constructed in a B-3 (Highwav Business)
Zone. Applicant. Lincoln Monticello Commercial Partners Ltd. Partnership. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The new owners of the Monticello Mall, Monticello Lincoln Commercial
Partnere Ltd. Partnership, are proposing to put an addition onto
the existing Monticello Mall. You will note on the enclosed site
plan the proposed addition to the Mall and the proposed parking
spaces. Also as part of the addition, the owners are proposing
to give the existing Mall a facelift to make it more attractive
to the Monticello area. A couple of things that we noted in our
review of the plan, with which the developer sees no problem and
will make the changes before building permit application, are as
follows. The handicapped spaces as noted in the north area entrance
will be moved to the vest one parking aisle, therefore being directly
in front of the new entrance to the Mall. Parking spaces are put
in along the area of the loading/unloading area of the current Wayne -s
Red Owl building. We indicated to the developers that we would
like at least 130 feet, or 13 of these parking spaces, removed and
marked for loading/unloading area to allow a semi to be able to
maneuver his rig and back into the loading dock area without encroaching
into other parking areas. A more detailed landscaping plan will
be presented at the Planning Commission meeting Tuesday night.
The minimum perking requirements have been exceeded in their proposed
site plan.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the conditional use request to allow an addition to
the shopping center.
Z. Deny the conditional use request to allow an addition to the
shopping Center.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use request to allow
an addition to the existing Nonticollo Mall. The new owners of
the Mall have boon very receptive to the City and City staff in
making aura that everything is in order prior to the public hearing
and have acted in a very professional manner in dealing with their
conditional use request.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the site plan; Copies of narrative portion of conditional
use request.
-2-
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/11/86
I-
5. Public Bearing - A Variance Request to Allow Placement of an Attached
Garage in the Rear and Side Setback Requirements. Applicant. Jimmy
Kaisarlik. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Kaiserlik is proposing to construct an addition to his house
and a garage within one foot of the rear property line. As you
will note on the enclosed site plan, the closest structure within
this rear lot line is a neighbor's ice house, with there being only
three houses an this entire 330 -foot one-half City block. The question
before you would be whether to allow a variance to be granted to
allow construction of this house addition and an attached garage
within one foot of the roar property line. There would be no sideyard
setback, as he does own the north % of the east % of Lot 9 also.
Mr. Kaiearlik can demonstrate the hardship in this case due to the
configuration of his lot. With his house meeting the minimum setback
requirements and to allow construction of an addition to his house
and also to allow construction of a garage, there is very little
room to accommodate this an his lot.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the varianco request to allow a house addition and a
garage to be built within one foot of the roar property line
with no sideyard variance needed.
3. Deny the variance request to allow a house addition and a garage
to be built wihtin one foot of the rear property line with no
sideyard variance needed.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow construction
of an addition to the existing house and an attached garage to this
proposed addition to within one foot of the rear property line.
As noted an the enclosed site plan, there are no buildings which
would be affected by the proposed variance request.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance requests Copy o: the
alto plan.
-3-
r
_�• , A variance request to 640W n �. '�• _ �� -�'`i
R f an attached garage in re r
9 a aidayard setback require /
�, JS Kalserlik. � �� b
• lI o—.—T-.� . jam° m_
\il �� C� \
7NEa'+:. IS ALSO a-cts>
r Cyu oyma SIrG OF ICL I K :'NICH -/UE
IC` pWNCI¢ USES -
•I�vI]S�,
-ST -
�� Ito- '
O; 649ABt
I ,
I ' I
1 ,
I I 1
� I
S+KccY Ntracr,vr
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/11/86
r
6. Public Hearing - A Conditional Use Request to Allow an Office BufldinR
in a PZ -M (Performance Zone -Mixed) Zone. Applicant, David Anderson.
4
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. David Anderson is proposing to renovate an existing single
family house into a proposed relocation of the Century 21 real
estate offices. With the new zoning attached to this property,
PZ -M (Performance Zone -Mixed) types of allowable uses are single
family and also multiple family dwellings and as a conditional
use request, Mr. Anderson's request would be allowed in this
zoning area. However, there are many conditions that do apply
to any type of project like this which are to be addressed and
are noted on the enclosed site plan. Mr. Anderson's request does
meet the minimum required parking spaces for his proposed project.
