Planning Commission Agenda Packet 01-07-1986AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
i January 7, 1986 - 7:30 P.M.
Members: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Richard Carlson, Richard Marto^,
Ed Schaffer.
7,:30 P.M. I. Call to Order.
7:32 P.M. 2.- Approval of Minutes of the Regular [Meeting Held November 12,
1985.
7:34 P.M. 3. Public Hearing - A Replotting Request to Replat an
Existing Lot into Eight Townhouse Lots and One CommoL
Area Lot - Applicant, Jay Miller.
7:64 P.M. 6.• Public Hearing - A Conditional Use Request to Allow
an Office Business in a Proposed New Zone, PZ -N (Performance
Zone Mixed) - Applicant, Seestrom Company.
8:06 P.M. 5. Public Hearing - A Replotting Request to Allow Construction
of a Zero Lot Line Duplex on Existing Lots - Applicant,
Vi¢ Hellman.
8:19 P.M. 6. Public Hearing - A Replotting Request to Allow Construction
of a Zero Lot Line Duplex on Existing Late - Applicant,
Jerry Barthel.
8:34 P.M. 7. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow Additional
Pylon Sign Square Footage than the Maximum Allowed -
Applicant, Citizens Task Force.
8:46 P.M. 8. Public Hearing - A Simple Subdivision Request to Subdivide
One Existing Residential Lot into Four Residential
Loto - Applicant, Doug Pitt.
9:04 P.M. 9. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow a Building
to be Constructed in the Front Yard Setback Requirement -
Applicant, Ralndanco Properties.
9:14 P.M. 10. Public Hearing - A Rezoning Request to Rezone Exiating
R-1 (Single Family Residential) Lots into R-2 (Single
and Two Family Roeidantial) Lots - Applicant, John
Sandberg.
9:34 P.M. 11. Continuance of a Variance Request to Allow Placement
of a Sign in the Railroad Right -of -May - Applicant,
John Sandberg.
9:39 P.M. 12. Continuance of a Tabled Conditional Use Request to
Allow Open and Outdoor Storage and Rental Equipment
in a B-3 (Highway Business) Zona - Applicant, Suburban Gas, Inc.
Agenda
Monticello Planning Commission
January 7, 1986 - 7:30 p.m.
Page 2
Additional Information Items
9:49 P.M. 1. Update on the Variance Request to Allow Additional
Pylon Sign Square Footage than the Maximum Allowed
and a Request to Allow a Non -conforming Sign to be
Erected - Applicant, Burger King.
9:54 P.M. 2.
Update on the Rezoning Request to Rezone from R-1 (Single
Family Residential) to R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential),
and R-2 (Single and Tvo Family Residential) to R-3
(Madium Density Residential). A Request to Replat
Existing R-1 and R-2 Lots into R-3 Lots. Applicant,
John Sandberg.
10:09 P.M. 3.
Update on the Proposed New Comprehensive Zoning Map.
10:19 P.M. 4.
Sot the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for February 11. 1986, 7:30 p.m.
10:21 P.M. 5.
Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - 14ONTICELL0 PLANNING COMMISSION
November 12, 1985 - 6:30 p.m.
Members Present: Joyce Dowling, Richard Carlson, Richard Martie.
Members Absent: Jim Ridgeway, Ed Schaffer.
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Olive Koropchak, Thomas Eidem,
and Richard Wolfateller.
The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson Richard
Carlson at 6:38 p.m.
Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Richard Carlson, to approve
the minutes of the October 8, 1985, regular Planning Commission
meeting. Notion carried unanimously.
3. Tabled Reguest Continued - A Conditional Use Request to Allow
a Duplex Addition to be Built onto Existing House - Applicant,
Ken Larson.
Mr. Ken Larson was not present for public testimony on his conditional
use request. Zoning Administrator Gary Anderson gave Planning
Commission members some background on Mr. Larson's request. Mr.
Larson•o site plana as shown do meet the minimum requirements
of our parking lot ordinance. Acting Chairperson Richard Carlson
open the meeting for input from the public. Mr. Art Dorn questioned
as to too much being added to this property and that there is
e high amount of traffic in this area because it is next to the
school. He would like to see the conditional use request denied.
Mary Jane Puncochar, affected property owner immediately want
of this proposed site, was present and questioned as to soma type
of screening being installed along the parking area. Because
the parking lot would be right outside her window, she would like
some type of screening put in and questioned what type of screening
would be put in if allowed. without Mir. Laroon-e presence, Commission
members were unable to answer questions as to what he would be
doing with his existing business, if he intended to keep his business
there or if ho would discontinue his business at thio location
and relocate it.
Notion by Richard Martis, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to deny the
conditional use request to allow a duplex addition to be built
onto an existing house. The reason for Mr. Martla-s denial is
that Kr. Larson was not present to anPwer his concerns or what
would happen to the existing business which Mr. Larson operates
out of a portion of his garage. lotion carried unanimously.
