Planning Commission Agenda Packet 10-03-1989AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, October 3, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Members:
Richard Carlson, Mori Malone, Richard Martie, Cindy Lem,
Dan McConnon.
7:30 p.m.
1. Call to order.
7:32 p.m.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held Sept. 5,
1989.
7:34 p.m.
3. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held Sept. 11,
1989.
7:36 p.m.
4. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held Sept. 20,
1989.
7:38 p.m.
S. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow a detached
garage to be constructed within the side yard setback
requirement. Applicant, Florence Tapper.
7:53 p.m.
6. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow an attached
garage to be constructed within the front yard setback
requirement. Applicant, Lawrence and Lynn Gantner.
8:08 P.M.
7. Public Hearing - A simple subdivision request to allow 2 R-2
(single and two family residential) zone lots to be
resubdivided into 2 residential lots. A conditional use
request to allow a 4-plea in an R-2 (single and two family
residential) zone. A variance request to allow a
resubdivided lot to have leas than the minimum lot square
footage to allow the existing residential structure to be
everted into a 4-plea. Applicant, Brad and Cindy Pyle.
8. Consideration of R-Mart/Lincoln Companies TIP proposal
relative to Comprehensive Plan. (Jeff Report)
ADDITIONAL INPCWATION ITEMS
8:33 p.m.
1. A variance request to allow an additional driveway within 40 ft.
of an existing driveway. Applicant, Titan Recreational Products,
Inc. Council action: No action necessary as the request did not
come before them.
8:35 p.m.
2. An ordinance amendment to allow as a conditional use a
laundromat/dry cleaners in a PLM (performance zone mixed) zone.
Applicant, Curt and Anna Mae Hoglund. Council action: Approved
as per Planning Comniaaion recommendation.
8:37 p.m.
3. An ordinance amendment to allow as a conditional use a car wash
in a PLM (performance tone mixed) zone. Applicant, Curt and Anna
Mee Hoglund. Council action: Approved as per Planning
Coxmiaeion recommendation.
Planning Commission Agenda
October 3, 1989
page 2
8:39 p.m. 4. A conditional use request to allow a laundromat in a PZM
(performance zone mixed) zone. Applicant, Gert and Anna Mae
Hoglund. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission
recommendation.
8:41 p.m. 5. A conditional use request to allow a car wash in a PSH
(performance zone mixed) zone. Applicant, Curt and Anna Mae
Hoglund. Council action: The applicant withdrew their
conditional use request until a later date.
8:43 p.m. S. An ordinance amendment to allow as a conditional use a church in
an I-2 (heavy industrial) sane. Applicant, A Glorious Church.
Council action: Denied as per Planning Commission
recommendation.
8:45 p.m. 7. A conditional use request to allow a church in an I-2 (heavy
industrial) zone. Applicant, A Glorious Church. Council
action: The request did not come before thea as the previous
ordinance amendment was denied.
8:47 p.m. S. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for Wednesday, November 8, 1989, 7:30 p.m.
8:49 p.m. 9. Adjournment.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, September 20, 1989 - 6:00 p.m.
Members Present: Dick Martie, Mori Malone, Richard Carlson, Cindy Lem,
Dan MCConnon.
1. Consideration of conditional use permit which would allow expansion of
a shopping center in a B -J zone.
