Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11-07-1989-`Z
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, November 7, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Members: Richard Carlson, Mori Malone, Richard Martie, Cindy Lemm, and Dan
McConnon
7:30 p.m.
1. Call to order.
7: 32 p.m.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held
September 5, 1989.
7:34 p.m.
3. Approval of the minutes of the special meeting held
September 11, 1989.
7:36 p.m.
4. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held
October 3, 1989.
7:38 p.m.
5. Public hearing - A variance request to allow a residential
subdivision lot to have less than the minimum lot frontage on
a public right-of-way. Applicant, West Prairie Partnere.
7: 53 p.m.
6. Public hearing - A request to allow expansion of an existing
mobile home park. Applicant, Don Neikes.
8: 13 p.m.
7. Public hearing - A conditional use request to allow a
tri-plex in an R-2 (single and two family residential) zone.
Applicant, Brad and Cindy Pyle.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
8:33 p.m.
1. Set a special Planning Commission meeting for November 13,
1989, 6%30 p.m.
8:38 p.m.
2. Variance request to allow a detached garage to be constructed
within tho aide yard setback requirement. Applicant,
Florence Tapper. Council action: No action required, as the
request did not come before them.
8:40 p.m.
3. A variance request to allow a detached garage to be
constructed within the front yard setback requirement.
Applicant, Lawrence and Lynn Gantner. Council action: No
action required, as the request did not come before them.
8:42 p.m.
4. A simple subdivision request to allow two R-2 (single and two
family residential) zoned lots to be resubdivided into two
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 minimum lot square footage to allow the existing
residential structure to be converted into a 4-plex.
Applicant, Brad and Cindy Pyle. Oouncil action: Approved an
per Planning CoM%wiesion recommendation, leso two conditions.
Planning Camaiesion Agenda
It November 7, 1989
Page 2
8:44 p.m. S. Consideration of R-Mart/Lincoln Companies TIP proposal
relative to the oouprehensive plan. Council action:
Discussed also at the City Council meeting.
8:46 p.m. 6. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for Tuesday, December S, 1989, 7:30 p.m.
8:48 p.m. 7. Adjournment.
MINVf6S
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELZA PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, October 3, 1989, 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Mori Malone, Richard Martie,
Cindy Lamm, Dan McConnon,
Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Gary Anderson and Jeff 0' Neill.
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairmen Richard Carlson at
7:37 P.M.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held September 5, 1989.
Chairman Richard Carlson indicated that City staff requests this item
be tabled until the 11/7/89 Planning Commission meeting.
3. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held September 11, 1989.
Chairman Richard Carlson indicated that City staff requests this item
be tabled until the 11/7/89 Planning Commission meeting.
4. Approval of minutes of the special .seting held September 20, 1989.
Motion by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Mori Malone, to approve the minutes
of the September 20, 1989, special Planning Commission meeting.
5. A variance recLueat to allow a detached garage to be constructed within
the alae yarn setback requirement. App Kant: Florence Tapper.
Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, explained to Planning Commission
members and members of the public Florence Tapper's variance request to
allow a detached garage to be constructed within the side yard setback
requirement.
With no questions from the Planning Comeisaion members, Chairmen
Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for any input from the public.
Mr. Tapper, representing his mother, Florence Tapper, showed Planning
Commission members pictures of his mother's property and where she was
proposing to place her new garage cm this lot. With no further input
from the public, Chairman Richard Carlson closed the public hearing
portion of the meeting and asked for a motion.
Motion was made by Mori Malone, sercmded by Dan McConnon, to approve
the variance request to allow the construction of a detached garage to
within five (5) feet of the aide lot line. The rationale for granting
the variance request is that the City staff prepare an ordinance
amendment to allow detached or attached accessory buildings to be
constructed with a 5 -foot side yard setback requirement of a 10 -foot
a side yard setback requirement in L near city lots only on 10,890 square
ft., 66 -foot frontage and 165 foot depth. Motion carried unanimously.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/3/89
Reasons for granting the variance: Variance will not impair adequate
supply of light and air to adjacent property, or create an unreasonable
increase of congestion in the public street, or increase the danger of
fire or endanger the public safety, or unreasonably diminish property
values within the neighborhood, and is not contrary to the intent of
the ordinance.
6. A variance request to allow an attached garage to be constructed within
the front yard setback requirement. Lawrence and Lynn Gantner.
Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, explained to Planning Commission
members and members of the public Lawrence and Lynn Gantner's variance
request.
With no further questions from Planning Commission members, Chairmen
Richard Carlson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Mr. Lawrence Gantner explained the reasons for his request: He would
like a larger garage, a garage roof line that would be different from
others in the neighborhood, this garage addition would increase the
resale value of his home and others in the neighborhood, and previous
Planning Commissions have approved variance requests to allow
encroachment in the front yard setback requirements. With no further
input from the public, Chairman Richard Carlson then closed the public
hearing portion and asked for a motion.
Therefore, motion was made by Dan McConnon and seconded by Cindy Lama
to deny the variance request to allow construction of an attached
garage within the front yard setback requirement. Voting in favor:
Richard Carlson, Richard Martie, Cindy Lemur, and Dan Mcconnon.