C.)
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/12/85
4. Public Hearinq - A Variance Request to Allow No Curbing and No
Hard Surfacing in Certain Areas of a Parking Lot - Applicant,
Glass Hut.
Mr. Rick Longley, owner of the Glass Hut, was not present to propose
his variance request. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated
to Planning Commission members that he had a letter from Mr. Longley
stating he would be unable to attend the meeting, but his letter
would address his proposed request. Zoning Administrator Anderson
indicated to Planning Commission mnmbere the areas for which Nr. Longley
requested no curbing and no hard surfacing of the parking lot.
With no input from the public. questions from Commission members
addressed any curbing that was at the current site of his Glass
Hut building. Zoning Administrator Andoroon countered that there
is no curbing, but there is hard surfacing right now. Zoning
Administrator indicated to Commission members that should the
proposed warehouse be built on the rear lot behind the Glass Hut
building, and the use change, a site plan of the entire area would
have to be drafted and brought to Planning Commission members
for their approval or denial. The letter from Mr. Longley was
then read by Acting Chairperson Richard Carlson.
Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Richard Carlson, to approve
the variance request to allow no curbing and no hard surfacing
In certain areas of a parking lot as shown on the site plan.
Planning Commisoion members would like to add the condition that
should the use change for the proposed warehouse on the lot immediately
in back of the Glass Hut building, Mr. Longley would have to submit
to Planning Commission members, for their approval or denial,
a site plan showing the proposed now hard surfaced parking and
curbing of the parking lot for that lot and also what he intends
to do with the curbing of his existing parking lot. At that time,
Planning Commission members could set a time table for construction
of these improvements. Motion carried unanimously.
5. Public Haaring,- A Variance Request to Allow Off-Stroot Parking
in the 5 -foot Setback Requirement of a Parking Lot - Applicant,
Raindanco Partnership.
Mr. Godlewski, representing Veit Construction Company, partner
in the Raindonce Partnership, was present to propose their variance
requost to allow them to park vehicles in the proposed now parking
lot within the 5 -Loot setback requirement. In the site plan estimate,
it shove where the perking on the east and west sides of the proposed
parking lot would extend right to the property line. Also, as
proposed on the site plan, Sixth Street would be constructed in
the area. with 80 feet of Sixth Street right-of-way and approximately
16 feet of asphalt driving surface, the Raindance Corporation
Is proposing to park within 10 fest of this Sixth Street hard
road surface. Planning Commission members questioned as to where,
urm
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/12/85
if any, there would be green areas. Zoning Administrator Anderson
indicated there would be green area between the proposed parking
lot and the existing Cedar Streets and Highway 25 and 6th Street.
A motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve
the variance request to allow off-street parking in the 5 -foot
setback requirement of a parking lot. Motion carried unanimously
with Jim Ridgeway and Ed Schaffer absent.
Planning Commission Resolution 85-1 was a resolution approving
the Monticello Redevelopment Project Plan Tax Increment Financing
Plan 06. A motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Richard Carlson,
to approve Planning Commission Resolution 85-1. The motion carried
unanimously with Jim Ridgeway and Ed Schaffer absent.
Planning Commission Resolution 85-2 was a resolution approving
the Monticello Redevelopment Project Plan with modification 02
and Tax Increment Pinancing Plan V. Motion by Joyce Dowling,
seconded by Richard Carlson, to approve Planning Commission Resolution
85-2. Motion carried unanimously with Jim Ridgeway and Ed Schaffer
absent.
6. Public Hearing - A Conditional Use Request to Allow Open and outdoor
Store.ge and Rental Equipment in a B-3 (Highway Business Zone) -
APplicant. Suburban Gas.
Mr. John Cross, Manager, Suburban Gas Company was present to propose
to be allowed to establish a U -Haul rental business on their Suburban
Gas site. She trailers for the U -Haul business and the rental
equipment, hitches etc., will be stored in the fenced in area
of their existing site. The U -Haul trucks will be stored outside
of the fonts in the northoact corner of thoir oito. The proposed
site plan an submitted, City Staff addressed a proposed screening
fence along the existing screening fence on the north aide of
the property. Also within the screening fence we looked at the
applicant, Suburban Gas, installing hard surfacing of their parking
lot. Commioolon member Richard Carlson questioned as to why the
entire area was not set up for screening as they have additional
propene tanko stored outside of the existing fenced in area.
Mr. Ed Smith, a resident in the audience questioned as to the
safety of the trailoro and the people backing the trailers in
and around the propane teak. Mr. Croon countered that the proposed
renters of those trailers are only allowed to back up to the trailer
after it is towed out of the exioting fence enclosure. That his
personnel take care of putting the trailers back in and removing
them from the fenced in area. Thin area being it is a highly
visible area and proposed development across the street with the
now Maus Foods complex and rental retail space, Commission members
felt that the entire area should be looked at, and therefore In
a motion by Richard Hartle, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to table
the conditional use request to allow open and outdoor storage
and rental equipment in a B-3 (Highway Business Lone). Reasoning
for the tabling of the request is that the applicant work with
City staff to come up with a proposed screening layout for the
entire property which Suburban Gas currently losses from Burlington
Northern. The motion carried unanimously with Jim Ridgeway and
Ed Schaffer absent.
