Planning Commission Agenda Packet 04-08-1986AGENDA
REMILIIR NESTING - M UTICEi.LO PLANNIRC COMMISSION
April 8, 1986 - 7:30 p.m.
Members: Richard Carlson, Richard Martie, Joyce Dowling, Marren
Smith, and Barbara Koropchak
7:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order.
7:32 p.m. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Bald
March 11, 1986.
7:34 p.m. 3. Public Hearing - A Rezoning Request to Rezone Platted
Property from 1-2 (Heavy Industrial) to I-1 (Light
Industrial). Applicant, Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership.
Additional Information Items
7:54 p.m. 1. Monticello City Ordinance Information.
6:09 p.m. Z. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission Meeting for May 13, 1986, 7:30 p.m.
8:07 p.m. 3. Adjournment.
II
MINUTES
V REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
March 11, 1986 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Barbara Koropchak, Marren Smith,
Joyce Dowling.
Members Absent: Richard Martie.
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Thomas Eidem.
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Carleon at
7:34 p.m.
Motion by Barbara Koropchak, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve
the minutes of the February 11, 1986, Planning Commission meeting
with the following correction. The statement made by Ellen Maxwell
that the MacArlund Plaza Townhouse Association had met with all
of the owners in the Association van an incorrect statement. We
would like it amended that Ellen Maxwell met with some members of
the MacArlund Plaza Townhouse Association. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Public Hearing - A Final Plat Request for a Proposed Nov Subdivision.
Pitt Addition. Applicant. Doug Pitt.
Mr. Doug Pitt was present to propose the final plat of the Pitt
Addition. Chairperson Richard Carlson opened the meeting for public
input. No commento being heard, Mr. Carlson than closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Carlson Questioned Zoning Administrator Anderson if the restrictive
covenants in regards to snow removal are covered; and Zoning Administrator
Anderson answered that they are. Chairperson Richard Carlson than
asked for a motion.
Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Barbara Koropchak, to approve the
final plat requoot for a proposed now subdivision, Pitt Addition.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. Public Hearin - A Conditional Uco Requact to Allow an Addition
to the Shopping Center to be Constructed in a 0-3 (Highway Suoinoee)
Zone. Applicant, Lincoln Monticello Commercial Partnoro Ltd. Partnership.
Mo. Sandy Linatroth and Mr. Chuck Durrosne were present to propose
the expansion plans for the Monticello Mall. Mr. Dufresne explained
to Planning Commission members the proposed expansion plans, along
with the propooed renovation of the existing exterior and interior
of the Monticello Mall. Chairperson Richard Carlson opened the
meeting for public input. No comments being heard, Mr. Carlson
then closed the public hearing.
-1- 0
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/11/86
Mr. Carlson then opened the meeting for questions from Planning
Commission members. Mr. Marren Smith questioned the redesign of
their parking lot in that there might be a conflict with the Kentucky
Fried Chicken parking. Mr. Dufresne countered that the plans are
to work with the owner of the Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise to
accommodate their parking lot redesign. Mr. Smith questioned if
the semi -trucks will be allowed to park at the present site. Mr.
Dufresne responded that they are not going to discourage this type
of parking. Their intentions are to leave things pretty much as
they are except for some on-site improvements. Mr. Smith also questioned
where the truck loading/unloading areas would be in relationship
to the existing Mall and the proposed expansion. Mr. DuFresno responded
that the existing Red Owl Food Store loading/unloading area will
be basically cleaned up, and they will be looking at a new design
for that area. The proposed new Snyder Drug location will have
their loading/unloading off of the area which they have cut and
angled through one corner of the building. Mr. Smith questioned
the Walnut Street access point being moved. Mr. DuFresne responded
that the Walnut Street access would remain the same and the other
access at midpoint between the blocks would be moved in a westerly
direction to accommodate the proposed new main entrance to the Mall,
which will be on the northwest corner of the existing Mall. Mr.
Smith also questioned as to whether the existing Photo Hut building
would stay or be removed. Mr. Dufresne announced that the existing
Photo Hut with its proposed parking spaces would remain at its current
site.