Objecting: Mori Malone. Reason for denial: Applicant's failure to
demonstrate any hardship that already exists which would prohibit his
garage to be constructed within building setback requirements.
7. A simple subdivision request to subdivide two R-2 (single and two
ramify residential) loEs into two residential iota. A conaitional use
c.quest to allow a tour -ilex in an R -i !single ens two !surfl
tealaentiall zone. A variance request to allow a residentiay
subdivided lot to have the exietln,q house remodeled into a Lour-plex
witn less tnan the minimum lot square rootage. Applicant: Brad and
C1na1% Pyle.
Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, explained to Planning Comaisaion
members and members of the public the simple subdivision, conditional
use, and variance requests. Each request was explained in detail.
Before opening the public hearing, Chairman Richard Carlson read a
petition from neighboring property owners and a letter from John
Lille. Chairman Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for comments
from the public. They are as follows:
1. Development at lean than the minimum standards.
2. Additional traffic generated by four -plea.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/3/89
3. Impact of redevelopment on neighboring property owners.
6. All residents present are opposed to this development.
Comments from the applicant. They are as follows:
His proposal is not any different than the adjoining property Omer to
the north. There are other rental properties in the immediate area.
With no further input from the public, motion was made by Dan Moomnon ,
seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the simple subdivision request
to subdivide two residential R-2 (single and two family residential)
lots into two residential lots with the following conditions:
• Lots be recorded within 30 days of the 10/10/89 City Council
meeting date.
• The drainage and utility easements be recorded by 10/10/09 City
Council meeting date.
• The City of Monticello will not provide a water and serer
service up to the east property line of Parcel A.
• Parcel A and Parcel B to have single family houses on them
only.
a
• Any portion of the deck which falls within the side yard
setback requirement has to be removed within 30 days of the
10/10/89 City Council meeting date.
Motion was made by Cindy Lem, seconded by Mori Malone, to deny
conditional use request to allow a four-plex in an R-2 (single and two
family residential) zone. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Lasa, to deny the
variance request to allow a residential lot to have less than the
minimum lot square footage to remodel existing house into a Lour-plex.
Motion carried unanimously.
Reason for denial of variance request was applicant's failure to
provide sufficient land area to remodel existing house into a
tour-plex. Reason for denial of conditional use request was
applicant's failure to provide sufficient land area to remodel existing
house into a four-plex.
Consideration of R-Mart/Lincoln Companies TIP proposal relative to
Omprenensive Plan.
Motion was made by Cindy Lemur, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve
R -Mart resolution. Motion carried unanimously.
V
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/3/89
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
1. A variance request to allow an additional driveway within 40 feet of an
existing driveway. Applicant, Titan Recreational Products, Inc.
Council Action: No action necessary as the request did not come before
them.
2. An ordinance amendment to allow as a conditional use a laundromet/dry
cleaners in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone. Applicant, Curt and
Anna Mae Hoglund. Council Action: Approved as per Planning Commission
recommendation.
3. An ordinance amendment to allow as a conditional use a car wash in a
PZM (performance zone mixed) zone. Applicant, Curt and Anna Mae
Hoglund. Council Action: Approved as per Planning Commission
recommendation.
4. A conditional use request to allow a laundromat in a PZM (performance
zone mixed) zone. Applicant, Curt and Anna Mae Hoglund. Council
Action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
S. A conditional use request to allow a car wash in a PZM (performance
zone mixed) zone. Applicant, Curt and Anna Mae Hoglund. Council
Action: The applicant withdrew their conditional use request until a
later date.
6. An ordinance amendment to allow as a conditional use a church in an I-2
(heavy industrial) zone. Applicant, A Glorius Church. Council
Action: Denied aspe r PlanningCommission recommendation.
7. A conditional use request to allow a church in an I-2 (heavy
industrial) zone. Applicant, A Glorius Church. Council Action: The
request did not come before them, as the previous ordinance amendment
was denied.
8. Motion was made by Dan MoConnon, seconded by Richard Martie, to set the
next meeting date for Wednesday, November 8, 1989, 7:30 p.m. Motion
carried unanimously.
9. Motion was made by Cindy Learn, seconded by Mori Malone, to adjourn the
meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
AW
ry '6aerf�-
Zoning Administrator
i
40
Planning Co:meission Agenda - 11/7/89
5. Consideration of a variance request which would enable development of a
residential lot with less than the required street frontage. 7J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall, some months ago the Planning Cbmanission approved the
preliminary plat of the Prairie West subdivision which is located between
Highway 75 and the golf course and just west of Pinewood Elementary
School. At the time that the Planning Commission reviewed and approved
this preliminary plat, staff was unaware that the lot frontage for Lot 5,
Block 1, was less than the two-thirds minimum lot width required by
ordinance. This defect was discovered prior to Council consideration of
the preliminary plat. Council reviewed the plat and recommended that it
be approved along with the proposed variance request. In order for the
approval of the variance request to be legally valid, the matter must
come before the Planning Commission and then again be submitted to the
City Council for final consideration. Planning Ownmiesion is asked to
review this variance request and make its recamnendation accordingly.