-3_
U
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/12/85
7. Public Rearing - A Variance Request to Allow Placement of a Sign
in the Railroad Right-of-way - Applicant, John Sandberg.
Mr. Sandberg was present to propose his request to allow his Par
West Addition Sign to remain where it is currently located. Location
of the proposed Sign in currently on the railroad right-of-way.
Mr. Sandberg has not received a written statement from the Burlington
Railroad Company yet allowing him the placement of this Sign.
Planning Commission members did acknowledge a letter submitted
from Public Works Director John Simola addressing his concerns
on the placement of this existing sign. Mr. Simola had attempted
to have Mr. Sandberg _move that sign onto his own proporty as
it was in violation of our sign ordinance and that it was on
other property owners property , citing examples where we have
made other developers move their Signe onto tneir own property.
Motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to table
the variance request to allow placement of a sign in a railroad
right-of-way. Reason for tabling the request is that without
any written permission from the railroad there would be no need
for a variance at this time as we are not the property owner where
the sign is located. The motion carried unanimously with Jim
Ridgeva,- and Ed Schaffer absent.
8. Public Rearing - A Re -zoning request to re -zone from R1 single
Family Residential to R2 (Single and Two Family Residential),
and R-2 Single and Two Family Residential to R-3 (Medium Dasity
Residantial). A Request to ReQlat Existing R1 and R2 Lots into
R-3 Late - Applicant, John Sandberg.
Mr. John Sandberg was present to propose a ra-zoning of existing
R1 Lots into R3 Multiple Family Lota. toning Administrator Anderson
showed to concerned citizens that wore present, the area affected
by the re -zoning request and the re -platting request. Mr. Sandberg
entered into hie presentation indicating the need for such development
of an existing now development which is approxiaately five yaara
old and very little construction activity already at this site.
What he Is proposing to do is to be allowad to ra-sone portions
of the Meadows Addition. If allowed to re -zone portions of the
Meadows Addition, he would like to ro-plat It Into multiple family
housing lots for placement of apartment buildings on said Iota.
Acting Chairman Richard Carlson opened It up for any input from
the public and Mr. Jeff Warwae, spokesperson representing the
group of 79 concerned homeowners was present to present a petition
of the siynaturo of these 79 concerned homeowners. Mr. Warwas
question• whether or not there had been a study made to indicate
that there was a need for multiple family dwellings. Colleen
Mikkslson, concerned resident, spoke of her concern for the traffic
turning lance stopping for traffic being compounded more by the
additional traffic. Mr. Jeff Houselogs spoke of hie concerns
in regards to closing of this street diverting the traffic to
Marvin Elwood Road. Mr. Bob Bayles spoke of his concern in regards
to the apartments. It they have any kids and there not being any
parks available for Lhasa. Mr. Ed Smith expressed his concern
of the property value of his currant dwelling should apartments
be built, as well as, increased crime in the area with the influx
of renters into these proposed apartment buildings.
(-A)
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/12/85
Marge Smith related to the accident involving two children already
on Pairie Road. Mr. Sandberg tried to answer as many of the concerns
from the public as he could. Commission member Joyce Dowling
having to leave the meeting for another meeting left at approximately
9:30 p.m. Mr. Sandberg reinterated his concerns for the developing
of hie proposed project indicating the need for apartment buildings
to accommodate the influx of shorting of residential housing units
available in the City of Monticello and, also, his concerns for
tiering of the proposed zoning changes which he is looking for.
In the tiering of the use zone as presented he intands to go from
R3 to 11 as being a buffer zone and also the single family zone
`o the east being another buffer zone for this proposed re -zoning
request. The recommendation of the two Commission members present,
Mr. Richard Carlson, acting Chairperson, and Hr. Richard Martie
was to table the request until the next regularly scheduled meeting
of the Monticello Planning Commission proposed for December 3,
1985 at 7:30 p.m.
9. Planning Commission Review of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
to the City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
The two Planning Commission ...bare present, acting Chairperson
Richard Carlson, and Planning Commission member Richard Martie
see no problem with recommending that the proposed zoning amendments
to the City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance be passed onto City
Council for their approval or denial.
Additional Information Items
1. The consensus of the two members present, Richard Carlson
and Richard Martie, not the next tentative data for the Monticello
Planning Commission for December 3, 1985, at 7:30 p.m.
2. Consensus of the two members present that the meeting be adjourned.
The meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
lZlAAW
rOsr
son
Zoning Administrator
9
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/7/86
j, Public Bearing - A Replattinq Request to Replat an Existing Lot
into tight Townhouse Lots and One Common Area Lot. Applicant,
Jay Miller. (G.A.)
A. REPERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Jay Miller, co-owner in Colony By The Greene townhouse development.
Par Meet Addition, City of Monticello, is proposing to replat
existing Block 4, Lot 9, into eight individual townhouse lots
with one common area lot. In the replatting of this existing
lot, we note that the minimum setback requirements have been met.
As you will note, the lots extend into the front setback requirement
and the aide setback requirement, but tho buildings an these lots
do not extend into this setback requirement.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the replatting request to replat an existing lot into
eight townhouse lots and one common area lot.
2. Deny the replatting request.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this replatting request to replat
an existing lot into eight townhouse lots and a common area lot.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the townhouse lot; Copy of the replat
of the existing lot.
Replatting request to replat an existing
lot into eight townhouse Iota and one common
area lot.
Jay Millar
GOVT LOT
ti
66.26` 02' IN
212.00•--
'1-
stau 10 *1—..
—
It
uCahyr al Wright
i
fi'
S
`•
.•.���
Th. tafgPirsa 1.1-1
1 t
`y
«
Millar, ft bo" ah0 tit.
I
8
a $
$
0
sarriar'.
.anter. .4r Cast-. 2360
saa•la'ar .
27.66 - x414
94.14 Y6.66 '
as
Ii i4d•
/
Ow
11.1..1 N1ry I.
�o
n�
C—tr a1 Wright
ot'.
iM f.1.9.114 Inatr
aarrvol'.
{ta•t4
.0.14
6aMi. 1VurabecN, ..hIYh
COW.,
014
-.014
14
urla'm'•p�
8"
8
CF
oS
4
S
6 T
B
0. i 2 b
oh
O
I Iwabr a 111, $hal I
SCCOMO ADDITION, ihai t
0
r
«
$
w 6
C
Q
ana huhO+atha .1 a fast
.,�^, g
�
� �
�'
aarrKllr aa.11n.lw Yn t
P
�
1
10
g 4f
0
x600
t4 00
x400 14 00
x400
x 000 1400
2100
saa•rtar'.
' 0
0
i+ti
N
Nat..1 Nthhas.ta
C.Yh1r at Wright
N
JJ
TM /era6a{np IhMnYM'a
Turvayar, N11WWta t.ica.
J
s
r
S
i •
this plat 61 CONY 6V '
t
—11" hod Ihlis-041Y
«
B
4aP
•"� „� o-hr...t a„v,r 5.,..v,, ,,
Thla Pigs r COLON 6r 1
—11.9 hold ifts.—
't..–�
=12.00•--
'"
l.awlna4 aha .KWW.MWY.
Js
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/7/66
C. Public Hearinq - A Conditional Use Request to Allow an Office Business
in a Proposed New Zone, PZ -N (Performance Zone Nixed) - Applicant,
Seestrom Company. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The information for this agenda item will be presented at Tuesday
nights meeting.
-2-
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/7/86
S. Public Hearing - A Replatting Request to Allow Construction of
a Zero Lot Line Duplex on Existing Lots. Applicant, Vic Hellman. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Vic Hallman is proposing to replat existing Lots 2 & 3, Block 46,
Original Plat Addition, City of Monticello, into two lots accommodating
a sero lot line duplex. In the replat of the existing lots, you
will note on the site plan that Lots 2 & 3, which face north and
south, will be replatted with one lot on the north part of Lots
2 & 3, and one lot on the south part of 2 & 3. As you will note
on the site plan, we will have access to Ex0adway for tat 2. whirl,
will be the lot replatted in the north part of Lots 2 & 3. This
10 -foot land area strip will accommodate land ownership with Lot 2
so as not to create a land -locked lot. The proposed duplex does
meet all of the minimum setback requirements and lot square footage
and building square footage raquiremanta.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the replotting request to allow construction of a
zero lot line duplex on existing lots.
2. Deny the replatting request.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the replatting request of Lots 2 & 3
to be replotted to allow constructicn of a zero lot lino duplex.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the roplatting requ-tat; Copy of the site
plan showing proposed roplatting of Lots 2 & 3, Block 44.
-3-
I
Planning Commission Agenda - 1'/7/86
6. Public Bearing - A Replattinq "eat to Allow Construction of
a Zero Lot Line Duplex on Existing Lots. Applicant, Jerry Barthel. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In review of this replatting request by City staff, it is the
recommendation of the City staff that there be simple subdivisions
of these existing lots to allow for construction of a zero lot
line duplex on theno existing lots. These could be entered as
separate requests on Lots 8, 9, and 10. With the simple subdivisions
as indicated on the enclosed site plan, we note that the setbacks
have been met to allow construction of the Proposes] zero lot line
duplex, and also does allow for the existing residents on Lot 8
to come into conformance with our new setback requirements, with
their actual now vest lot line being at least 10 feet from the
house.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide existing
Lots 9 6 10 into two separate lots with separate legal descriptions.