Mr. Eidem questioned Mr. Wreane on their freight unloading area
which Is proposed for the Red Owl Food Store. Mr. Eidom explained
on the map whore it would probably be in the beat interest to remove
those parking spaces to allow for a sami-truck tractor to move up
into those parking spaces and line up to back straight into the
loading/unloading area. The current site plan does exceed the minimum
parking spaces required; and by the removal of these 12-13 spaces,
it still meets the minimum requirements of the ordinance. Mr. DuFroana
responded that they are working with the current owner of the Rad
Owl Food Store and will come up with a more workable loading/unloading
area. Mr. Eidem than explained to Planning Commission members that
a landscaping plan was received by City staff explaining the types
and number of trees and shrub plantings proposed. Mr. Sidem recommended
approval of the landscaping plan with the condition that the number
of trees planted along the I-94 boundary of this property be reviewed;
and if additional trees are needed, the developers put them in at
that time. Mr. DuFroans explained to Planning Commission membera
that he had no problems with the proposed landscaping plan. If
they needed more trees planted along the I-94 boundary, they would
have no problem putting them in at that time.
Chairperson Richard Carlson questioned what their plans were for
the exterior refuse containers. Mr. Dufresne referred to the site
d plan and responded that they ars proposing to have an enclosed refuse
area within the building in one corner of Snyder Drug, another one
-2-
O
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/11/86
i
a in the corner of the existing Trustworthy Hardware Store, and another
one in the location of the Red Owl Food Store. Mr. DuFresne indicated
they are working with the existing Mall tenants to clean up the
exterior of the building with no exterior refuse containers being
allowed. Zoning Administrator Anderson questioned the possible
relocation of the Red Owl loading/unloading dock area and the possibility
of a conflict with the existing businesses. Going in Style and Lakeland
Dental. He felt when the trucks bring merchandise to be unloaded
at the Red Owl Food Store that they would block the fronts of these
two businesses. Mr. DuFresne responded that it was a very good
point and that they would try to work out a situation which would
be the least disruptive to these two businesses.
Chairperson Richard Carlson complimented the Lincoln Monticello
Commercial Partnere Ltd. Partnership on their expertise and rewarding
experience on the presentation of their proposed Mall expansion
and welcomed them to the Monticello community. Chairperson Richard
Carlson then asked for a motion.
Motion by Marren Smith, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to recommend
to the City Council that a conditional use permit for expansion
of a shopping center be granted to Lincoln Monticello Commercial
Partnere Ltd. Partnership, contingent on the following:
1. The City's Consulting Engineer approves the drainage plan.
2. The refuse deposit and collection sites be screened from view.
3. Additional plantings (trees or shrubs) be placed in both the
northerly and easterly parking lots to break the visual monotony
of large parking expense.
0. The City has the right to order Lincoln Monticello Commercial
Partnere Ltd. Partnership, after a period of at least two years
but no longer than five years, to plant seven additional screening
trees along I-96 if the proposed screening plan does not achieve
the dooired effect.
The motion carried unanimously.
5. Public Hearin - A Variance Request to Allow Placement of an Attached
Garage in the Rear and Side Setback Requirements. Applicant, Jimmy
Kaiserlik.
Mr. Jim Kaiserlik was present to propose his variance request.
Mr. Kaiserlik explained to Planning Commission ---bars he would
like to demolish his existing garage and relocate it to the other side
of his house to the roar of the property. with this relocation,
he would like to be allowed to place the garage within one foot
of the rear yard setback, therefore, not needing any sideyard setback
variance. He also indicated on the site plan the shared driveway
which he is sharing with Mrd. Lovegren and that he would like to
relocate his driveway vast and propose to put in a now driveway
-3 ( D--%
-
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/11/86
i
to service his new garage. Mr. Kaiserlik explained where the nearest
buildings are in relationship to the location of his proposed garage
site. The nearest structures. other than the ice house, are the
backs of the existing houses on the north h of the Fourth Street
block. Mr. Warren Smith indicated to Planning Commission members
that in looking at the site, he sees no problem with Mr. Kaiserlik's
request and that it would definitely be an improvement to his property
to relocate the garage to the new site and create a new driveway
on hie own property. He also indicated that Mr. Kaiserlik has spent
a considerable amount of time and money in the renovation of his
house.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then asked for a motion. Motion by
Warren Smith, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve the variance
request to allow a house addition and a garage to be built within
one foot of the rear property Sine with no sideyard variance needed.
Motion carried unanimously.
6. Public Rearing - A Conditional Use Request to Allow an Office Building
in a PZ -M (Performance Zone-Mixad) Zone. Applicant. David Anderson.