DEFINITION OF HARDSHIP
The current ordinance, when combined with the configuration of the lot,
limits the number of lots that can be created on the golf course side of
the property to three lots unless lot 6, Block 1, is removed from the
plat. The parcel size and the cul-de-sac design requirements when
combined serve to limit the number of lots that can be created on the
parcel to six lots even though the land area is sufficient to accommodate
seven lots.
Previous to the adoption of the applicable portion of the Zoning
Ordinance, the City has allowed the platting of lots with minimal lot
frontage to a right-of-way. Attached you will find a map showing Lot 4,
Block 1, Riverside Circle, and also a map of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, of
the Pitt Addition. In both of these instances, a very narrow driveway
was platted for the purpose of allowing access to the interior of a
larger parcel of land. Those precedents are not applicable, as the
subdivision occurred prior to adoption of the applicable section of the
ordinance.
As a result of the development of the Pitt Addition, the Planning
Commisaion and City Council developed the ordinance amendment which
required that all lots posoese a street frontage no leas than two-thirds
of the minimum lot width of 80 feet, or 53 feet. This ordinance was
developed to discourage this type of residential platting. The reasons
why this design is problematic is because long narrow driveways are
created in close proximity to each other which limit snow storage area.
In addition, private sewer and water lines must be run a longer distance
to public utilities which can create potential for sewer service
problems.
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/89
In terms of Lot 5, Block 1, of the Prairie Nest preliminary plat, the lot
width at street frontage is significantly wider than the frontage
associated with Lots 2 and 3 of the Pitt Addition. Lot 5 of Prairie Nest
has a lot frontage of 32 feet, whereas the ordinance requires 53 feet of
street frontage. According to John Simla, although it is tight, 32 feet
of frontage provides sufficient room for a driveway and space for snow
storage. In addition, it is not known at this time if the length of the
driveway will limit the sewer service to the site. It is expected that
plans will be drawn to provide sufficient drop which would allow Lot 5 to
receive City sewer service.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the variance request based on the finding that the
proposed variance will not create an unreasonable increase in the
congestion in the public street, will not increase the danger of fire
or danger of the public safety, will not unreasonably diminish
property values within the neighborhood, and it is not contrary to
the intent of the ordinance.
Under this option, the Planning Commission might approve the variance
based on the logic that the ordinance places unreasonable limits on
the developer in the use of his property along the golf course. A
variance is appropriate, as adequate snow storage is available under
this plan and it is likely that sewer service can be provided to a
residence located on the property. Granting of the variance request,
therefore, is not contrary to the intent of the ordinance.
2. Motion to deny approval of the proposed variance request.
Planning Commission could take the position that the proposed
variance request cannot be approved because the hardship has not been
sufficiently demonstrated. It is possible for the developer to
develop four lots along the golf course. However, Lot 6, Block 1,
would have to be combined with Lot 5, which would, therefore, reduce
the total number of lots that the developer could sell.
C. STAPP REOOMKENDATION:
Staff is somewhat concerned that approval of this variance will set a
precedent which might undermine proper parcel separation around
cul -de -sate. At the same time, however, there is a unique circumstance
here in that the overall parcel being platted is limited by its odd shape
which creates less flexibility in designing the plat in a manner that
would allow creation of the allowable number of residential units within
the land area available. As you will note on the plan, each parcel
possesses the minimum lot size. Approval of the proposed variance would
allow the developer to maximize the use of the property in terms of
minimum densities without necessarily creating negative impact in terms
of limiting snow storage apace or by creating sewer service problems. It
io staff's view that the potential for creating a poor precedent la
limited by the fact that future cul-de-sac development will likely occur
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/89
in areas where there is more room to maneuver and placement of
owl-0e-sace can be accomplished in a manner that will allow developers to
gain the highest level of density possible with their property without
development of lots possessing a narrow street frontage. For these
reasons and other reasons mentioned under alternative one, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission approve the variance which would
allow Lot 5, Block 1, of the Prairie hest subdivision to be platted with
less than the minimum street frontage.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of variance request form; Copy of the proposed preliminary plat of
the Prairie Nest subdivision; Copy of the Doug Pitt and Riverside CDurt
subdivisions; Variance request form; Letter from Metcalf and Larson to
City of Monticello; Excerpt from the Zoning Ordinance.
