Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 10-10-1984AGENDA .� REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION October 10, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. Members: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Richard Carlson, Don Cochran, and Ed Schaffer. 7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order. 7:32 P.M. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Hold on September 11, 1984. 7:34 P.M. 3. Public Hearing - Variance Request for No Curb or Gutter in a Parking Lot - Applicant, IXI, Inc. 7:49 P.M. 4. Public Hearing - Subdivision Request to Subdivide Existing Unplatted Land by a Registered Land Survey - Applicant, Thomas Holthaus. 8:04 P.M. 5. Public Hearing - A Concept Stage Plan and a Development Stage Plan Request for a Planned Unit Development - Applicants, Jim Powers and Kent Kjellberg. Additional Information Items 8:34 P.M. 1. Review and Consideration of Approval of the Guide Plan Stage for the Nov Comprehanaive Plan. 8:49 P.M. 2. Sat tho next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commiacion meeting for November 13, 1984, at 7:30 P.M. 8:51 P.M. 3. Adjournment. NOTE: The Planning Commiooion meeting is on Yodnooday due to the City Council meeting being on Tuooday. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION September I I , 1984 - 8:01 P.X. Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Don Cochran, Richard Carlson. Members Absent: Ed Schaffer. Staff Present: Gary Anderson. The meeting was called to order by President Jim Ridgeway at 8:08 P.M. Motion was made by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Don Cochran, to approve the minutes of the August 14, 1984, Planning Commission meeting. 3. Public Hearing - Rezoning Request to Rezone from I-1 to B-3 - Applicant, Burger King Corporation. Mr. Bob Hoida, Site Development Engineer, was present from Burger King Corporation to present their proposal for rezoning of Lots 1 b 2. Block 2, Leering Hillside Addition from I-1, Light Industrial, to B-3, Highway Business. Mr. Holda shoved to Planning Commission members renderings of the drawings of a cite plan for the proposed new Burger King Roots urant and also a side view of the proposed Burger King Restaurant. Mr. Hoida indicated to Planning Commission members Burger King's intent of the rezoning from I-1 to B-3 to that it would be very compatible with what to existing there both from their and of the reotaurant and of commercial business to accommodating with the other allowable uaea in B-3 Zoning. Chairman Jim Ridgoway opened the mooting for any comment from the public. Thera being no input from the public, a motion was made by Don Cochran, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve the rezoning request of Lots 1 G 2, Block 2, Louring Hillside Addition from I-1, Light Industrial, to 0-3, Highway Commercial. Motion carried unanimously, with member Ed Schaffer absent. 4. Public Rearing - Variance Requests: 1) To allow additional pylon sign height than the maximum allowed. 2) To allow a crushed rock truck parking lot surface rather than the hard aurtaco. 3) To allow a 30 -toot driveway ontranco ino Lead of the required 24 -toot driveway ontranco. Applicant, Burger King Corporation. 1) Diocuoulon centered around the actual ho fight of the pylon sign and the interpretation of tho Ordinance. The Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance, along with Planning Planning Commission Minutes - 9/11/84 Commission members' interpretation, is that the 32 feet in sign height is actually from the top of the roadway surface at the highest point adjacent to the freeway, that being the Highway 25 bridge which extends over the freeway. Mr. Hoida indicated to Planning Commission members that through trial and error using a boom truck, Burger King extended the aerial bucket into the air approximately 45 feet and then while driving from the east coming out of Minneapolis and driving from the west coming out of St. Cloud, they found that with the sign 45 feet high, they could just see the top portion of the sign. when it was raised to 50 feet in height, in driving from the east and from the west on Interstate 94, they found that the bucket at an extended height of 50 feet would be very visible from I-94 either from the east or the west. Commission members indicated to Mr. Heide that they see no need for a Variance at this time as long as the top of the pylon sign is not more than 32 feet above the driving surface at the Highway 25/I-94 bridge driving surface. 2) Mr. Heide indicated Burger King'o intent at this time was to only hard surface the area needed for parking and driveway requirements for the Burger King Restaurant. what they would like a variance from would be an additional lot that they would like to be used for semi -truck tractor parking and/or campers or fifth -wheel camper trailers. The surface they would like to use for this would be a crushed limestone surface with no curb and gutter put in at this time. Chairman Jim Ridgeway indicated to Mr. Hoida through this experience at Mrightco, they just lease a portion of land from the Railroad. The surface they have on there to a crushed rock surface, and they are continuol!.y filling in the holes left by the oemi-truck tractors duo to maneuvering around of the oemi-truck tractors on this typo of surface. And with this type of surface, it to of continual maintenance. You aro always, at several times during the year, back out theca putting more crushed rock surface