My questions are in regard to the surfacing of the parking lot
and the type of curbing which he is proposing to use. The type
of surfacing he is proposing would not allow for surface water
drainage to the Maple Street. With the type of curbing proposed.
it would not channel the water to Maple Street nor is it a good
barrier for parking a car against it. Mr. Anderson 1s not
objecting to installing hard concrete curbing or permanent
hard surfacing but will look at some alternative type or
combination of both to utilize in his proposing parking lot.
In reviewing this project, we could combine both but it
definitely would have to be hard surfacing rather than the
red rock which is proposed. Also, the landscaping must be
addressed since Mr. Anderson proposes to use the existing lilacs
as a solid screening. One might also consider an inter mixing
of more plantings of this and another species to create the
solid opay type of screening. There are many things to be
addressed in a narrative statement and Mr. Anderson will be
present to discuss them and we see no problem with the narrative
statement he has presented.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternativo would be to allow an office building in
PZ -M (Performance Zone-Mixod).
2. The second alternative would be to deny the conditional use
request in a PZ -M (Performance Zono-Mixed).
3. The third alternative would to approve the conditional use
request in a PS -M (Performanco Lona -Mixed) with some following
suggested conditions:
1. Some typo of hard surface either concrete or asphalt be
installed.
-4-
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/11/66
2. Some type of curbing either a combination of landscaped timbers
and concrete be installed.
3. An approved landscaping plan be submitted prior to the building
permit application.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of the conditional use request allowing
an office building in an PZ -M (Performance Zone -Mixed) Zone with some
following suggested conditions such as:
1. There be some type of hard surfacing either concrete or asphalt
on the parking lot to allow proper drainage from the parking lot
site.
2. Some type of curbing be installed;either a combination of landscaped
timbers and/or concrete.
3. A landscaping plan be submitted and approved before application
for building permit. The narrative statement be in order to
address all the items under the performance zone -mixed con-
ditional request subsection.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the conditional use request and a copy of the
site plan for the proposed rezoning request and a copy of the
narrative statement for the proposed conditional use request.
-S-
L.1�, ✓�t ' jji{ •t7rl,v i.�J p'ty r
gcvp.
i u '''1
4;
• v
C 4
� cicncs �XtSsrntG j �, ?
.5 pRwC wNr � !
r
r.2eCty A2R *P4Rt<ttUC. srAc�"
w *�sr+>r�IIS FOR to CAPS
I 'ttn8F�,5 t'0
I 'Lol- 0/70W
2oc/,r or✓ cor a
Oki (0,4f
ni t
CJt%t+ SN11ulS 00
1/6AC fcttrut'le, Gxts-.tufo �1
Cir
City of Monticello
Re: Conditional Use Permit for 448 M. Broadway, Monticello
The use intended for the office is a real estate office for
approximately 10 agents.
The property will be improved both externally and internally. It
will be maintained and kept neat in appearance. The original
structure will be preserved so as to retain the charm of an older
home.
The sight plan (see attachment) indicates ample parking; i.e. there
will be parking spaces that are 10 feet by 20 feet, 10 total, allowing
one of these for handicapped parking. Additional space is available
as needed. The parking surface will be red rock (3/4) to control
dust. Rock is being used rather than a tar surface so that the
property. . . in particular the back yard of the homesite. .
is not irrevocably changed. The parking lot will be bordered by
landscape timbers and shrubs as recommended by a professional land-
scaper and/or the city staff.
The back of the property (or South side) has a lilac hedge for
screening. The side of the lot to the east also has a partial
lilac hedge. This side hedge will be added to as soon as weather
permits to complete the screening of the property on the east side.
A professional landscaper has been contacted to plan for other
landscaping and also advise as to what should be done to add to
the property landscaping as well as treatment of the existing
trees and shrubbery on the property to maximize the attractiveness
of the property. The work on the exterior and grounds will begin
as soon as weather permits.
Allowing for the properties in this area to choose between residential
or office space use will increase the value of the properties because
it widens the options available to the homeowners at the time that
they would choose to sell. Because careful consideration of each
request is monitored by the City, only those properties that actually
upgrade themselves will be allowed to make the change.
I, David Anderson, will be present at the March 11, 1986, Planning
Commission Meeting as well as the March 24, 1986, Council Meeting
to answer any other questions or concerns.
w