After the public hearing was opened, Gordon Orschlager from KKE
Architects reviewed the proposed site plan. orachlager reviewed the
[wilding layout, landscaping plan, and parking design. David Putnam of
Merela Associates, Inc., reviewed the engineering issues pertaining to
the development. Putnam noted that a ponding area is planned for the
rear of the structure which is designed to handle the run off originating
from the roof of the structure and the rear of the parcel. Putnam
indicated that the water surface will originate from the proposed 7th
Street right-of-way and that sanitary sewer service lines from the
addition will connect to an existing line at the intersection of Walnut
and 7th Street.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted that the City Engineer has had some
concerns regarding the management of storm water that is being displaced
by the KMart building addition. O'Neill went on to indicate that the
City Engineer is completing calculations that will provide the City with
a better understanding of the area drainage pattern so as to assure us
that the drainage plan and storm water management plan proposed will be
sufficient. O'Neill went on to indicate that the storm water management
plan for this area and its impact on the site plan will not be understood
until the information is gathered. It is expected that the information
will be available to the City Council at their meeting on Monday,
September 25. David Putnam indicated that he would be in contact with
the City Engineer and coordinate his storm water design work with the
work being conducted by the City Engineer. At this point in the meeting
John Uban provided a site plan review and noted his ohaervations
regarding the site plan and its impact on Monticello in general. Uhan
stressed the importance of designing a good road system connecting the
7th Street shopping area to Broadway. He noted that continuation of
Minnesota to Broadway should be considered in order to achieve the proper
traffic flow from Broadway to the 7th Street shopping area. Uban noted
that the addition will have a significant visual impact on the
residential areas north of the development. Uban recommended that this
impact be buffered by landscape plantings or by creating a deeper green
area between 7th Street right-of-way and the parking area or by
eliminating access to the apartment and using the 7th Street right-of-way
as an obstruction to site lines between the apartment and the K -tart.
Uban also indicated that the rear of the K -Mart should be landscaped so
as to soften the impact of the loading docks and flat surface of the
structure. It was Uban's suggestion that the retaining pond be designed
so as to allow for areas on the perimeter of the pond to be used for
planting areas.
Uban noted that the traffic flow and parking plan proposed to straight
forward and workable. However, he had come concern that the vehicle
stacking arrangement proposed could use improvement from a public
a
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 9/20/89
safety standpoint and that it might make sense to improve the plan by
providing additional vehicle stacking capacity. At this point in the
meeting a general discussion ensued. Dan Mcaonnon asked Tom DuFresne of
Lincoln Companies why K -Mart is locating in Monticello. Tam Dufresne
noted that the K-Mrt is the largest retailer in the U.B. and they intend
on staying that way. They have sophisticated systems that provide them
information that allows them to enter markets that they know will be
profitable to their company. Dufresne also noted that K -Mart has the
capacity to fund operating deficits early on. It may be that initially
the K -Mart will not be profitable. K -Mart's decision, however, takes the
long term into account and it is their view that Monticello is in a
strategic position to became a regional shopping area and that is the
primary reason why they have elected to locate in Monticello rather than
Buffalo.
After general discussion, a motion was made by Dan McOonnon and seconded
by Richard Martie to approve the conditional use permit allowing a
shopping center to expand in the B-3 zone subject to the following
conditions:
A. Approval of site drainage plans by the City Engineer.
Excavation permit provided only after site drainage plans
have been approved.
B. In the event that public improvements are installed privately,
all improvements, specifications, and construction must be
approved by the City Engineer.
C. Lincoln Companies' dedication of land to City which is necessary
for 7th Street alignment.
D. City acquisition of utility easement areas as defined by the
Building Inspector and City Engineer.
E. Alternate site plan approved contingent on meeting or exceeding
standards associated with site plan presented to Planning
Commission at the meeting of September 20, 1989. John Uban and
City staff charged with evaluating and judging alternative site
plan relative to performance standards established with initial
plan.
F. Staff and planning consultant approval of landscaping plans.
G. Planning consultant and City Engineer approval of revised
parking plan.
Motion based on the finding that the conditional use permit to consistent
with the comprehensive plan, geographic area involved, character of the
area, the need has been sufficiently demonstrated, and that the
development will not have a negative impact on the adjoining land
values. Motion panned unanimously.
0
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 9/20/89
At this point in the meeting, a general discussion regarding the
7th Street alignment issues ensued.
After discussion, motion was wade by Dan Mcoonnon and seconded by Cindy
Lem to support the straight alignment of 7th Street based on the fact
that 7th Street when straightened will provide room necessary to provide
better screening between commercial and residential uses. In addition,
the potential for the highest and best use for the property between
7th Street and the freeway is made possible, as more land is available
for larger regional retailers and the straightened alignment will result
in the elimination of the two residential structures which represent
non -conforming uses in the 8-3 zone. Motion carried unanimously.
There being no further discussion, meeting adjourned.
Jett O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/3/89
5. A variance rec.L to allow a detached garacLie to be constructed within
the eine yarn setoacx requirement. Applicant, Plorence Tapper. (G.A.)
