Planning Commission Agenda Packet 02-07-1989AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 7, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Members: Richard Carlson, Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Mori Malone, and
Dan MOConnon
7:30 p.m. 1. Call to order.
7:32 p.m. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held January 3,
1989.
7:34 p.m. 3. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held January 17,
1989.
7:36 p.m. 4. Public Hearing - A simple subdivision request to subdivide an
existing I-2 (heavy industrial) lot into two industrial lots.
Applicant, Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership.
7:51 p.m. S. Public Hearing - A simple subdivision request to subdivide an
existing unplatted residential lot into two unplatted
residential lots. A rezoning request to rezone R-2 (single and
two family residential) unplatted residential land to R-3
(medium density residential). Applicant, hest Prairie
Partners.
8:36 p.m. 6. Request for a final plat review for a proposed new subdivision
plat. Applicant, Charles Ritze.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
8:56 P.M. 1. variance request to allow additional pylon sign square footage
and pylon sign height. Applicant, Piret National Bank/Attracta
Sign. Council action: Tabled the variance request.
8:58 P.M. 2. variance request to allow an additional pylon sign on a 20
(highway business) unplatted lot. Applicant, Tom Thumb Store.
Council action: Tabled the variance request.
9:00 P.M. 3. Replatting request to replat an existing lot into six townhouse
lots and one common area lot. A variance request to allow a
replatted lot to have leas than the minimum lot width
requirement. A replotting request to replat an existing lot
into four townhouse lots and one common area lot. Applicant,
Jay Miller/Fairway Court. Nuncil action: Approved with
conditions.
9:02 p.m. 4. Simple subdivision request to allow an I-2 (heavy industrial)
lot to be subdivided into two lots. Applicant, Oakwood
Industrial Park Partnership. Council action: Approved as per
Planning Commission recommendation.
Planning Commission Agenda
February 7, 1989
Page 2
9:06 p.m. S. variance request to allow a residential unplatted tract of land
to be subdivided by a metes and bounds description. Applicant,
Tom eolthaus. Council action: No action needed, as there was
no appeal.
9:06 p.m. 6. Replatting request to replat an existing residential
subdivision plat. Applicant, Dan Brie. Council action:
Approved as per Planning Comm'saion recommendation.
9:08 P.M. 7. Consideration of adopting a resolution finding the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority's modified redevelopmeer:t plan for
Redevelopment Project No. 1, modified tax increment financing
plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-1 through
1-7, and tax increment financing plan for Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-8, all located within Redevelopment
Project No. 1 to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for
the City. Council actions Approved as per Planning Commission
recommendation.
9:10 p.m. S. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commiesion meeting for March 7, 1989, 7:30 p.m.
/ 9:12 p.m. 9. Adjournment.
I
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEMNG - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
January 17, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Cindy Lemfn, Richard Martie, Dan
MaConnon.
Members Absent: Mori Malone
1. Meeting was called to order by Chairman Richard Carlson at 7:33 p.m.
2. Public Hearing - Consideration of a conditional use request to allow a
church racility to operate in an R-2 (single ramify resiaental) zone. A
V9iiMCe request to allow 1t less than E6e mihi&m slas Yaia iitback
requirement) 2) less than the minlmmmm number or ort -street park" spacesw
A no concrete curb ai&iho Um Up� fang ME perimeterj ane ai no lira
arracing or the parking loE. AppllianE, Temple BaptieE Nircn.
Chairman Richard Carlson opened up the meeting for a staff presentation on
the proposed conditional use request. Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant City
Administrator, explained briefly to Planning Commission Membere and members
of the audience that were present the Temple Baptist Church conditional use
request and the variance request. In Mr. O'Neill's explanation, he
indicated the previous use by the former tenant, Monticello Assembly of God
Church, had been discontinued as a church facility at this site for a
period longer than six months. Therefore, a new conditional use
application would be necessary for another church to go into this
facility. Mr. O'Neill also explained to the Planning Commission members
each of the variance requests that the Baptist Church was requesting.
Chairman Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for any input from the
public. Mr. Brad Larson, one of three partnere in the Prairie Rest
Partners, was present to explain the background which led up to the Teeple
Baptist Church purchasing the former Monticello Assembly of God Church
property. Mr. Larson's concerns were that the original use of the property
by the former tenant, Monticello Assembly of God, had not been continued in
that there was still some type of activity that occurred there. In
Mr. Lars='s opinion, the non -conforming use was not discontinued for a
period of over six months. Mr. Larson explained each of the variance
requests which were also to be considered by the Planning Commission.