VARIANCE REQUEST FORM (See chapter 23 of Zoning Ordirance)
APPLICANT: Plan, "S t Pi I. DATE FILED: /O`( 9/85P FEE: iffD
APPLICANTS ADDRESS: /3 1�4, ^PHONE: HM A WK 1 7 5- 31 3 L
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT '2— BLOCK SUBDIVISION T/.r l✓esL
DESCRIBE VARIANCE REQUEST: _L ,i -i. JCA 45 & i"%^:^^w�^ //hyo/
n <
C
CURRENTLY ZONED: R- Z VARIANCE TO SECTION OF ZONING ORDINANCE
Describe any applicable precedents:
DEFINITION OF ALLEGED HARDSHIP:
What are the unique circumstances associated with the lot that create
exceptional difficulties when utilizing lot in manner customary and
legally penmiesable7
I/a.rio"'t we...la: G ne.lo l< [�l �t /o`d M e 01 O t AA "'q
��. .si' :.ts I/tiros /a,•e< Wdleai dLe (/e.:oi'r• TIS 1
..•./ i si t',�c�.snr der%<< r �,.;ar� en'}S t•t�l jn
4
Will approval of this variance impair the intent of theordinance to the
extent that a zoning ordinance amendment might be more appropriate? YES - NO
PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING:- - - - DATE: - - - - - - - - - PLNG COMM.
FINDING
WILL APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST:
A. IMPAIR ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF LIGHT AND AIR TO ADJACENT PROPERTY7 YES - NO
B. CREATE AN UNREASONABLE INCREASE THE CONGESTION IN THE PUBLIC STREET? YES - N^,
C. INCREASE THE DANGER OF FIRE OR ENDANGER THE PUBLIC SAFETY? YES - NO
D. UNREASONABLY DIMINISH PROPERTY VALUES WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD? YES - NO
E. BE CONTRARY TO THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE7 YES - NO
COMMENTS REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
REPORT COUNCIL FINDING IF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION IS APPEALED:
APPEAL DATE: COMMENTS:
PPOPOSE-0 PRELIMINARY PLATOF--PKA!Kii
PRfAdREV AM WfSr PRAIRIE PAWNERS arir or Ao#ri"uo. wipiamr
k_
c
Call';
Ll,
I
(19I
INTERMITTENT: A stream or portion of a stream that
flows only in direct response to precipitation.
y" (LA]
LODGING HOOSE: A building other than a hotel, where
for compensation for definite periods, lodging is provided
for three (3) or more persona not of the principal family,
but not including a building providing this service for
more than ten (10) persons.
(LH]
LODGING ROOM: A room rented as sleeping and living
quarters but without cooking facilities and with or
without an individual bathroom. In a suite of rooms
without cooking facilities, each room which provides
sleeping accommodation shall be counted as one (1) lodging
room.
(LCI
LOT (OF RECORD): A parcel of land, whether subdivided
or otherwise legally described, as of the effective
data of this Ordinance, or approved by the City as a
lot subsequent to such data and which is occupied by
or intended for occupancy by one (1) principal building
or principal use together with any accessory buildings
and such open spaces as required by this Ordinance and
having its principal frontage upon a street.
(LDI
LOT: Land occupied or to be occupied by a building
and its accessory buildings, together with such open
-
spaces as are required under the provisions of this
toning regulation. having not logo than the -In'
area required by this Zoning Ordinance for a building
site in the district in which such lot is situated and
having its principal frontage on a street, or a proposed
street approved by the Council.
(LEI
IAT AREA: The area of a horizontal plane within the
lot lines.
(LF)
LOT, CORNER: A lot situated at the junction of and
abutting on two (2) or mora intersecting streets; or
a lot at the point of deflection in alignment of a single
street, the interior angle of which is one hundred thirty-five
(139) degrees or less.
(LG) LOT, DEPTH: The shortest horizontal distance between
the frontlot lint and the rear lot line measure from
a ninety (90) degree angle from the street right-of-way
within the lot boundaries.
(LH] LOT, FRONTAGE: The front of a lot shall be, for purposes
of complying with this Ordinance, that boundary abutting
a public street right-of-way having the least width. No front
of a lot shall be lass than two-thirds (2/3) of the minimum
lot width requirement.
(LII LOT, INTERIOR: A lot, other than a corner lot, including
through lots.
ArMMEYS AT LAW
l ZRX as w4
q
Morok, Wmewu 653924D4E
JAM e. METCALF TELEPHONE
eFOLEY V. LARSON October 27, 1989 M, MET
RO
@+ba+aM
Mr. Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
P.O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: west Prairie Partners Plat
Dear Mr. O'Neill:
I have your letter dated October 19, 1989, together with the
Notice of Public Hearing, which sets the hearing before the
Planning Commission on November 7, 1989 regarding the proposed
plat of west Prairie Partners. Since we earlier went through
both the Planning Commission and the Council before the alleged
defect was discovered, and since both bodies approved it, I
r assume that it will not be necessary for us to appear at the
November 7, 1989 meeting, but that you may use this letter as our
request that the plat be approved, with whatever variances, along
with any other matters, that may be required. If you have any
questions, please write or call me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
?G.
LARSON
4tc lf, Esq.
J(BI: dms
i
�y
7�
/O,7
� �•��� ®d"w '''�� 6TagT�W
Q t I v• +e►,
.de 1•
a9le.
I
CIP
77�
t fit
Am
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/89
Consideration of permit which would allow development of a single mobile
home site at the hest Side Park in Monticello. (J.0.1
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Some months ago, the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed a
request by Don Heikes to install four mobile home sites in the area known
as the West Side Park. The request was approved by the Planning
Commission subject to the completion of improvements required by City
ordinance which included development of street curb and gutter. Along
with that, Heikes was required to complete a number of other
improvements. Please see the attached documentation regarding the
previous request to develop four mobile home sites. As you will note,
Heikes had planned on completing a number of improvements which would
have enabled him to develop the property at the level of density he
originally desired.