A. AEPE tENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mrs . Plorence Tapper, represented by her two sons, is proposing
construct a detached garage within the side yard setback requirement.
lihes:the existing house was built on the lot it was built within 14 ft.
of the west side property line. By being built that close to the
property line there currently exists within that 14 ft. a 10' wide
driveway to service this property, with the driveway ending near the
rear of the house. The property currently has an 8' R 14' storage shed
to the rear of the property near the northwest corner. The applicant is
proposing to construct a 14' or a 16' wide by 22' deep detached garage
that would be placed within 3' or 4' from the west side property line
and within 6' of the existing house. We have run into this situation
before with someone trying to build a garage, either attached or
detached, within a reasonable distance to their house and having to
apply for a variance to be allowed to encroach within a side setback
line. The proposed garage as shown on the enclosed site plan will
still have the minimum 3' separation from property line to hard
surfaced driveway and a 3' green area separationis required by
ordinance.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. To approve the variance request to allow a detached garage to be
constructed within the side yard setback requirement.
2. To deny the variance request to allow a detached garage to be
constructed within the side yard setback requirement.
C. STABP REO0MMENDATION:
Continually we may encounter this variance request within the inner
In1
city as the houses were so placed an the lot with no regards to
detached
r ✓
possible expansion or construction of an attached or garage or
an attached or detached addition to these residential structures. We
Cr>'
have to consider taking them on a case by case example and some
rationale for approval of the variance in this case should be the
i ,•
hardehip that to created with the minimum 14' of separation of the
house to the west property line. Mrs. Tapper is proposing to build a
d
minimus size garage to accomodate her automobile and have room for some
5 I
inside storage. It will require some type of maneuvering to get into
the proposed garage from the existing driveway, an it is not a straight
shot from the driveway into this proposed garage.
1 +
D. WPP0RTIr4O DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request. Copy of the
site plan for the proposed variance request. Copy of the building
sothbtck requirements in an R-2 zone.
`a ..•. ",`J ., '"�J ,, t1t/j jail Yff
I/ WN
r ll/
`vJ ; / ; 1. l�t� 11 • a,
r • f l,`
�:... � _. °}~~ ., ,,, " � c •i .r/ � �1.,/ err ! ! tl .
A variance request a Adot*Clhed
garage to b0 cotiYtr9C t21 • � . j
aide yard setback zequir
PL2CAl1'!: Yloretice rapper � ! !( •r, :' j: G„J
NO. 04
00
- - ._ ��•� i r Rai. ` / �, i � / , � >< 1 -...
/) JQ% v*e
0
1p
0
1. Clothes line pole and vire.
2. Recreational equipment and vehicles.
3. Construction and landscaping material currently
being used on the premises.
4. Off-street parking of passenger vehicles
and trucks not exceeding a gross capacity
of nine thousand (9,000) pounds in residential
areae.
5. Propane tanks, fuel oil Lanka, and other
similar residential heating fuel storage
Lanka which do not exceed 1,000 gallons
in capacity and shall not be located within
five (5) feet of any property line.
6. Wood piles in which wood in stored for
fuel provided that not more than 10 cords
shall be stored on any property. A cord
shall be 41 x 41 x 8-. All wood piles
shall be five (5) feet or more from rear
and side yard property linea and shall
be stored behind the appropriate set back
line in front yards.
7. Solar heating systems.
3-3: YARD REQUIREMENTS:
(A) PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum yard
spaces and areas to be provided for in each
zoning district.
(S) No lot, yard or other open apace shall be reduced
in area or dimension so as to make such lot,
yard or open space lose than the minimum required
by this Ordinance, and if the existing yard
or other open apace as existing is less than
the minimum required it shall not be further
reduced. 93 required open apace provided around
any building or otructure shall be included
as a part of any open apace required for another
structure.
(C) All setback distances, as listed in the table
below, shall be measured from the appropriate
lot line, and shall be required minimum distances.
Front Yard Side yard Rear Yard
A-0 50 30 SO
R-1 30 10 30
R-3 all 10 30
R-3 30 i0 iU
R-4 30 30 30
r, PZ -R Das Chapter 10 for specific regulations.
PZ -M Sas Chapter 10 for specific regulations.