The first address was the aide yard setback an the westerly portion of
Lot 2 adjacent to Lot 3. Mr. Larson had proposed an easement to cover the
area that would be affected by the encroachment of the building roof and
the basement egress window well openings which encroach onto Lot 3. In
Mr. Larson's opinion, the encroachment easement would adequately cover any
of the encroachments which the building has onto toot 3. In addressing the
minimum number of parking spaces as sham on the enclosed site plan,
Mr. Larson had indicated this site plan showed 27 total parking spaces
which could be accommodated on site, where the City Staff had indicated a
total number of spaces would be 42 total spaces. Mr. Larson indicated the
Baptist Church meets 80 percent of its design capacity. They then have two
H
r._
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 1/17/89
church services instead of one church service. Therefore, a design
capacity of 150 seats at 80 percent of design capacity would be 120 total
seats, divided by the one parking space per four seats, which would equal
30 spaces required; therefore, as shown on the site plan, generating 27
total spaces on site and then only 10 percent short or 3 parking spaces
short of 80 percent of design capacity. As to the hard surfacing of the
parking lot with the curb and gutter around its perimeter, Mr. Larson
indicated that two existing churches in town, the Trinity Lutheran Church
and the St. Henry's Catholic Church, were allowed to phase their parking
lots in over a period of years. He felt that as the Temple Baptist Church
membership grew, they could phase in the project and complete the hard
surfacing of the parking lot with curb and gutter around its perimeter at
some point and time in the future.
Mr. Jim Metcalf, another partner in the west Prairie Partners, was present
to elude Mr. Larson's statements on the continuance of the existing
Monticello Assembly of God Church use with the statement that other than
normal maintenance of the building or structure related to the
non -conforming use was permitted as under Section I in the Zoning
Ordinance. Pastor Harrold Sams was present to explain to the Planning
Commission membera the capacity of the classroom sizes. The Sunday school
would be 92 seats and the total number of seats within the church portion
would be 96 seats. Pastor Same stated that they are a very small
congregation and that it takes many years to build up to a congregation of
the size noted by the City staff, being 150 out capacity. At 80 percent
-.� of their total capacity, the church adds an additional church service to
their existing one service each Sunday. Pastor Sams indicated their intent
was not to cause any problems with the City in their relocation and that
they do intend to stay and grow at this new facility.
Concerned residents in the area, Mr. John Haller and Mrs. Janelle Iano,
addressed the Planning Commission members separately in their concerns that
they had with the proposed conditional use request. Their concerns mainly
addressed an existing parking problem with the St. Peter's Church
services. with no off-street parking there, there is parking near the
residences by people attending church service. he residences wanted to
stress the lack of maintenance that was done by former owners that had not
been properly maintained and questioned the developer as to why they did
not have a certificate of survey performed on the property before they
purchased the former Monticello Assembly of God Church property.
Chairman Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing portion of the
meeting and opened up any discussion for the Planning Commission members.
Discussion amongst the Planning Commission members was that they were not
in opposition of the proposed use of the building by the new tenant. Their
main concerns dealt with the location of the church property in
relationship to the west aide lot line of Lot 2 and the failure to
accomeadate the minimum number of off-street parking spaces required by
Ordinance. Commission members also recognized on the enclosed site plan
that very few additional parking spaces could be generated with the given
? amount of land which the Temple Baptist Church now owns.
0
I
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 1/17/89
With no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion by
Richard Martie, seconded by Dan MaCo non, to deny the conditional use
request to allow a church facility to operate in an R-2 (single family
residential) zone. Motion carried unanimously with Mori Malone absent.
Reason for denial: Applicant, Temple Baptist Church and/or the developer,
West Prairie Partnership, failed to meet the minimum off-street parking
space required at design capacity and failure to show how the minimum
parking space requirement could be met at design capacity.
The general consensus of the members present was to adjourn the meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 10:13 p.m.
Respectfully smi
ubtted,
,� 44,Wl
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/7/89
u
4. Public Hearing- A simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing
I-2 (heavy FAstrlal) lot into two 1naustrlal lots. Applicant, Caxwood
InduiU Fadi Paitinerenip. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership is proposing to subdivide Lot 6,
Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park Addition, in the city of Monticello.
The proposed lot, when split as noted on the site plan as Parcel 8, will
contain approximately 2 acres. The minium lot area required under I-2
zoning is 30,000 eq ft of lot area. Parcel B lot width on the south side
is in excess of the minimum lot width required, 100 ft.