Mr. David Anderson was present to propose hie request for renovation
of an existing house into new offices for Century 21 Real Estate
firm. Mr. Anderson explained that they are proposing to screen
the existing property on the east and south sides of the lot with
the existing lilac and other bushos there and also add additional
ones if needed later. Be is proposing to hard surface the parking
lot with a crushed red rock surface and put in treated landscape
timbers for the curbing around the perimeter of the parking lot.
The house would be pretty such loft the same on the interior and
exterior except for an overall clean up. Mr. Anderson is proposing
to not destroy the integrity of the exterior or the interior of
the house; and at some point in time this could be converted back
to its original use as a singlo family dwelling. Planning Commission
member Barbara Koropchak Questioned Zoning Administrator Anderson
as to why staff is insisting on a blacktopped parking lot. Zoning
Administrator Anderson countered that a type of hard surfacing,
blacktop or concrete, be used to allow surface water drainage from
the Lot. With this type of surface, there are very few puddles
or bird bathe within the parking lot.
City Administrator, Thomas Eidem, indicated to Planning Commission
members the staff's perspective on the following items. 1) 1001
opacity on the south and east sides of the property for screening
purposes, utilising the existing trees, shrubs, and plantings; and
if any additional ones are needed, they be planted prior to Certificate
of Occupancy. 2) In adjusting the proposed use of the building
for Century 21 Real Estate firm, it would be a commercial enterprise
business which requires hard surfacing with some type of curb and
gutter. The type of hard surfacing allowed for this is concrete
or blacktop and concrete curb and gutter.
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/11/86
Mr. David Anderson countered that the hard surface which is addressed
in the ordinance in a surface to control dust.
Ruth Anderson questioned City Administrator, Thomas Eidem, as to
why the hard surfacing is needed for this when the type of use within
this sone is residential and commercial mixed. Mr. Eidem responded
that even though it is a residential and commercial mixed zone,
the most restrictive requirements apply to the parking lot.
Planning Commission member Barren Smith asked Mr. Anderson to explain
further what he was going to do inside or outside of the house.
Mr. Anderson indicated he was intending to clean up the exterior
of the building. If it needed reroofing, it would be rercofed.
If it needed new windows, the windows would be replaced. If the
porch needed a new foundation, it would be put in. If these things
weren't needed, it would be left as it is. He is proposing to leave
the interior pretty much the same other than a lot of clean up and
elbow grease. His intentions are to not destroy the single family
Integrity of this house. Abutting neighbor to the south, Mr. Harry
Schaffer, questioned the type of surface which Mr. Anderson was
Proposing to use. He relayed his experience with the blacktop surface
he has on his driveway and compared it to the type of surface that
Mr. Anderson was proposing to use for this parking lot. Mr. Schaffer
also raised a question as to the housing values, particularly hie
house, with a commercial business located at t -his site. Mr. Eidem
Indicated there would be an increase in value because the value
to this property and other adjoining proportion would be increased
by a good commercial development occurring along tho Broadway side
of this block. Ruth Ladd supported Mr. Eidem's statement, saying
that previous to her joining the Century 21 Real Estate Office,
she was with the real estate firm which originally had the Fitzgerald
house listed with them, and the asking price three years ago was
considerably higher. It has gone down in value over the past three
years simply because the house Is a big old house and was in deteriorating
condition. There is no market for this typo of largo house on a
large lot. Mrs. John Sullivan, a neighbor immediataly east of this
property, questioned the headlights from vehicles driving into the
parking lot shining into their house. City Administrator, Thomas
Eidem, indicated to Mrs. Sullivan that the object of the 1001 opaque
scrooning fence would be to cut down the glare from headlights of
oncoming cars into the parking lot onto their property. Ruth Ladd
countered that the normal office hours of the real estate office
are until 6:00 p.m., and they have no Sunday office hours. Planning
Commission member Joyce Dowling questioned the typo of curbing that
is required for this. Zoning Administrator Anderson countered that
the type of curbing required would be some type of hard surface
curbing like concrete to allow surface water to drain off the perimeters
of the parking lot out onto Maple Street. Nr. Marren Smith then
questioned the interior layout which Mr. Anderson is proposing.