11-1 30 IS 20
e-2 30 10 20 5
Planning Commission Agenda 10/3/89
6. A variance rest to allow an attached garage to be constructed within
the front yand setback requirement. Applicant: Lawrence and Lynn
G9ntner. 1G.A.)
The Gantners are proposing to be allowed to construct an attached
garage within the front yard setback requirement. The proposed garage
addition could so be constructed on their property to not require a
variance request in that they could go with the same roof configuration
as the existing house is and still construct a garage within the
minimum setback requirements. The houses, for approximately one and a
half blocks on this aide of the street, were built in a very similar
nature, being simple two bedroom split entry homes. There is very
little change other than colors painted to offset the style of house
that was chosen for this area. The Gantners are proposing to encroach
2' into the front yard setback to allow for the construction of a roof
line contrasting to the existing roof line of this and other houses in
the area. The method that the Gantners haves chosen is more expensive
than the traditional attached garage with the same roof line that the
existing house has on it.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow an attached garage to be
constructed within the front yard setback requirement.
2. Deny the variance request to allow an attached garage to be
constructed within the front yard setback requirement.
C. STAPP RECOl4ENDATION:
City staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow this
garage to be constructed within the front yard setback requirement.
Although this may be contrary to the intent of the variance request, we
recommend approval since such change in design may bring character to
the neighborhood. The encroachment is very minimal in that 2' and it
does allow for a different type of roof line to be constructed to meet
the style of the garage with the extra depth that the Gantners are
proposing.
D. Supporting data.
Copy of the location of proposed variance request. Copy of the site
plan for the propsed variance request. Copy of the building setback
requirements for R-1 single family residential toning.
1— y+ a the bed
to
se4`�e u�tea 't•
toe s
\ 4 oQt06
to geGe G�
•.tors L,.,,", =\r''+ •, r °°�"'� a'�+ � ♦�•
1
-�� r r ! -- --- -- .. _._-.__._._ }1� .� .� _ -.� lNGfa flSNG}�T ✓�rN4r _.�
-jam_ --------�-------_�. . t7-
oc-
1. Clothes line pole and vire.
2. Recreational equipment and vehicles.
3. Construction and landscaping material currently
being used on the premises.
4. Off-street parking of passenger vehicles
and tracks not exceeding a gross capacity
of nine thousand (9,000) pounds in residential
areas.
5. propane tanks, fuel oil tanks, and other
similar residential heating fuel storage
tanks which do not exceed 1,000 gallons
in capacity and shall not be located within
five (5) feet of any property line.
6. Mood piles in which wood is stored for
fuel provided that not more than 10 cords
shall be stored on any property. A cord
shall be 4' x 4- x V. All wood piles
shall be five (5) fest or more from rear
and aide yard property linea and shall
be stored behind the appropriate not back
line in front yards.
7. Solar heating systems.
3-3: YW REQUZRMENTS:
(A) PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum yard
spaces and areas to be provided for in each
zoning district.
(BJ No lot, yard or other open space shall be reduced
in area or dimension so as to make such lot,
yard or open space lass than the minimum required
by this Ordinance, and if the existing yard
or other open space as existing is lees than
the minimum requiroh: it shall not be further
reduced. ib required .;^-n space provided around
any building or structure shall be Secluded
as a part of any open space required for another
structure.
(CI All
setback distances, as listed in the table
below, shall be measured from the appropriate
lot
sine, and shall be required mi ia, distances.
Front Yard Side yard Rear Yard
A-0
50 30 SO
R-1
30 10 30
R-2
30 IQ 30
R-3
30 20 JO
R-4 30 30 30
PZ -R Sae Chapter 10 for specific regulations.
PZ -N sae Chapter 10 for specific regulations.
e-1
30 1S 20
e-2
30 10 20
Planning Commission Agenda 10/3/89
7. A simgle subdivision request to allow 2 R-2 (single and two family
resiaential) lots to be resubdivided into 2 residential lots. A
conditional use request to allow a 4-plex in an R-2 (single and two
family residential) zone. A variance request to allow a resubdivided
lot to have less than the minimm lot square footage to allow the
existing residential structure to be converted into a 4 -plea.
Applicant, Brad and Cindy Pyle. (G.A.)
A. REFERENM AND BACKGROUND.
Bieple subdivision request.