Heikes is now submitting a new request to the City of Monticello which
calls for development of one mobile home site rather than four sites as
he previously requested. Heikes has indicated to City staff that the
cost to develop the property in a manner that would allow development of
four mobile home sites cannot be justified by the revenue that he will
gain through the development. Therefore, he is asking the City for
permission to develop the property as the site for a single mobile homer
and he also asks that the City reduce the required improvements.
Specifically, Mr. Heikes would simply like to extend a private sewer and
water line to the mobile home site as noted on the attached drawing. In
addition, a narrow bituminous drive would be created along with a
turn -around which would provide access to the site.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to allow expansion of the West Side Park with the addition of
a single mobile home site subject to the following conditions:
e. A fire hydrant shall be installed per the direction of the Public
Works Director.
b. A bituminous driveway shall be installed to provide acceso to the
mobile home expansion site.
c. The trailer shall be on a concrete slab as provided in the
drawing submitted to the City June 91 1988.
d. Electric, phone, and cable linea shall be installed underground.
e. A storm shelter shall be provided in the lower level of the
duplex which is maintained by the park caretaker living on the
upper floor. The shelter shall have a sign placed above the door
and all new tenants shall be informed of the emergency shelter.
f. Expansion of the mobile home park in this area shell be limited
to a single mobile home site. No further requests for additional
? mobile home sites shell be approved without meeting all the park
i expansion roquirementa.
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/89
g. Snow removal grounds and driveway mainten-,nce, water and sewer
maintenance will be performed by the owner/operator and/or his
agents.
h. Otjer7 Such as installation of fence along cemetery boundary.
e/.:... 4J.// . /7a
2. Motion t� dermy a ion planer
Planning Commission could take the view that this proposal could be
construed as a foot in the door which would allow enlargement of the
park area without first meeting the street curb and gutter
requirements.
It is our recommendation that the Planning Commission approve the
expansion subject to the conditions listed. Time proposed development of
a single mobile home site seems to present potential for a minimal impact
on the adjoining properties and may serve to encourage better maintenance
of the general area. Due to the fact that a single site expansion is
requested, it is staff's view that the street curb and gutter
requirements associated with development of multiple mobile home sites is
not appropriate in this case. At the same time, however, development of
this mobile home site far apart from the original mobile home park site
presents a unique situation and along with it a unique set of problem:.
It is staff's view that the potential problems created by this situation
can be mitigated if the developer complies with the conditions listed
under alternative #l. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission approve this request subject to those conditions.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Selected information from previous request to create four mobile home
siteal Copy of proposed site plan showing the location of the single
mobile home expansion site.
A
nag ,uM"�� (/ 1. /99g / loN P,.E E
w�d.,5/oN
,( * 'j' Case - J EXHIBIT A
/.4 &«elo�
3UM!WY OF .TPROVED Pt AN . • XPANSION OF WE4TSIDE MOBILE HOME PARR
1. Grass ?lanting:
✓ ✓ a. All lots shall be fully sodded except for roadways and driveways.
1 b. Hillside area to be planted as recommended by the University of
/J Minnesota Urban Laboratories, which calls for a deep rooted short
growth seed from Northrup Ring #37.
✓ �0 2. Fences:
a. A fence six feet in height shall be installed as described in
attachment A-2. The fence shall be made of all weather wood and
both sides of the fence shall me maintained by the owner/operator
of the development.
,"AD 3. Park Area:
a. The development shall contain 12,000 square feet of park area along
the river bank. This area shall be maintained for general park
use and shall include four picnic benches and a horse shoe pit, per
attachment A-1.
4. Street Lights:
a. Three street lights shall be installed per the plan as outlined in
attachment A-1.
S. Grounds Maintenance:
1 a. Snow removal, grounds and stroot maintenance, water and sewer
maintenance will be Preformed by the owner/operator and or his
agents.
•may 6. Structural Foundations:
a. Concrete slabs shall be installed per the design drawings shown on
attachment A-2.
7. Storm Shelter:
a. A lower level of the duplex maintained by the park caretaker will
be available at all times for use at a storm shelter. Each
residence of the park will hold a key to the storm shelter. The
shelter shall have a sign placed above the door indicating its
status as a storm shelter and all new tenants shall be informed
that the lower level of the duplex maintained by the caretaker also
serves as a storm shelter.
8. Block Retaininq hall:
a. Developer shall install a four feet block retaining wall as
✓� s
indicated on attachment A -l.
1
b
l9 g4 .
`off /of"+ •
j9 �9
PACE 2
�- ffiIBIT A
n p 9. Three Peet Gravel Walkway:
a. Developer shall install a three foot wide gravel walkway as
outlined on attachment A-1. The walkway shall extend from the
drive to the park area.