Mr. Anderson countered that he is proposing to leave the interior
-5-
O
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/11/86
as it is except for basic clean up. He would like
to keep the integrity of the single family dwelling. Mrs. John
Sullivan then questioned if this property could be turned back into
an apartment building. Mrs. Sullivan, along with her neighbor,
Mr. and Mrs. Harry Schaffer, objected quite strongly to any type
of apartmanta being built there. Zoning Administrator Anderson
addressed Chairperson Richard Carlson on a letter he received from
a neighboring property owner, and also a comment he received from
a neighboring property owner. A letter was then read fro= Mr. Randy Havel
of Havel Giarusso G Associates, Inc., a neighboring property owner,
voicing their approval of such a conditional use request. zoning
Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members
that Mr. Babe Clausen, former owner of the Dairy Store, would like
to voice his approval of Mr. Andersons request. He felt it would
be a very worthwhile project in the area, and it would be of contrast
with the existing residential neighborhood.
Planning Commission Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the
public hearing. Planning Commission member Joyce Dowling questioned
as to the type of hard surfacing which is required. Mr. Tom Hides
indicated that per Section 3-9-K in the text of our ordinance,
Stall, Aisle and Driveway Design, all areas intended to be utilized
for parking space and driveway shall be surfaced with material suitable
to control dust and drainage, except in the case of single family
and two-family dwellings, driveways and stalls shall be surfaced
with 6 -inch Class V base and 2 -inch bituminous topping and/or concrete
equivalent. Planning Commission member Barbara Koropchak questioned
when would the 100% opacity screening have to be put in. Zoning
Administrator Anderson countered that the screening would have to
be put in before occupancy could occur. If the time of the season
is not right for planting of trace and/or shrubs for screening,
there would be an amount withhold in an escrow account for 14 times
the amount needed to put in the landscaping and/or screening work.
The owner/developer would then be given so many days to complete
that project. If not completed, the City would have the money available
to hire a professional landscaping firm to come in and do the screening/
landscaping par approved plan.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then asked for a motion. Motion by
Joyce Dovling, seconded by Barbara Koropchak, to approve the conditional
use request to allow a PZ -M (Performance Zone -Nixed) with the following
conditions:
1. Sams type of hard surface, either concrete or asphalt, be installed.
2. Some typo of curbingy, either concrete, landscaping tlmbars,.or a
combination, be ins4lled.
3. An approved landscaping plan be submitted prior to building
permit application.
Motion carried unanimously.
Z
-6-
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/11/86
Additional Information Items
It was the general consensus of the four Planning Commission members
present. Richard Carlson. Marren Smith, Barbara Koropchak, and Joyce
Dowling. to set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for April S. 1986, 7:30 p.m.
Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Barbara roropchak, to adjourn
the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at
9:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/mow P�•P-
Gary And&son
Zoning Administrator
1525
0
Planning Co®Lesion Agenda - 4/8/86
3. Public Hearing - A Rezoning Rei eet to Rezone Platted Property from
I-2 (Heavy Industrial) to I-1 (Light Industrial). Applicant, Oakwood
Industrial Park Partnership. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership, a group of individual investor
owners, is proposing to rezone the existing undeveloped vacant lots
from I-2 (Heavy Industrial) to I-1 (Light Industrial). In review
of the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan, their proposed request does
not ran counter to our Comprehensive Plan. A change in zoning designation
from I-2 (Heavy Industrial) to I-1 (Light Industrial) does remove
the following types of permitted uses and conditional uses that currently
exist under the I-2 zoning and are outlined in Chapter 16, Section 16-2,
beginning with B through E; and Section 16-4, Conditional Uses A
and B. The question to be raised is that these proposed heavy industrial
lots, if rezoned to light industrial Iota, would mean we would no
longer have any heavy industrial zoning that is platted which would
have water and sewer available to these lots. The owners of these
lots, the Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership, would have the right
not to sell any or all of these lots to any type of use other than
an I-1 use; therefore, not needing a rezoning request.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
41 1. Approve the rezoning request to rezone platted property from
I-2 (Heavy Industrial) to I-1 (Light Industrial).
2. Deny the rezoning request to rezone platted property from I-2
(Heavy Industrial) to I-1 (Light Industrial).
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff has no recommendation to Planning Commission members or
to City Council members regarding this request. This Is strictly
a judgement call on behalf of Monticello City Planning Commission
members and Monticello City Council ...bore.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed location of rezoning request; Copy of narrative
portion of applicant's request; Copy of new zoning map which shows
the affected area.