Brad and Cindy Pyle are proposing to resubdivide two existing inner
city existing platted lots into two new lots with the same
configuration having the aama amount of lot square footage except they
would have additional lot frontage and less lot depth than the current
Iota as they are platted. It is not unco mann to find inner city lots
of this nature which can be resubdivided the other way to meet the
minimum requirements of the ordinance with the exception of the minimum
lot square footage that is required, 12,000 sq. ft. today, where when
these lots were platted they only needed 10,890 sq. ft., or 10,000 was
the sq. ft. requirement. The property listed as Parcel A and Parcel B
do have the minimum drainage and utility easements that we do have by
today's standards, residential Iota when these are platted having these
recorded with them. The Pyles have no objection to drainage and
utility easements being placed on Parcel A and Parcel B and have them
recorded if such subdivision is approved. There are three possible
conditions that would be considered subject to the approval of this
request. They are as follows:
1. The parcel, if approved, be recorded within 30 days after the
October 10th City Council meeting.
2. The drainage and utility easements be drawn up on a second
recordable document to be recorded along with the recording of this
simple subdivision.
3. The Parcel A, which is the northerly one half of these 2 existing
lots 3 6 4 of Block 39, original plat addition of the city of
Monticello are not served by a water and sewer service into this
Parcel A. The condition should be that the owner or/ buyer are
made aware that a document be recorded that states that the City is
not responsible for providing a water and sewer service up to the
property line for Parcel A.
Planning Comoaission Agenda 10/3/89
Conditional use request.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND.
Completely disregarding the simple subdivision at this time, and we are only
considering a conditional use for this site, we are dealing with two platted
lots of record which are the lot by description and by actual measurement is
132.71 ft. of lot frontage by 166.36 ft. of lot depth, with the total square
footage accumulating to 22,077 sq. ft..The minimum required lot square
footage for a 4-plex would be 10,000 sq. ft. for the first unit, 3,000 sq.
ft. for each additional two bedroom unit, and 2,000 sq. ft. of lot area for
each addition one bedroom unit. So the total amount of square footage that
would be needed for a 4-plex as the Fyles are proposing to renovate the
existing structure to accomodate would be 19,000 total square foot of land
area, with approximately 3,077 sq. ft. of land area left over the minimum
requirement of lot are that is needed. As shown on the enclosed site plan the
Pyles have indicated where they would provide additional off street parking
space to accomodate the minimum number which are required per unit. The
Pyles are showing 5 residential off street parking spaces, of which two would
be within the existing garage. They have also showed an option for
additional parking spaces which could be created.Rowever, we are suggesting
that they not be created, so that we leave as much green area back into this
project, if it so be approved. The proposed parking spaces are no different
than what we find within our existing residential structures in this area or
in new developments in that their direct access out of their garage or out of
their parking space is out into a public street which serves the property.
Variance request.
The reason that you see a variance request tagging along with their simple
subdivision and conditional use request is that the tyles have done a
considerable amount of research for purchasing this property and are looking
at all possible options to accomplish the beat of all worlds. If Parcel B was
allowed to be split off from the total lots 4 i 5 we would have a parcel in
lot B being less than the minimum 19,000 sq. ft. of lot area that is
required. It would have approximately 11,000 sq. ft, of lot area if it was
subdivided, therefore requiring the minimum lots square footage variance
requested. The same is true in Parcel A if it is allowed to be split off it
would be less than the minimum lot square footage that is required today by
ordinance and that is 12,000 eq. ft. of lot area where the lot has
approximately 11,038 eq. ft. of lot are in Parcel A also. The ultivate
request of the Pyles is to be allowed to have a 4-plex on Parcel 8 and to
subdivide off Parcel A for a single family residential lot.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTICKS:
Simple subdivision request.
1. Approve the simple subdivision request to allow 2 R-2 iaingle and two
family residential) zone lots to be tesubdivided into 2 residential
lots, with the following conditioner
Planning Counmssion Agenda 10/3/89
a. The recording of this simple subdivision be done within 30 days
after the October 10th City Council meeting.
b. The drainage and utility easements around parcels A b B, as
indicated on the certificate of survey, be recorded on a separate
document within 30 days after the October 10, 1989 City Council
meeting.
c. The owner/buyer of parcel A acknowledge that the city of Monticello
is not responsible for the installation of a water and sewer
utility stub up to the property line, and that this be recorded
within 30 days of October 10, 1989 City Council meeting.