2. Deny the subdivision request to allow the subdivision of Lots
8 G 9 into two separate building lots.
C. STAFF RECOMMUDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the simple sutdivieion requests for
Lots 9 6 10. With the simple subdivision o, these lots, it will
allow construction of a zero lot line duplex and also allow existing
Lot 8 to coma into conformance with the setback requiraments.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed simple subdivision request;
Copy of the site plan showing proposed simple subdivisions.
MM
OL I
�\\ &eplatting request to allow construction
`1 of a zero lot line duplex on existing
lots,
Jerry Barthel.
1 4
I
ii
1\s,
ric
�` 'tV, ��(•,�%,rte ..Q o:J `' a../..�. "`�(.�I� t.
i a ,-L• . ^ . �• r � � i , 1j. y "•:l .j��t �`�.,J`�.:,,,�, f.��v
.�„�,. C.^ 1 '��sl�• ���/�p� a��� "��.M� .•..t r/ ,� ��. �la�,, �i/1��',��4
... t em
CT
• � �� NOR rJIWfOf/�T[ ✓ �J. TFNJ,pN /� 7T1'/
p h, 'lz a
Al
PAR
3 . Al
9 '�' ;'PARCEL
8
lb
49
h qtr �'' :rig+�;� `•:, j •• � q�. =�::�
• .ti eS �'ip'y,
�'s � 2 :'.moi'• TK'
, �•• '`,(���� ,/:
PARCEL
e
Ro %
�1yJ NORYTlWlJt/Rc� tr fIInlllyV Os fNt � �� ,}
� .rte' .�� /"'�,ywa /'M A.I.J7d.4/ [M✓I OI do Oe.,C. �'.�
tl
9e 9a.
•,�, PAR .. ,{;: " ,�
.�, Al
PAR EL
4.7
Ott
1
trrC7
r`•�a? q•
;'at
0e
t ! PARCEL
�}�
.%
:; 1;
,�
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/7/86.
7. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow Additional Pylon
Sign Square Footage than the Maximum Allowed. Applicant, Citizens
Task Force. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Citizens Task Force, a group of Monticello City residents, is
proposing to be allowed additional sign square footage for a pylon
sign to be erected at the Monticello Junior/Senior High School
property. The maximum allowed is 50 sq. ft. of sign area. To
put up a 5 -line message pylon sign, the area of sign needed would
he 60 sq. ft. Therefore, they need a 10 -foot variance. They
are also looking at the possibility of a 7 -line message pylon
sign, which would be an 2-x10%' sign and would need 84 sq. ft.
of sign area.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow additional pylon sign
square footage.
2. Deny the variance request.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of variance request to grant additional
square footage within reason to allow construction of a message
pylon sign at the Monticello Public School.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of location of proposed variance request; Copy of the proposed
message pylon sign.
-S.
�/�,+• — R Variance Request to allow addltronal
pylon sign square footage than the
maximum allowed. 1
Citizens Task Force r�
mei I ���/,: r,��1, /. � � `/ W „` iii '`I i/�' / / •.i •��� \ `:`
W, 1 / �` \ " as :'> �'/.[(�/►,./�� i . A
o°
o \
t
w
-%-
tmh C. W.
VA—
mwrr*�
t.-. Y aq Lm
a
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/7/86
S. Public Hearing - A Simple Subdivision Request to Subdivide One Exietiny
Residential Lot into Four Residential Lots - A7plicant. Doug Pitt. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Doug Pitt is proposing to subdivide one large existing R-1 (Single
Family Residential) lot into four single family residential lots,
with two of the lots fronting on the Mississippi River and the other
two lots fronting on West River Street.
As you will note, the lots do meet the minimum frontage required by
ordinance, which is 80 fact, and also meats the minimum square footage
as required by ordinance, which is 12,000 sq. ft. questions of concern
that we have would be regarding the utility easements to service the
proposed new lots 2 and 3; and if there are any type of restrictive
convenants to go with this, we would like to see those at this time.
Also, on our existing City map, we show a portion of this lot being
platted as a street. We are currently going through the abstract
to determine what happened to this platted street and if it has bean
vacated .
S. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide one existing
residential lot into four residential Iota.
2. Deny the simple subdivision request to subdivide one existing
residential lot into four residential Iota.
3. Approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide one existing
residential lot into four residential lots with the following
conditions:
a. Provide a copy of the utility easements for late 2 and 3.
b. Provide a list of rostrictive covenants for this proposed
lot subdivision.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
Upon review of the abstract to sea whethar or not we still have e
platted strost there, staff recommends approval of the simple subdivision
request with the two conditions that they show utility easements for
Iota 2 and 3, and aloo that they provide a list of restrictive covenants
for these four lots.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy or the location of the simple subdivision; Copy of the site plan.