.l ,r i �r Ntr rlrr,• erg "',/ 1. j»±� • �l/
Y�L{��.`(��,'�7/!f�jy,/yam{.j�, i ; "^•-.a �.�.1� i ll...7 - .r,r... ._{T � ' .'� ,/al �
'^�,r( t ., .11 �.:. •r , 1, c � .II tJ, +(t •,t ; �`�+ „l i' �t1'�/jj,I 7 ! l , I•
�� �l l i . t �•',`• ' r r I t j. 0� '� 'l j(r ,s 1 I c J `fi
pi r• 1 1
"+1 •% )• .o '� _1r •....y, �• ,n/f 1/ � If• 'r i! 1• •,li •ir4 Y3:..
wl/ 1 ';�•, rtl�.,
� t+9 Y�vo t,1 ape ia�l ode, 1 .. • � � 1 a'� i i . � /a `
\'Prop -
HIGHWAY ; ty 6� tn�usp =� pe=w N0. 84
.04
avY � k •Mints •���� `•n/�� '%
March 25, 1986
Attachment for Public Bearing, Application for Re -zoning, City of Monticello
In reexamining the permitted uses of a I-2 Heavy Industrial District, the
owners of the park feel that as the park is constituted today it would be
better to eliminate the Heavy Industrial District classification and
restrict the land to Light Industrial. First, there is no heavy industry
In the park now and second, the light industry classification covers all
existing business and we feel it would provide for the future development
of new business in the park being more computable with the existing busi-
ness. The north one quarter of the park is zoned light industrial.
Third, we feel that the present State Law covering Pollution Control and
Bnviromental Protection would prohibit heavy industrial development in
the park with its proximity to commercial and other light industry business.
Fourth, the remaining land in the park is quite divided except for one
tract, lots 6 thru 12 Block 2, and that configuration would not apply well
to heavy industry, but applies very well to light industrial development.
A majority of heavy industry developments require railroads and there are
none available in the park. Fifth, the property just to the east of the
park Is zoned Meavy Industrial District and has hundreds of acres that are
moro suitable.
Therefore, we respectfully request rezoning the remaining land to "I-1"
Light Industrial.
CHAPTER 16
"I-2" HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
SECTION:
16-1: Purpose
16-2: Permitted Uses
16-3: Permitted Accessory Uses
16-6: Conditional Uses
16-1:
PURPOSE: The purpose of the "I-2" Heavy Industrial
District in to provide for the establishment of heavy
industrial and manufacturing development and use which
because of the nature of the product or character
of activity requires isolation from residential or
commercial use.
16-2:
PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses
in an "1-2" District:
(A) Any use permitted in the "1-1" Light Industrial
District.
(B) The manufacturing, compounding. assembly, packaging,
treatment, or storage of products or materials
including: Breweries, cement, stone cutting,
' brick, glass, batteries (wet cell), ceramic
products, mill working, metal polishing and
Platting, paint (pigment mfg.), vinegar works,
rubber products, plastics, meet packing, flour,
feed grain milling, milling, coal or tar asphalt
distillation, rendering works, distillation
of bones, sawmill, lime, gypsum, plaster of
parts, glue, size, cloth, and similar uses.
(C) Automobile assembly and major repair.
(D) Creamery and bottling plant.
(E) foundry.
16-3:
PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted
accessory uses in an "I-2" District:
(AI All permitted accessory uses allowed in an
"L•1" Light Industrial District.
16-6:
CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses
in an "1-2" District: (RtgQ;AC6 d condZUAna Wt
pwLU ba6td upon paoccduAt6 6et 604th In and Acqutatcd
by ChaptcR it od th" 04d:)=c4.1
[A] All conditinal uses allowed in an •I-1• Light
Industrial District.
[e] The following uses provided they meet all requirements
of Chapter ], Section 2 of this Ordinance,
and the provisions of Chapter 22 of this Ordinance
are considered and satisfactorily met.
1. Auto wrecking, junk yard, uses auto parts
(open storage) and similar uses.
2. Incineration or reduction or waste material
other than customarily incidental to e
principal use.
]. Poison, fertilizer, fuel briquettes.
4. Riles or other heat processes fired by
means other than electricity.
5. Creosote plant.
6. Acid manufacture.
7. Storage, utilization or manufacture of
materials or products which could decompose
by detonation.
S. Refuse and garbage disposal.
8. Commercial stock yards and slaughtering
of animals.
10. Crude oil, gasoline, or other liquid storage
tanks.
C
4