2. Deny simple subdivision request to allow 2 R-2 (single and two family
residential) lots to be resubdivided into 2 residential lots.
Conditional use request.
1. Approve the conditional use request to allow a 4-plex in an R-2 (single
and two family residential) zone.
2. Deny the conditional use request to allow a 4-plex in an R-2 (single
and two family residential) zone.
Variance request.
1. Approve the variance request to allow a resubdivided lot to have less
than the minimum lot square footage to allow the existing residential
structure to be converted into a 4-plex.
2. Deny the variance request to allow a resubdivided lot to have less than
the minimum lot square footage to allow the existing residential
structure to be converted into a 4-plex.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATI0N:
As you can see, there are two separate issues being requested, one being a
simple subdivision request which will require a variance, and the second
being a conditional use request also requiring variances. In regards to the
simple subdivision request, the Planning Commission and City Council have in
the past approved similar type requests when a replatting of two existing
lots into a different direction does not alter the square footage of each
lot. Its City staff would recommend approval of the siuple subdivision
request and the resulting variance that is needed since the lot would be less
than our current minimum standards provided the existing structure does not
require any additional variances as far as setback distances are concerned.
This recommendation is also subject to the three conditions listed above for
a simple subdivision requirement.
Planning Co mission Agenda 10/3/89
In regards to the second request, if the simple subdivision above is
approved, the staff recommends denial of the conditional use request to allow
a 4-plex on the remaining newly created parcel. With the sirple subdivision
approval, the lot size for the requested 4-plex would only be 11,038 square
feet, 7,962 square feet short of the minimim 19,000 square feet required for
a 4 -plea. It would appear that the variance requested an the square footage
requirement is far too excessive and with a simple subdivision, the existing
dwelling should not contain more than two family units.
If, on the other hand, the Pyles would prefer to convert the existing
dwelling into a 4-plex rather than have an extra lot available for sale, the
staff could support the creation of a 4-plex provided that all of the
existing property remains intact in one parcel. In other words, if the
Applicant desires to have an extra lot for sale, the existing house should
only be allowed to be a duplex; but if the applicant would rather have a
4-plex, than the simple subdivision should not be approved. 1n addition,
granting a conditional use permit for a 4-plex and requiring the two lots to
remain as one lot of record, sufficient land would be available for meeting
the minimum parking requirements of our ordinance. As indicated previously,
a 4-plex does require eight off-street parking spaces that are supposed to be
hard surfaced, which this additional land area could be utilized for if
necessary.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Oopy of the location of the proposed simple subdivision, conditional use and
variance requests. Copy of the Bite plan for the proposed simple
subdivision, conditional use and variance requests. Copy of the certificate
of survey for the simple subdivaicn, conditional use and variance requests.
Oopy of the ordinance section on minimum lot square footage requirements.
Copy of signed petition by abutting property owners objecting to these
variance requests.
v 9 r • t !!•
y. � 11 i •// � ; Jt,47--,
"�•v!j � _ _ � •\
"V J• f, t t fti c �.
+ !• • it jf t � t � �' ��y���� ! ! % f t ! `, t }
t.
-41
A simple nobdiv of to n11rlr �► 'f t / ' - b.
(single and two rerliisit6i,- to
resubdivided into t a�idential u• tr
_•*'! _ A conditional one reQue e11ar'r +
i is an n•1 taingle and two f residential •M-0°.�I�'�,n��, i
vari..k1 J.•• cn �OFe� lot talenvar
n mi 1 t eq 16otaga dir) ,J�ro
,♦.,n++ dxisti rIdential nt uctki�'a+ta onveatn0
t uc +, —%-•t
'/ I (•� + � 11j111"'
i n
r�
i -
J / /
' � t
yy?
Ilk
w ` <• d
pt q+�'b"'q slat9
M �. pnatas r w
w
1. Clothes line pole and vire.
2. Recreational equipment and vehicles.
3. Construction and landscaping material currently
being used on the promises.
6. Off-street parking of passenger vehicles
and trucks not exceeding a gross capacity
of nine thousand (9,000) pounds in residential
areas.
