Planning Commission Agenda Packet 06-10-1986AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELL40 PLNNING COMMISSION
June 10, 1986 - 7:30 p.m.
Members: Richard Carlson. Richard Martie, Joyce Dowling, warren
Smith, Barbara Koropchak.
7:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order.
7:32 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes o1 the Regular Meeting Held May 13,
1986.
7:34 p.m. 3. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow placement
of entrance lights and sign within a street right
of way - Applicant, Monticello Americ Inn.
7:49 p.m. 4. Public Hearing - A conditional use request to allow
construction of two 24 -unit apartment buildings.
Applicant. Construction 5, Inc.
8:04 p.m. 5. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow placement
of an attached garage to within the front yard setback
requirement. Applicant. Gary and Doris Miller.
Additional Information Items
8:19 p.m. 1. Get the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for July 8. 1986. 7:30 p.m.
8:21 p.m. 2. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
May 13, 1986 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Joyce Dowling, Warren Smith, Barbara
Koropchak.
Members Absent: Richard Martie.
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Rick Wolfateller.
The meeting van called to order by Chairperson Richard Carlson at
7:36 p.m.
Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Warren Smith, to approve the
minutes of the April 6, 1986, Planning Commission meeting with the
following correction. In the third paragraph on page 2, motion by
Barbara Koropchak, seconded by Warren Smith, it should have been
seconded by Richard Martie. Motion carried unanimously with Richard
Martie and Barbara Koropchak absent.
3. Public Nearing - A variance request to use a municipal parking lot
to meet the minimum off-street parking apace requiremante. Applicant,
Floyd Kruse.
Mr. Floyd Kruse was present to propose using the municipal parking
lot to the rear of his property for off-street parking space requirements
for an addition to hie existing restaurant, Dino -e Deli. Mr. Kruse
indicated that he was over to the Pizza Factory building and indicated
it was 29 feet from the building to the curb. Mr. Kruse is proposing
to be 31 feet from the rear most portion of the addition to the center
of the allay. Marron Smith questioned the parking lot assessment
process. It was explained to him by Zoning Administrator Andoroon
and that there are approximately 0-9 years remaining on the original
19-yoar assessment.
A questioned raised by Planning Commission members was whore the
apartment tonanto would part. Mr. Kruse answered that they would
be parking in the public parking lot. Staff recommendation on this
wao we felt those was no problem with Mr. Kruse -o request. The only
thing we are concerned with is that he allow some type of off-street
parking for the apartment tenants in the roar portion of his lot.
The parking lot assessment formula was given for Planning Commission
members information by Rick Wolfsteller, Assistant Administrator.
Public hearing was closed.
Motion by Warren Smith, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve the
variance request to use the municipal parking lot to meet the minimum
off-etreat parking apace roquiramente, and direct City staff to review
the ordinance parking formula as established on the parking lot assessment
role to come up with the number of parking opeces which Mr. Kruse
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/13/66
would be short and figure out an annual assessment for Mr. Kruse.
Motion carried unanimously -with Richard Hartle and Barbara Koropchak
absent.
t. Public Hearing - A request to allow a residential lot split with
the two lots when split being less than the aainlmum lot square footage
requirement. Applicant, Del Emmel.
Mr. Del E -mel was present to request a residential lot subdivision
and a variance for less than the minimum lot square footage required.
Zoning Administrator Anderson explained Mr. Emmel-a request on the
overhead projector to the Planning Commission ---bare and the public
present. A question raised during the public hearing was the actual
size of Mr. Emmel's lot split in relationship to the other lots surrounding
and near the property in question. Mr. Emmel emphasized hie whole
Intent was to improve the existing property; and upon improving the
property construct a new house on the rear portion of this lot split.
Chairperson Richard Carlson questioned the minimum lot square footage
for Mr. E-meI's property. Zoning Administrator Anderson countered
that the minimum lot site in the R-2, single and two-family zoning,
in 12,000 square feet, the same as R-1, single family zoning.
Barbara Koropchak arrived at the meeting at 9:09 p.m. Motion by
Warren Smith, seconded by Joyce Dovling, to deny the request to allow
a residential lot split with the two lots when split being less than
the minimum lot square footage requirement. Motion carried unanimously
with Richard Martie absent and Barbara Koropchak abstaining.
5. Public Hearing,- A request to amend a conditional use permit to allow
construction of a now parking lot with the foliowinq variances:
a) To allow a driveway curb cut width more than the maximum requirement.
b) To allow the curb cut within the maximum between two curb cuts
and an intersection.
c) To allow a parking lot design with no parking circulation within
the parking lot.
d) To allow a pylon sign to be erected in excooe of the maximum
square footage allowed.