-6-
r'
AN CR AP MIC SCALE
IN FEET
�I
1 ,
A simple subdivision request to
subdivide 1 existing lot into
4 residential lots,,
Doug Pitt.
r
Lai �V�i
/ ��� /J/'• '•a`�. —;.
SI
4'ii •'�dj
r. t• 11 . /
��S � '/r. „+`t mar rJ. ��r� � � ,iw ♦ . _
"v <`t 's op, fiI.
r"" •
l00
Vp 16%
Yat to �t
N d ydOF
Woo 605%.
L
b
off =
I 0 0,00
00
ti
4
h
All
1 ` wnr+emar .+r r u'w Us. S., l �wti►� � � �
o�Qt..r
RIVER sr. `(FRoNr i ST.) N
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/7/86
9. Public Rearing - A Variance Raguest to Allow s Building to be Constructed
in the Front iard Setback Requirement - A7plicant. Raindance Properties. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Raindance Properties will be before you with another variance request
to be allowed to place the easterly most portion of the proposed new
Maus Foods building within 10 feet of the property line. With this
proposed building site having frontage on three streets, Cedar Street,
Sixth Street, and Highway 25 or Pine Stroct, wo are using the side
off of Cedar Street and calling that a front yard setback. With the
proposed placement of this building on the enclosed site plan, we
see no problem with the building encroaching 20 feet into the setback
requirement.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow a building to be placed
within the front setback requirement.
2. Deny the variance request to allow a building to be placed within
the front setback requirement.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow placement
�- of the proposed building within the front yard setback requirement,
therefore allowing it to be placed within 10 feet of the property
line.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of a site plan for the proposed building.
0
Planning Commission Agenda 1/7/66
� 10. Public Rearing - A Rezoning Request to Rezone Existing R-1 (Single
Family Reaidentiall Lots into R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential)
Lots - Applicant, John Sandberg. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Nr. John Sandberg is proposing to rezone existing R-1 (Single Family
Residential) lots into R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential) lots.
With the current zoning in place, the existing lots across the street
from this request are zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential). With
the latest proposed new zoning map, these lots across from this rezoning
request are proposed to go to R-1 (Single Family Residential) zoning.
With Nr. Sandberg's request for rezoning and the new zoning intact
subject to approval by the City Council, it would be spot zoning to
rezone a small portion of land area for R-2 (Single and Two Family
Residential) zoning.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the rezoning request to rezone existing R-1 residential
lots into R-2 (Single and Two Family ResWential) lots.
2. Deny the rezoning request to rezone R-1 (Single Family Residential)
Iota into R-2 (Singlo and Two Family Residential) lots.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the rezoning request based on the current
proposed new zoning map in which the Iota immediately across River
Street would be rezoned to R-1 (Single Family Residential) zoning.
We feel that it would be spot zoning to rezone this small area, which
is within single family residential zoning, Into single and two family
R-2 zoning.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the rezoning request.
-e-
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/7/86
11. Continuance of a Variance Request to Allow Placement of a Sign in
the Railroad Right -of -May - Applicant. John Sandbarg. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. John Sandberg has not received written approval or denial from
the Burlington Northern Railroad to allow placement of this sign in
their right-of-way.
3.2
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/7/66
12, Update on the Conditional Use Request to Allow Open and Outdoor
Storage and Rental 5Luipment in a B-3 (Highway Business Zone).
Applicant, Suburban Gas, Inc. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
This morning City Administrator Thomas Eidem and myself met with
the manager of the Suburban Gas Facility in Monticello. Enclosed
you will find a copy of a proposed site pian indicating some landscaping
requirements we are looking for. We are looking at a screening
fence in the front of approximately 60 feet in total length. and
e screening fence to the west of the existing fence of approximately
150 feet in length. Heavy dark spots indicate tree plantings
and the smaller ones indicate shrubs. With the maximum number
of spaces allowed for trailer parking to be at ten. With the
new enclosed area in the yellow dashed marks indicating apace
for three rental trucks and also screening of an existing semi -trailer
at this facility.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. To approve the conditional use request to allow open and outdoor
storage and rental equipment in a B-3 zone.
2. To deny the conditional use request to allow open and outdoor
storage and rental equipment in a B-3 zone.
3. To approve the conditional use request to allow open and outdoor
storage and rental equipment in a 6-3 zone with the following
conditioner
A. A screening fence of approximately 60 fact in length be
installed in the front and a screening fence of approximately
150 foot in length be installed to the west of the existing
screened in facility. This fence is to be a minimum of
6 feet in heighth and no more than B feet in heighth,
and to be of a solid screening wood typo fence.
B. Some typo of tree planting and shrub planting as proposed
on the enclosed site plan.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this conditional use request with
a time limit set on to when the tree plantings and the screening
fence will be installed as indicated in alternative action 03.
We do recognize that we will not be screening the existing smaller
Lanka which are located to the west of the existing fenced in area.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
A copy of the colored plot plan.