As you will note on an enclosed site plan, there are some existing
drainage and utility easements, which we would like to have changed and
incorporated as is shown on the enclosed site plan.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing I-2
(heavy industrial) lot into two industrial lots.
2. Deny the simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing I-2
(heavy industrial) lot into two industrial lots.
3. Approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing I-2
(heavy industrial) lot into two industrial lots with the following
conditions: 1) The drainage and utilities legal descriptions be
drafted and recorded as shown on the enclosed drainage and utility
easement plan.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed lot to be subdivided known as Parcel B and the other
existing part of this lot known as Parcel A do meet or exceed the minimum
lot area and lot width as required under I-2 (heavy industrial) zoning.
The applicants have legal descriptions prepared for the drainage and
utility easements and have them recorded as shown on the enclosed
drainage and utility easement plan.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Dopy of the location of the proposed simple subdivision request] Copy of
the alto plan for the simple subdivision requestN Copy of the drainage
and utility easement plan for the simple subdivision request.
-1-
I
TAYLOR LAND SLRVEYOA
WM BROADMW. PO WX 07
MONTpcnw. MrodE=4 -136
PHOW (611; 9W'3381
0' rr n
Lot-o.
•''=��=n•A... -b.a •• eel.
�6 _ -; :C.. -- _ _ -�--�a .^.•��.i ti-. '• _ _'- _ �(j,�. �''•�'-'--+: •f'3: •,nu,.. •�7 •eon.
'�'7$'.+ "" �''" jar C'w .4�'�`'•.:�,��jg:�•• --.r •.'%•...: �.N y --.sy5.�'.,c'jtEa�`sra,:c.ne•yt�Zoo. -
.� ; a :�s�-... �. { -ipr t L:. =R :.~.".•. JS-y'`'�,3•►L.Fi.,ct y '�� '_=----ti'+' oa•a.nn• of _7.0-..
'a~` fl'1� •a._. �.... a"1f, ;. �.•..-•r•,. :t.:..nnnd: r.•c.
.. .. 'C". ►_�. -• .u• Loi U -,n•.
or ls�
on
Lis ..a4►.,
431.73
r•• u • l5 ••once
a ructt o.
Tn•c .ter• of L",
, `� ,o n cora•. ,
C-O)
Planning Commission Agenda — 2/7/89
6. Request for a final plat review for a proposed new subdivision plat.
Wllcant, Cnarlea Ritze. (G.Ao
A. REPEREHM ARD BACKGROUND:
Mr. Charles Ritze is back before you with his final plat for his proposed
new subdivision plat to be known as Ritze Manor Second Addition. The one
change you will note on the final plat that is different from the
preliminary plat is they have created an Outlot A to take care of the
land area in dispute between Mr. Charles Ritze and hie neighbor to the
north, Mr. Reinhold Yager. we end up with 24 feet of lot width at the
public right-of-way to come into the property. This is a rather unique
configuration of this lotj and without sufficient lot width at the public
right -0f -ray, the development or use of this residential property is
rather limited for residential use.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the final plat request for a proposed new subdivision plat.
2. Deny the final plat request for a proposed new subdivision plat.
C. STAFF RE00MMENDATION:
Outlot A was created to minimize the dispute between the two property
e owners, Mr. Ritze and Mr. Yager, as kind of a compromise. With the
unique configuration of this lot, the developer, Mr. RitZe, is pretty
much limited to the use of this reeidential property. But the 25 feet of
lot width on the public right-of-way will accommodate ingress and agrees
to the property to Lot 1 and still be within the setbacks needed on
either side of the lot line to accommodate a hard surfaced driveway into
Lot 1.
D. SUPPORTING DAM
Oopy of the location of the proposed final plat requests Dopy of the
final plat for the Ritze Manor Second Addition.
1z
I �
1
I I
I
1 r
I �
1 '
\\ \ A request for a preliminary plat
' review of a proposed new subdivision
I �
' plat.
1 \� Charles Ritxe.
----------------
I I \ \
i
� ,rte .1✓�' I, � � �� ``� \
1
GOV
I
1•
i
� ! • 1. 11 .r '� �• \
a.f .sf
rffMRf .M+r
j xea-,a sa'e 312.60
A p'•, -
OUTL,OT �ss•xsr'tOxr�e•- arra °;''R�a
Qz t .7-1
b yp a,,,_�.r ar. tl�f._�Ivf wr...._ XtTfJ �Q•f XN•IJ It r'
SLOCA:.
lit
PITZE
�l l
BLOCK ONE 4
� a
Illy/\ y