Applicant, The Socatrom Company.
Mr. Wayne Seentrom was precont to propone his off-street parking
lot with the variance requests as neadod to accommodate this. Mr. Seeotrom
would like to amend a condition of hio conditional use permit proviounly
granted to allow him to relocate two existing off-atreot parking
spaces and create four off-street parking spaces. The problem with
the now location of the parking lot as presented is it needs a cinlmsm
of four variances to accommodate that. Planning Commission membore,
as well as members of the public, questioned the actual layout of
the parking lot. When backing out of the parking lot, you would
back directly into the street. With the amount of traffic at this
? intorooction being very near the school, the feasibility was questioned
of this parking lot design. After considerable deliberation and
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/13/86
V on a comment from a citizen present, Mr. Russell Martie, it was suggested
they create only two parking spaces of which the parking spaces would
run north and south instead of east and west, allowing a smaller
driveway curb cut and allowing parking circulation on his own property.
Chairperson Richard Carlson acknowledged Mr. Martie's comment and
thought it would be a good design as an alternative to the proposed
design submitted. Mr. Seestrom indicated he would rather get something
approved at the Planning Commission level than go on with a denial
to the City Council.
The pylon sign square footage was addressed and Mr. Seestrom admitted
that he recalled being allowed more square footage; and after checking
with Zoning Administrator Anderson found that he needed considerably
less square footage than they thought for the pylon sign. The pylon
sign is in excess of the minimum square footage allowed for a pylon
sign. The Planning Co®ission members see no problem with this sign
being very close to the minimum requirement.
Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by warren Smith, to allow a curb
cut within 40 feet of an existing curb cut and to allow a pylon sign
to be arected in excess of the minimum pylon square footage requirement.
Motion carried unanimously with Richard Martie absent.
Additional Information Items
1. A re
.guest to amend conditions attached to a conditional use pormit.
�. Applicant. Martie's Peed Store.
Mr. Ruse Wartio was present to propose a relocation of the existing
fence posts from their proposed location on a previously approved
conditional use pormit. The now location would be the currant location
which he is using for visual effect near Highway 25 property right -of -ray.
Mr. Martie indicated that the fence poets do amount to a certain
portion of his business, and he gate more visual effect from the
current location than whore he originally proposed to put them.
Motion by Warren Smith, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to amend the conditional
use to allow a relocation of outdoor sales of -sedan fence poets
In the front part of his property line near the southwest corner.
Motion carried unanimously with Richard Martin absent.
]. A re
.guest to grant waiver of the public hearing for variance roquento.
Applicant, Honticollo-Big Lake Community Hospital District.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission ma -baro
that the intent of the Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital was
to ask for Planning Commission members' consideration of waiving
the public hearing process in hopes of having signed waiver of public
hearing attendance from all of the affected property owners within
a 350 foot radius of the affected property. The Community Hospital
District wan able to obtain all of the signed copies of the waivero
with the exception of one. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated
-3-
U
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/13/86
j_ they needed signed copies of all the affected property owners before
Planning Commission members could waive the public hearing process.
Zoning Administrator Anderson did indicate to Planning Commission
members the variances which would be needed that led up to the request
from the Monticello -Big Lake Coemunity Hospital.
Taking the above information into consideration, motion by Warren
Smith, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve waiving of the public
hearing requirement and hold the public hearing at the second regular
Council meeting on May 27, 1986, 7:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously
with Richard Martie absent.
3. Sketch plan review for a conditional use request. Applicant. Construction 5.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members
this was a sketch plan for two 24 -unit apartment buildings to be
built near the freeway on Lots 1-5, Block 2, Construction 5 Addition,
City of Monticello. The sketch plan was strictly for their review
and to offer and comments or suggestions prior to Construction 5
coming back at the next Planning Commission meeting with their conditional
use request.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members that they
see no problem with the sketch plan an submitted.
d. Set tentative date for a public hearing for a proposed ordinance
X -L' amendment to existing sign ordinance.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission me, re
the preliminary draft of a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
in regard to Section 3-9 (B) 2. (a) which deals with portable signs.
After further indication from Zoning Administrator Anderson, there
were no additional comments or changes from Planning Commieolon members.
Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Barbara Koropchak, to set a
public hearing data for the proposed ordinanco amendment to the Monticello
Sign Ordinance for May 27, 1986, 7:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously
with Richard Martie absent.