S. propane tanks. fuel oil tanks, and other
similar residential heating fuel storage
teaks which do not exceed 1,000 gallons
in capacity and shall not be located within
five (S) feet of any property line.
6. Mood piles in which, wood is stored for
fuel provided that not more than 10 cords
shall be stored on any property. A cord
shall be 6' x 4' x 8'. All wood piles
shall be five (S) feet or more from rear
and side yard property linea and shall
be stored behind the appropriate set back
line in front yards.
7. Solar heating systems.
3-3. Y*D REQOIRSMENTS:
(A) puRposE: This section identifies minimum yard
spaces and areae to be provided for in each
toning district.
(e) No lot, yard or other open space shall be reduced
in area or dimension so as to make such lot.
yard or open space less than the minimum required
by this Ordinance, and if the existing yard
or other open space as existing is less than
the minimum required it shall not be further
reduced. tb required open spats provided around
any building or structure shall be included
am a part of any open space required for another
structure.
(C) A11 setback distances, as listed in the table
below,
shall be measured from the appropriate
lot line, and shall be required minimum distances.
front Yard Side yard Rear Yard
A-0
So 30 so
R-1
30 10 30
R-2
;Q 10 , 70_
R-3
_r
30 2d 30
R -a
30 30 30
pZ-R
Sea Chapter 10 for specific regulations.
S pZ-b
Su Chapter 10 for specific regulations.
-1
30 1 20
3
0 20
In addition, each condominium unit shall
have the minimum Sot area for the type
of housing unit and unable open space
as specified in the Area and Building
Size Regulations of this Ordinance. Such
lot areas may be controlled by an individual
or joint ownership.
(PI In residential districts, where the adjacent
structures exceed the minimum setbacks
established in Subsection (Cl above, the
minimum setback shall be thirty (30) feet
plus two-thirds (2/3) of the difference.
between thirty (30) feet and the setback
or average setback of adjacent structures
within the same block.
3-6: AREA AND BUILDING SIZE REGULATIONS:
(A) PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum
area and building size requirements to
be provided in each zoning district as
listed in the table below.
DISTRICT LOT AREA LOT WIDTH BUILDING HEIGHT
A-0 2 scree 200 N/A
R-1 12,000 s0 2%
R-3 12.000 80 2%
R-3 1000u aU s
R-6 48,000 200 1
PZ -R 12,000 80 24
PZ -11 12,000 80 2
8-1 8,000 BO 3
8-2 N/A 100 2
8-3 N/A 100 2
S-6 N/A N/A 2
1-1 20,000 100 2
1-2 30,000 100 2
1. The building height limitation in an
R-3, PZ -N, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-6, I-1,
and I-2 zoning districts shall be
two (2) stories.
2. In zoning districts R-3, PZ -M, 8-1,
8-2, 0-3, 8-4, I-1, and I-2, • (3)
three story building may be allowed
1• conditional us contingent upon
act •pplic•tion o! • requirement
that firs-extlnqulshing systems be
installed throughout the building.
MquikfA d cond4t4ondt use pest
based upon puce&&CA dtt bow ax
y dAd )tegutated by Chaptea It 06 th.ie
otdixatce I .
6)
(H]
IAT AREA PER UNIT:
Single Far!!- 17,000 §Quare feet
Two -Family 6.000 sauare Beet
Townhouse 5,000 square feet
Mobile Home 6,000 square feet
Multiple Family 10,6uu square zest
for first unit plus
7,000 sq. ft. fore
each additional one
bedroom unit, plus
3,000 sq. ft. for
each additional two
bedroom unit.
Elderly Housing 1,000'aquare feet
(The lot aaea pea unit aequin¢ment boa
townhouae6, condom nirgm and planned
unit developeent6 shall be calculated
on the bdaia o6 the total daea to the
paoject and a6 contutted by an .indivi.daat
and joint ownea6hip).
(C)
UTILITY TRANSITION AREAS: All areas in
which sower is not currently available
shall be designated as Utility Transition
Areas. The minimum lot area of any platted
lot in such arena shall be two and one-half (7y)
acres. Any lot platted according to the
provisions of this subdivision, may be
replotted provided that public sanitary
sewer will be made available and all conditions
and provisionc of this Ordinance are met.