10. :rasaaSwale:
0 . Developer shall install and maintain a five feet grass Swale
designed to channel water from the culdesac to the river. Any
erosion problems created by the installation of the drive and
subsiquent water run-off shall be quickly corrected by owner,
subsequent operator of the park.
np 11. Off Street Parkinq:
a. Off street parking shall be provided for per attachment A-1.
/b 12. Curbing:
a. A concrete curb shall be constructed along the southern and
northern edges of the access drive and contiue around culdesac.
Water from the access drive shall drain to the curb and then drain
in an easterly direction as discribed in attachment A-1. A shallow
trough shall be installed to carry water across driveway openings.
YDS 17. Lot Configurations:
a. Installation of mobile homes shall be in accordance with the plans
submitted which call for development of four mobile home sites with
mobile homes having the approximate dimensions of 26 % 40 feet.
ISO 14. Culdesac:
A0 a. A Culdesac or turn around shall be installed per attachment A-1.
/S.
2
O
TY PICA'j- COrlcr.ETE I'"OLIN DA'r 1 oP4
C.
f
(1
0.
3' J � x,11►
IIrlcIf, -NPES
11 !i Ke 1:4.r i +i c.r.'+��.I
SI rz VIEW
J,
la Tanning Commission Meeting
With no additional information from the public or from the Planning
Commission members, a motion by Dan McConnon, seconded by Cindy Lamm to
approve the conditional use request to allow construction of more than
one apartment building on an unplatted lot, to approve the conditional
use request to allow construction of two apartment buildings in excess of
the maximum number of units allowed, to approve the conditional use
request to allow construction of five apartment buidings in two phases.
The above were approved with the following additions: 1) the developer
dedicate to the city the proposed neccessary easement for the proposed
Seventh Street public right -0f -way, on or before building permit
application. 2) that an approved landscaping plan be submitted prior to
building permit application. Motion carried unanimously with Joyce
Dowling absent.
Mr. McConnon asked for the clarification of the percentage of multiple
family unit to single family unit. Mr. Jeff O'Neill indicated in his
conversations with the City's Consulting Planner, Mr. John Oban, that the
lower percentage was sent up as kind of a guideline with the
compresensive plan as it was established in 1978. It is a percentage
that is looked at as a suggested mixture of housing stock within the
city, whether it be a single family home, to duplexes, to apartment
buildings, or even mobile homes that you would have a mixture of these
within the community. Mr. O'Aeill indicated that he would check with the
consulting planner again to neo what options are available for the City
on this 45 percent figure which we have reached on the amount of mulitple
family units to the single family unite.
5. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow construction of a house
addition within the rront yard set-0ack requlrment. AVplicant, Patricia
Jensen. The applicant withdrew her request.
6O.Public Hea -A preliming le bile home rk
e 1 e es e moe
c ground of -We. Heikes requestto develop the back part of tho land
Which he owns adjacent to the Mississippi River for the creation of four
additional mobile home lots. The proposed preliminary plat of this
mobile hoose park expansion does meet all the minimum requirements of the
Monticello City ordinances in regards to mobile home park development
with the exception of a curbing requirement. The phase one of the mobile
home project was allowed to develop without the use of a hard surface
curbing requirement within it. Mr. O'Neill asked the Planning Commission
combere to consider aeperately the variance request to be allowed to have
no curbing on the outside perimeter of his driveways within the second
phase of this development.
Chairman Richard Carlson then opened up the input from the public.
Mr. Don Disko questioned where the retaining wall would be going and what
would be the fencing that would be going on it and to when the fencing
would be installed. Mr. Disks had indicated that the people where
utilising as a through street going through the cemetery and exiting out
through the trailer park or coming through the trailer park and exiating
0
f6/14/88
arming Commission Meeting
out through the cemetery. Mr. Heikes indicated the location that is
proposed fence, the type of construction of his fencing and he hoped to
get it up as soon as possible by this late sunmer. Mr. Biske indicated
he takes care of seven cemetery lots which are immediatly adjacent to the
proposed roadway plan by Mr. Heikes.
Ms. Mary Bray, River Terrece Trailer Park, resident had the following
concerns: 1) too much traffic in the area already and with the addition
of four mobile homes will increase the traffic in this area. 2) that with
more people means that it could mean possibility of more children and
that these children should be controlled by parents of which they are not
being done right now. 3) to retain the use, any development near the
cemetery that the development be kept at a minimum to conserve the sacred
use that the cemetery has within it. She asked that there be somas
consideration for the barriers for children within this development. That
there be in the area Mr. Heikes is proposing to develop in the rear for
adults only.
Mr. Heikes, the developer, indicated that the mobile homes would all be
the double wide, screened and fenced on the south, and a portion of the
east side of the proposed development. That he has taken out ten loads of
debris from the area dam below from where he is proposing to develops.
Mr. Dan MOCsonnon questioned the location of the fence. Mr. Heikes
indicating the fence would be located on the entire south portion of the
property and on a portion of the east property up to were the embankment
drops off.
Mr. O'Neill indicated to the Planning Commission members the actual
height of the fence would exceed six feet in height relationship to the
ground level.