5. Continuation of a raroningrequeet to rezone platted property from
I-2 (heavy industrial) to I-1 (light Industrial). Applicant, Oakwood
Industrial Park Partnership.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members
they had sent three proposed plans for rezoning of the area from
the Oakwood Industrial Park to the now proposed school site to Consulting
Planner John Ubsn. I did receive a phone call from Mr. Uban today
on the above request, with Mr. Uban citing he saes no need for approving
their raquost to rezone from I-2 (heavy Industrial) to I-1 (light
Industrial). Mr. Marren Smith indicated he had a conversation the
other day with Mr. George Phillipe, a partner in the Oakwood Industrial
? Park Partnership, and Indicated they were looking at dropping the
proposal at this time.
. CJ
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/13/86
telnotion by Barbara Roropchak, seconded by Warren Smith, to table the
rezoning request to rezone from I -Z (heavy industrial) to I-1 (light
industrial). Motion carried unanimously with Richard Martie absent.
6. It was the general consensus of the four Planning Commission mem re
present to set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for June 10, 1986, 7:30 p.m.
7. Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Warren Smith, to adjourn. The
meeting adjourned at 11:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
99!�r.df�
Gary Anderson
Toning Administrator
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/10/86
3. Public Bearing — A variance request to allow placement of entrance
lights and sign within a street right of way. Apolicant. Monticello
AmerLc Inn. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. M. J. Murphy, owner of the Monticello Americ Inn Motel, is proposing
to be allowed to leave the newly installed entrance light poles and
signs in their location. Sometime before or after the opening of
the now Monticello Americ Inn, Mr. Murphy was allowed to put up a
small entrance light near hie driveway entrance with a little sign
noting the Amoric Inn. The location of this sign was and still is
within the street right of way. This type of light and sign are
not allowable uses within the street right of way. Having discussed
this with City Attorney, Gary Pringle, we do have problems with obstructions
located within the right of way if they are not allowed by ordinance.
Even with a hold harmless agreement, we would still become a liable
party if an incident were to happen.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow placement of entrance lights
and sign within a street right of way.
2. Deny the variance request to allow placement of entrance lights
b and sign within a street right of way.
N
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the variance to allow placomont of the
sign and lights within the atreot right of way. The liability factor
with having these lights and sign within the street right of way
far outweighs the advantages of approving the variance to leave the
lights and sign in place.
0. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the varlanco request.
10
A variance request to allow
w R placement of entrance lights
and sign with a street right-of-way.
Monticello Americ Inn Motel.
a / / ;>
M. —IF
-hw
.7• 1 /
R/N—
I TT .99 .. ' ..
_ �`� .' . � •( �.� I°°0.M
t I o°
v`
_ I
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/10/86
f
�l 4. Public Bearing - A conditional use request to allow construction
of two 24 -unit apartment buildings. Applicant, Construction 5, Inc. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Construction 5, Inc., Is proposing to construct two 24 -unit apartment
buildings on the five existing lots in Block 1, Construction 5 Addition
to the City of Monticello. If allowed to construct two 24 -unit apartment
buildings, they would consist of 18 two-bedroom unite and one 1-bodroom
unit and 24 garages and 24 open parking spaces with each 24 -unit
building. The questions yet to be answered in regard to the site
plan, which has been reviewed with the applicant, are being allowed
to put the screening trace or shrubs within the drainage easement
adjacent to the property along I-94. They would also need vacation
of easements between Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. If 24 off-street parking
spaces were allowed to be placed within the 30 -foot easement along
the west aide of the property, a condition of the conditional use
would be the City would not be responsible for the replacement coat
of the asphalt should we have to go in there to maintain or repair
utilities underneath thin surface within this 30 -foot easement.
Also not indicated is placement of a proposed play area for young
children. Also not yet submitted are the proposed landscaping and
screening plane as required by ordinance.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the conditional use request to allow construction of
two 24 -unit apartment buildings.
2. Deny the conditional use request to allow construction of two
24 -unit apartment buildings.
3. Allow construction of two 24 -unit apartment buildings with the
following conditions:
a. An approved landscaping/screening plan be submitted prior
to approval of the conditional use request.
b. Relinquishing of oanoment rights between Lots 1, 2, 3, 4,
and 5.
c. Do not allow placement of proposed screening plantings along
1-94 within placement of an eaeoment right of way.
d. Allow construction of 24 off-street parking spaces within
30 -toot utility casement right of way with the condition
to not responsible for replacement of any of the parking
lot within the right of way iC the City needs to got in to
do soma work within the 30 -foot right of way.
e. A designated play area be established and put in before a
Certificate of Occupancy Is granted for the second building.
C. STAPP RBCOMMMATION:
Staff recommonda approval of the conditional use request to allow
construction of two 24 -unit apartment buildings. The following conditions
are also suggested to be added:
-2-
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/10/86
1. Relinquishing easement rights within Lots 1. 2. 3, 4, and 5 only
if the City has no need for any easements in between these lots.