(D]
USEABLE OPEN SPACE: Each multiple family
dwelling site shall contain at least five
hundred (500) square feet of useable open
space as defined in Chapter 7 of this
Ordinance for each dwelling unit contained
thereon.
(E1
EXCEPTIONS: The building height limits
established herein for districts shall
not apply to the following:
1. Belfries
7. Chimneys or flues
3. Church spires
1. Cooling torus
5. Cupolas and domes which do not contain useable space.
6. Elevator penthouses
7. Flag poles
S. Monuments
9. Parapet walls extending not more than
three (3) feet above the limiting
height of the building
10. Mater tovers
a
11. Poles, towers and other structures for essential servi
12. Necessary mechanical and electrical
appurtenances
13. Television and radio antennas not
exceeding twenty (20) feet above
roof.
la. Mind electrical generators
IF) No excluded roof equipment or structural
element extending beyond the limited height
of a building may occupy more than twenty-five (25)
percent of the area of such roof not to
exceed tan (10) feet unless otherwise noted.
IG) 14INIICM FLOOR AREA PER DWELLING UNIT:
1. ONE AND/OR TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS AND
TOWNHOUSES: The minimum floor area
for such type buildings shall be as
follows.
(a) One Story Dwelling -.960 square feet.
(b) Two Story Dwelling - 750 square feet per story.
1
(c) ExCEPTION: The minima aquane
dootage od a one atony building
may be Reduced to 864 aquane
' beet t6 a garage is added with
at teaat 336 aquane beet. In
no case, however, ahaLt the ainimw
dimena.con o6 that garage be lean
than 14 deet.
2. MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS: Except for
elderly housing, living units classified
as multiple dwellings shall have the
following minimum floor arose per
unit;
(a) Efficiency Units 500 square feat
(b) One Bedroom Units aD�l.L. . na•
(o) Two Bedroom Units :I2 :ywre [sot
(d) More Than Two Bedroom Un -An additional 100
square feet for each
additional bedroom
3. ELDERLY (SENIoit CITIZEN) HOUSING:
Living units classified as elderly
(senior citizen) housing units shall
have the following minimum floor are"
W unit:
(a) Efficiency Units 440 Square test
O
(bl One Bedroom 52n Snuare fest
We, the undersigned as neighbors and property owners, are against
the following variance request:
A simple subdivision to allow two R-2 (single and two family
residential) zone lots to be re subd ivided into two residential
lots. A conditional use request to allow a four-plex in an
R-2 (single and two family residential) zone. A variance
request to allow a resubdivided lot to have less than the minimum
lot square footage to allow the existing residential structure
to be converted into a four -plea. Location is Block 39, Lots 4 6 S,
Original Plat Addition in the city of Monticello.
Applicant: Brad and Cindy Pyle.
This area is zoned as a single and two family residential area. We
do not feel a variance should be granted for a four-plex because it
it Is not zoned for a four-plex nor does it meet the necessary
requirements needed for a four -plea.
We are strongly against this variance request and sincerely hope
that as Planning Commission members and Council Members you will uphold
the city ordinances and deny this request. We have nothing against
the property owner keeping the property as a single and two family
residential property as it has been in the past.
Ch�
:� •N :de 4rCAaS/t \\\\
We, the undersigned as neighbors and property owners, are against
the following variance request:
A simple subdivision to allow two R-2 (single and two family
residential) zone lots to be reaubdivided into two residential
lots. A conditional use request to allow a four -plea in an
R-2 (single and two family residential) zone. A variance
request to allow a reaubdivided lot to have less than the minimum
lot square footage to allow the existing residential structure
to be converted Into a four -plea. Location is Block 39, Lots 4 6 5,
Original Plat Addition in the city of Monticello.
Applicant: Brad and Cindy Fyle.
This area is zoned as a single and two family residential area. We
do not feel a variance should be granted for a four-plex because it
it Is not zoned for a four -plea nor does it meet the necessary
requirements needed for a four-plex.
We are strongly against this variance request and sincerely hope
that as Planning Commission members and Council Members you will uphold
the city ordinances and deny this request. We have nothing against
the property owner keeping the property as a single and two family
residential property as it has been in the past.
0