Mr. Don Biske questioned who is responsible for the maintenance of the
fence should some graffetti be put on the cemetery side of the fence.
Zoning Administrator indicated to Mr. Bioko, that as part of the
developers agreement, the owner/developer of this project would be
responsible for the paint, stain, seal of the fence on both aide of it.
Mrs. Claudia Poraberg, an adjacent west River Street property owner
indicated the increased amount of traffic already and with the increase
of the traffic from the proposed additional development. The amount of
children already within this development and the adjoining development of
the River Terrace Trailer Park, and the disturbing of the quietness of
the cemetery.
Ms. Susie Tamsend reinterated the traffic as being a major problem with
the area already being congested with the abnormal amount of traffic in
this area.
Don Beikes indicated that there are only eight children within his park
right now and of those eight children, two have graduated and will be
leaving home this fall in one of his mobile homes.
101
ar P ing Commission Meeting
6/14/88
Ms. Mori Malone questioned if the
public was notified of this proposed
request. zoning Administrator, Anderson indicated that the public was
served within a 350 feet radius of this property through the public
hearing notice process.
Chairman Richard Carlson questioned if this was a private cemetery for
the use of the public.
Mr. Biske reinterated that yes it is a private cemetery, but it is for
the use of the public. Mr. Don mcConnon questioned if the traffic
problem, which some of the effected public has noted this evening could
be considered with part of the city wide survey that is to be sent out
later this summer.
Mr. O'Neill countered that yes, it could be considered as part of the
survey within the survey document itself.
Mr. Don Heikes did talk to the cemetery caretaker and he had talked it
over with the members of the cemetery board and they had no problem with
this proposed development of the back area near the cemetery.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill indicated that Mr. Heikes development as far as density
requirment, Mr. Heikes more ttian exceeds the minimum lot size which is
required for a mobile home development, 4,000 square feet, and the
smallest lot he is proposing is approximately 7,120 square feet ranging
up to the other three in excess of 10,000 square feet land area.
Zoning Administrator indicated that as one final note that this is under
single ownership and that at no time can each of the individuals that
reside within this mobile park obtain some type of ownership, as there is
a shared driveway system which serves it and hard to establish ownership
for the use of the road system by separate individuals. Whether it be
under private ownership, the developer is responsible for the activity
which occurs within this development.
Mr. Don Siske in one final note, he indicated that he himself had no
problem with the proposed development, in looking at the area proposed,
in the past has been left as an eye sore property with it being used as a
dump site. With it being cleaned up and being screened, it should have
very little effect of the uses of the cemetery itself.
Chairman Richard Carlson closed the public hearing portion of it.
Mr. Richard Martie questioned the drainage within the plat.
Zoning Adinistrator Anderson indicated that the drainage would be taken
care of through a ditching system to get down the intersection of the
entrance of this development from the public right-of-4ay, Mast River -
Street, then a calvert was installed to take the water from this area,
run it on eight through a ditch system into the Otter Creek.
Richard Carlson questioned why the staff felt that there was no original
curbing needed with this development in the first phase.
O
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/89
7. Public Hearing - A conditional use req"st to allow a tri-plex in an R-2
(single ana two tamity resicentiai) zone. Applicant, Brao ano Cincy
Pyle. (G.A.)
' 8' A' i :M' � n � w F•'� � 11
Brad and Cindy Pyle have returned with a conditional use request to allow
the existing house to be converted into a tri-plex. The existing lots of
record, Block 39, Lots 4 and 5, encompass approximately 22,077 square
feet of land area. The minimum amount of square footage required for a
tri-plex is 16,000 square feet of land area if all three units were
two-bedroom units and 14,000 square feet of land area if one unit was a
two-bedroom unit and the other two units were one -bedroom units. In
short, Pyles have more than the minimum amount of land area that would be
needed to accommodate a tri-plex.
As of November 3, 1989, the applicant has failed to provide us with a
site plan showing the open or enclosed off-street parking. Therefore, we
cannot make a formal recommendation on the layout of the off-street
parking requirement.
If the Pyle's chose to leave the overhead door as it exists and use those
as two off-street enclosed parking spaces and have four open off-street
parking spaces with two of them in front of the garage and the other two
off to the west of the existing garage, this would be one way the
applicant could accommodate his off-street parking. With this
alternative, City staff feels that it would look too congested with the
maximum number of four cars parked in the area of the existing two -stall
residential garage. However, the applicant had also suggested closing up
the existing garage door and creating three enclosed garage spaces off of
the west side of the existing garage. If this alternative was chosen,
conceivably we would end up with one less open off-street parking space
in front of the residence if each of the unite when orrupied had two
vehicles. At the minimum, if this should be approved, it should be
designed to create the least amount of impact on the green area, the area
in front of the house and/or garage, than what we would typically find in
the residential area which surrounds this property and in other
residential areas within the city of Monticello. Neither of these two
alternatives, which call for all parking on the Third Street frontage,
are very desirable, as they are both inconsistent with the character of
the area, when reviewing this case, please keep in mind the impact of
this type of development in other R-2 areas of the community. Evaluate
this proposal in terms of: 1) character and geography of adjoining land)
2) whether or not the use will depreciate adjoining property) 3) whether
or not there to a demonstrated need.