QI-In
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/7/86
17. Continuance of Conditional Use Regsest to Allow Open and outdoor
Storage and Rental EcDipment in a B-3 (Highway Bu3iness) Zone.
Applicant, Suburban Gas, Inc. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City staff will be meeting with the owners of Suburban Gas
on Monday, December T. Because of schedule conflicts, we have
not been able to get together with the owners of Suburban Gas
since your last meeting. We will at that time, however, come
up with a recommendation for you for approval or denial of their
conditional use request. At this time, there will be no alternative
actions. staff recommendation, or supporting data.
'c
planning Commission Agenda - 1/7/86
Additional Information Items
1. Update on the Variance Repent to Allow Additional pylon Sign Square
Footage than the Maximum Allowed and a Request to Allow a Non -conforming
Sign to be Erected - Applicant, Burger King. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Burger King Restaurant of Monticello appeared before the Monticello
City Council at their December 11, 1985, meeting to ask for consideration
of their sign variance request. The Council considered the three
variances that would be needed for excess pylon sign height, excess
pylon sign square footage, and a request to allow a prohibited sign
to be erected.
A motion was made and approved to grant the two variances to Burger
King to allow the sign height to be increased to 75 feet and to allow
placement of a 16 x 16 (256 sq.ft.) sign, but did not allow the message
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Minutes from 12/9/85 Council meeting.
-12-
Council Minutes - 12/9/85
10. Consideration of Sign Variance - Burger King Corporation.
Mr. Greg Dolphin, owner of Burger King in Monticello, requested
the following three variances relating to their pylon sign.
1. Requested a variance of 56 sq. ft. to allow for a 16 x 16 ft.
sign.
2. Requested a variance to increase the height to 75 ft.
which would require a variance of 47 ft.
® 3. Requested a variance to allow the erection of a prohibited
sign - a lighted message board consisting of 225 sq. ft.
In regards to the first issue of sign height, Mr. Dolphin noted
that due to the Burger King location, the Highway 25 overpass
on I-94 obstructs the view of his sign at the present time. Mr.
Dolphin requested the height be increased to 75 feet from the
present 50 -toot height to allow for better exposure on the freeway,
which would be approximately the same height as surrounding establishments
such as Perkins, Country Kitchen. McDonalda, and wandy's.
It was noted by City staff that establishments such as the Silver
Pox Motel, the Oakwood Inn Motel, and other restaurants were granted
height variances; and it would appear that 75 feet would not be
unreasonable in this case. Council members 8111 Pair and Fran
Pair noted that the bridge does obstruct the view of the Burger
King sign and both agreed that the City should treat Burger King
the same as the others located in the general area.
Mr. Dolphin noted that with the increased sign height to 75 feet,
their present 144 sq. ft. sign would seem very small.; and the
only larger sign that in available is a 16 x 16 or 256 aq. ft.,
thus requiring a 56 sq. ft. variance.
A request was also made by Mr. Dolphin to erect a 225 sq. ft.
lighted message board on the pylon sign that would be ueod to
advertise both for Burger King and provide messages on community
events, etc. A presentation on the type of sign requested van
preoented to the Council; but it vas noted by the City Administrator
that the City's Ordinances presently do not allow any type of
lighted mesoage board, and thio type of sign is strictly prohibited
by City Ordinances.
After further review by the Council on the throe variance requosts,
motion vas made by Bill Pair, seconded by Dan Blonigon, and unanimously
carried to grant two variances to Burger King to allow the sign
height to be incroaaed to 75 foot and to allow the placement of
a 111 16 (256 sq. ft.) sign, but not to allow the massage board.
O
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/7/86
Additional Information Items
2. Update on the Rezoning Request to Rezone from R-1 SSin@le Family Residential)
to R-2 (Sin@le and Two Family Residential), and R-2 (Single and Two
Family Residential)- to R-3 (Nedium Density Residential). A Request
to Replat Existing R-1 and R-2 Lots into R-3 Lots. Applicant. John Sandberg. (C.A.)
0. : ��n'•1�1F�
Tho Monticello City Council, at its Dccambor 9, 1985, mocting hoard
comments from developer John Sandberg in regards to the replatting
of the existing Neadows Addition. After some lengthy discussion.
a motion was made and approved to direct the City staff to include
on the Comprehensive Zoning Map public hearing scheduled for January 13,
1986, the proposed zoning of a portion of the Meadows as R-3 prior
to preliminary plat approval.
Additional information on this rezoning and replatting request will
be included with the next agenda item. 13. Update on the proposed
new Comprehensive Zoning Map.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Minutes from 12/9/85 Council meeting.
-13-
Council Minutes - 12/9/85
7. Consideration of Encomoassing a Request to Rezune to R-3 Within
the Overall Zoning Revisions.
At the last Council meeting, developer John Sandberg appeared
before the Council to present the idea of rezoning a portion of
the Meadows Subdivision to R-3 for multiple family dwellings.