2. An established play area be noted on the site plan and put in
before occupancy of the second 26 -unit apartment building.
3. The screening plantings along I-94 be placed within the property
line.
4. Allow 24 off-street parking spaces within the 30 -foot west utility
easement line with the condition that if the City needs to get
in there to do any type of work, the applicant will be responsible
for all restoration costa.
0. SUPPORTIRG DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed conditional use request; Copy
of the proposed site plan.
0M
r'ut
i 5Ar1C atilt` fipQ
rrrrr Wray st;� d'�rr� ar �tA►Q '�►_._..
llllilj/r Innnit arta �7Ui
�►'�,�
iiri aritd lh, .i nllX illll Ili. �litgt� !r�tA' ,� , ������
�x,!j'r ar�rr '�' arra' ,rr�� �l�t ,n,�i� ��al�n am�"r rrrrr ���0, - '►tr��. ,�,�.
rr�lr yryi' I t S'U/i#�rr,►i�`�' gni �p/q �/ll/lli tri t1,R '�
d'r1I� �C /nnll� ••
arra �r�'Y a � it rrrtr to u� � �ql� fes.
t�uu
r�,�E.
S
• ww
1
t
✓ i
.....
�i .w+i�
w rr wry �
r�
�
/rt. i/•�
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/10/86
5. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow placement of an attached
farage to within the front yard setback requirement. Applicant.
Gary and Doris Hiller. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Gary and Doris Miller are proposing to construct an attached garage
to within the front yard setback requirement. The rationale to the
request is the applicants feel they would like to break up the sight
lines of the existing houses all being within the front yard setback
requirement of 30 feet. Also, they are proposing to allow an existing
screened porch to stay in its current place. There is only one affected
property owner directly east of the applicants property with the
property immediately vest being City Park property. The problem
we see with this variance request is that we fail to see the hardship
being placed on this property.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow placement of attached garage
to within the front yard setback requirement.
T. Deny the variance request to allow placement of attached garage
to within the front yard setback requirement.
N
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the variance request. The rationale for
the donial is that staff falls to see the hardship in this case.
As noted on the enclosed site plan, you will see there is ample room
to construct the garage attached to the screened house which is attached
to the house and atilt meat the sideyard setback requirements. if
you go up and down Rodman Lane, you will note the lino of these houses
Is at the 30 -Loot front yard setback requirement.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request) Copy of the
site plan.
A variance request to allow placement of
an attached garage to within the front
yard setback requirement.
Gary S Doris killer.
PERMIT ElA®ER rr�
"�CSCRIPTION .�.LOTrI �•.:�11 '1' If•" . BLOCK ADDI TIOIJ�I�.S//��1
50, M Or 317C AREA 'I' II.50. R. Or AREA OCCtPIEO BY BUILDING
jtmg�JCTIOHS TO APPLICANT
THIS ►ORM NEED NOT 0[ USED WHEN PLOT ILANS DRAW* TO SCALE ARE IIKD VIM TM[ PERMIT APPI-ICATION.
/OR NCV ItU1L01NOs. PROVIDE THE: Pal... I.rOlATI: LOCATION Or IROPOSto CONSTRUCTION AND [EIaTINa
IM/.EIV[NL MTs. [MOV euI Lot- SITE ANO s[TD1CN OI N(MS IDMS. MOV EASNENTO. Pietism CONTOURS OR DIIAINAOE.
"IRST rLOOR tl[VAT ION8.'DTRCLT LLEYATION AND SMR CL[v11t10N. SHOW LOCATION Of WATER, SEVER. GAS,
%NDELECTRICAL SERVICE LINES. SNOW LOCATIONS Or sURv[T ►IMS.^u IsPcCj" THE USE Or EACH BUILDING
.NO EACm NAUOR PORTIONN[
TREOr. Q7 Xq Ouse
It DICATE-NORTH IN CIRCLE I EACH GRAPH SQUARE EQUALS 101.0' i)Y 101-0'
3 J I + 1
I � } s
_ — TI tip
--�
1/IV. CSIIHT IRti IM OroOol.d mIrUVCIIOIIwill con10.IR 10 IM OkwftLoMum d~ RODS SM that PLO CRNp.,.•11 W r dp m,t",t
at —
NrR *bit" llow.l.. -.. _ _ .. ....._ 951
' H..N R.ONNSSSM..NMSSO. N......NMN..t......t•
m
,i Z
..................................
CITY • (PDR CITY Ut[ OOLTi
IVNEO AP►ROWO BY
DATE.
n