B. ALTERNATIVe ACTIONS:
1. Approve the conditional use request to allow a tri-plex in an R-2
(single and two family residential) zone subject to the following
conditions:
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/89
a. No more than four developed parking spaces allowed to front Third
Street, including enclosed garage space.
b. Dirt areas along Third Street driveway shall be soded by
April 30, 1989.
c. Curb cut and bituminous parking surface must be installed to
accommodate two vehicles.
2. Deny the conditional use request to allow a tri -plea in an R-2
(single and two family residential) zone.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Whether the applicants choose to have the existing residential house
converted into a tri-plex consisting of all two-bedroom unite or one
two-bedroom unit and two one -bedroom units, the property does have more
than the minimum amount of land area that is required by ordinance. The
City staff, as of the writing of this supplement, having not received a
ette plan layout from Brad and Cindy Pyle in regards to their off-street
open and enclosed parking spaces, have no formal recommendation to make
on the off-street parking which is required, that being six total
off-street parking spaces. If the conditional use request is approved,
an approved site plan showing the existing and proposed off-street
enclosed and open parking spaces should be clearly laid out in scale on a
proposed site plan for this property. Having the dimensions and the
actual layout on a site plan, we could then further make our
recommendation to the Planning Commission. The minimum that should be
accepted with the parking requirement site plan layout, for open and
off-street parking for this project, should be so designed as to be a
minimum impact for the area in which this is located and be no different
than if it was in any other area that we redeveloped to accommodate
additional off-street parking than what we normally find in this type of
toning district. If the applicant is willing and able to comply with
reasonable conditions designed to maintain the land values and character
of the area, then the Planning Coutaisaion should approve the conditional
use permit.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed conditional use request[ Copy of the
certificate of survey for the conditional use request.
01
gasfpBt+ l lQBY tyle
41-11, J14
.,� / I' �� •!•r r .! r t �� y r r Y t p / l!/:•r ( li' !' ; !.( r/ �r • i.�Q'�t/^ .f
�
��' l• -��� !(!,r ! ! .MtI � Milt •('% ,t,r ,r � t� "`'�...�
-�L'7 ����� ! �'� r I ..'1. 'i 1 `'SLY j. •��.�.
N i GNWAY
N0. 90 3
.,` • ..� �1 4+00 � • 0,4a. •
r '
6/14/88lar Tanning Commission Meeting
Zoning Administrator, Anderson indicated that this being private
property, with the nature of the use of it, and with the narrowness of
the roadway at the maximum development, 24 feet, with the proposed
collection of any water run-off which may occur into a ponding
area, we felt that the curbing was not warranted at that time. The site
adequately drains itself with the overflow or an outlet actually created
for the ponding of the water should it occur into the ponding area.
There would be a developers agreement with the developer on or before
proposed approval of the final Platt that is proposed.
With no further input by the public, on a motion by Richard Martie,
seconded by Cindy Lemur to approve the Preliminary Plat request for a
mobile home park expension. Motion carried unanimously with Joyce
Dowling absent.
As a final note with the Planning Commission, approval of the preliminary
plat it is the approval of the actual developed portion of the mobile
home park as it will be interfaced on a new set of drawings with the
proposed expansion of the existing mobile home park shown on the same
preliminary plat. Chairman Richard Carlson entertain for a motion on the
drainage request to allow no curbing. With no motion made by the members
of the committee the motion died for a lack of motion.
The developer has two options, he can install the curbing as required by
mobile home park subdivision ordinance, or the developer can appeal the
decision of the Planning Commission of the variance request denial to the
Monticello City Council.
7. Tabled Preliminary Plat reguestr a tabled pro sed ex
ansion the a mobile
home parkc a tabled consiae[ation or amendments to the AGnticello Zoning
Map. Applicant, Kent Kjellber(l. No action as was not ready.
8. Public Rearing — Variance rest to allow construction of a garage
addition within the aide ya[d aet�ack r,(Auirment. Applicant, Rick
wolrsteller. Zoning Administrator, Anderson indicatU W. wolfeteller's
request to the Planning Commission members. Mr. Wolfateller is proposing
to be allowed to construct an addition of an angled garage addition onto
his existing garage with the southwest portion of the proposed garage
addition to be within 6 feet of his side property line or the adjoining
property of Mr. b Mrs. Cordon Yager's rear property line. Anderson
indicated the proposed variance request with the southwesterly portion of
the garage wolmld come up very near the 6 feet drainage and utility
easement on the side of Mr. Wolfateller's lot. The adjoining property
owners Mr. 6 Mrs. Yager were notified by Mr. Wolfateller personally and
they did not get back to him whether they were for or against his
proposed garage addition.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill indicated to Planning Commission members the
difficultneas of Mr. ilolfateller'e request in that he is the City
Administrator for the City of Monticello and my be construce as showing
favoratism in granting a variance on Mr. 1lolfateller's request. However,
r
C