Before he incurred additional expense in preparing a preliminary
replatting of the Meadows, Mr. Sandberg requested an indication
as to whether tha Council would be receptive to the idea of R-3
zoning in that area. She Council gave their preliminary indication
that R-3 zoning in that area was 'sensible planning, but there
were some development concerns to be addressed.
Mr. Sandberg proceeded to prepare preliminary replatting plans
icr the Meadows for Planning Cc -1 ccion review December 3; but
due to a lack of a quorum, no action was taken on Mr. Sandberg -s
preliminary plana. As a result, the timing factor of holding
a public hearing on the proposed revisions to the overall City
Zoning Ordinance scheduled for January 13 and the consideration
of the replatting are in conflict in that the proposed zoning
to R-3 in the Meadows would be heard before a preliminary plat
is reviewed to address development concerns. If the R-3 zoning
occurred prior to the preliminary plat review, the City may lose
control on conditions that could be applied to the development
since the zoning is already suitable for multiple buildings.
If the zoning is not amended to R-3 as part of the overall plan
but rezoning is considered after the preliminary plat is reviewed,
Mr. Sandberg felt it still leaves him in a position of proceeding
with replatting coat and not knowing whether the rezoning will
ever occur.
An alternative to the problem was presented by the City staff
whereas the rezoning request to R-3 could be considered by the
Council at the public hearing schedul-rd January 13 but contain
j a sunset provision whereby the parcels zoned R-3 could. not be
built upon for a period of 60 days to allow for Mr. Sandberg to
t- complete and gat approval of his replatting request. In this
case, if the replatting did not occur, the property would revert
back to R-2, or single and two-family residential.
Mr. Sandberg indicated opposition to the proposal to rezone to
R-3 with any type of sunnat provision and indicated if this was
the City -a intent, he may just drop all plana to replat the Meadows
and develop as it currently exiots. Soma Council members felt
that the delays in reviewing the preliminary replat were not tho
devolopor-a fault due to planning Commiocion-a inability to obtain
a quorum and felt that including in the public hearing on January 13
the proposal to rozons to R-3 would not be a detriment to the
City having control over development. Councilman Blonigen felt
that a sunset provision should be considered if the property la
rezoned before a replat is given approval.
After further discussion, motion was made by Fran Pair, seconded
by Bill Fair to direct the City staff to include on the Comprehensive
Zoning Map public hearing scheduled for January 13 the proposed
zoning of a portion of the Meadows as R-3 prior to preliminary
plat approval. Voting in favor was Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Arve
Gtimsmo. voting in the opposition: Dan Blonigan.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/7/86
Additional Information Items
3. Update on the Proposed New Comprehensive Zoning MeP (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you will note on the enclosed new comprehensive zoning map, some
changes have been made as instructed by the Monticello City Council.
The first change is the PZ -R Zoning (Performance Zone Residential)
along East River Street has boon eliminated from the map and returned
to the existing zoning, R-1 (Single Family Residential). However,
the PZ -R (Performance Zone Residential) will remain intact as part
of our overall zoning ordinance. Even though it may not be included
on the new comprehensive zoning map, it will be included in the text
under zoning in our ordinance.
The second noticeable change is that the block immediately west of
the Maus Foods site has been zoned back to R-2 (Single and Two Family
Residential) from the proposed 0-4 (Regional Business) Zoning.
The most noticeable change has come from a request to rezone a portion
of the Meadows Addition. As you will notice on the new comprehensive
zoning map, the area is bounded on three aides with one side being
on the wast aide of the houses of Prairie Road, the south aide of
this area being bounded by the Klucas Junk Yard, and the north side
of this area bounded by the south aide of the existing platted Marvin
Elwood Road. Mr. Sandberg is proposing to rezone this area to R-3
(Medium Density Residential). The problem that we have is that if
Mr. Sandberg is allowed to rezone this to R-3, he could sell groups
of lots and be allowed to put up to a 12 -unit apartment building on
these Iota without any extensive landscaping and screening plans.
With R-3 zoning, you are allowed to put up to a 12 -unit apartment
building upon meeting the minimum square footage and setback requirements
with very little requirement for screening and/or landscaping. Therefore,
with a now R-3 zoning attached to this, Mr. Sandberg would not have
to replat the Meadows Addition and would simply have to construct
the existing platted street and cul-de-sac. Therefore, he would be
allowed to Boll individual lots combined together to make up enough
land area to moot the minimum requirements for construction of a 12 -unit
apartment building.
Those are all the additional requests that wore required by City Council
to be placed on the now proposed comprahonsive zoning map. City staff
would recommaud approval of this new zoning map with the exception
of the proposed R-3 zoning in the Roadowo. we would like to see the
entire Roadows area rezoned as previously indicated to all R-2 (Bingle
and Two Family Residential).
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
7 Copy of the now zoning ordinance map as published in tho Times.
146
-1a-