into the holou loft from the comi-truck tractors. Mr. Holds's content in a two -fold request that the reason they would not like to put it in at this time to the coil conditions underneath. They wuuld like to be alluwad time for the coil to settle. At Lhat time, within a reasonable amount of time, the surface could actually be hard surfaced. Also, right now, duo to budget rostraint.o on this particular project, it doesn't accommodate for the untlre surfacing of the perking lot and the truck parking lot. Chairman Jim Ridgeway opened up the meeting for any input from the public. Mr. Darkenwald, Darkenwald, Inc., questioned as to why the Burger King location here would have to install hard surfacing of the truck parking lot where the City of Rogers granted a Variance to Burger King to not hard surface the truck parking area of the now Burger King Restaurant going up in Rogers, Minnesota. However, the bids did come In favorably, and It was within budget, so the truck parking area woo hard surfaced In Rogers. -2- Planning Commission Minutes - 9/11/84 Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Mr. Hoida that the City does not allow bituminous curbs to be installed where our requirements are only the concrete curb and gutter. Mr. Holds indicated at this time the concrete curb and gutter could be installed around the perimeter of the truck parking lot area. Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Don Cochran, to deny the Variance Request to allow crushed rock surface instead of the hard surfacing of the truck parking lot. 3) Mr. Hoida indicated the driveway entrance width Burger King is desiring would be a 30 -foot driveway entrance where the Ordinance allows up to a maximum of a 24-f cat driveway entrance. The reasoning behind the wider driveway access width is the allowable turning radius for semi -truck tractors and also for fifth -wheel campers behind a pickup or a camper -trailer being pulled behind a car or pickup. There being no public input, motion was made by Richard Carlson, seconded by Don Cochran, to approve the Variance Request to allow a 30 -foot driveway entrance instead of the required 24 -foot driveway entrance. Motion carried unanimously. S. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow lees than the Required 10 -toot S ideyard Setback - Applicant, Jay Miller. Jay Miller was before Planning Commission members again to discuss with them applying for a variance to be within 10 foot of the sidoyard setback on the oouthweot aide of the property. Mr. Miller indicated to Planning Commission members that he dean not own the adjacent lot, the lot in question being Block 4, Lot 8, but that he does have an option on the lot; and the foe title owner of the lot indicated he would not like to have any portion of Lot 8 taken away from it and added onto Lot 9. Therefore, Mr. Miller to in to request a Variance to be allowed to be within the 10 -foot side lot requirement. Chairman Ridgeway questioned as to why he woo in again applying for the Variance when, indeed, he indicated at the last Planning Commission meeting, August 14, 1984, meeting that he would obtain additional square footage needed from Lot B to accommodate and, thus, be in conformance. There being no public input, motion was made by Don Cochran, seconded by Richard Cartoon, to grant a maximum 1.54 feet aidoyard variance on the southwest portion of the under -construction 8 -unit townhouse building with the condition that any future townhou000 to be built on the R-2 lots maintain a 20 -foot aidoyard setback instead of the 10 -foot oldeyard setback. Notion carried unanimously. G. Public Hearing - Variance Roquooto: 1) To allow additional pylon sign height than the maximum allowed. 2) To allow driveway access width in excess of the maximum 24 foot allowed. Applicant, Wondy'o. Zoning Administrator Anderoon indicated to the gentleman -3- Planning Commission Minutes - 9/11/84 from Wendy's and his sign company representative from Sign Crafters that the intent of the Ordinance through the interpretation of the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission members is that the 32 feet maximum height is from the top of the road surface of the highway going over the freeway, that being at the top of the bridge. The gentleman from Sign Crafters indicated if it was 32 feet above the top of the driving surface at the bridge over the freeway that they would have no problem staying within 32 feet. Therefore, they would not need a Variance. 2) A discussion was also held on the possibility of driveway access widths in excess of 24 feet. Wendy's, at this time, depending on it the Planned Unit Development goes ahead as planned, would like additional driveway width to accommodate wider turning radius needed for semi -truck tractors and campers pulled behind vehicles. The gentleman from Wendy's indicated that they now would not need the additional driveway access width and that if they had to have driveways installed into their own property and not utilize a common driveway entrance off of the proposed Planned Unit Development, 24 feet would be sufficient for them and would not need a Variance. 7. Public Hearing - Concept Plan and Preliminary Plan for Proposed Planned Unit Development - Applicants, Jim Powers and Kent Kjollberg. Jim Powers was present with his Registered Land Surveyor, Dennis Taylor of Taylor Land Surveyors, and also Mr. Lee Nelson, representative from Wendy'o Family Restaurant Corporation. Planning Commission Chairman, Jim Ridgeway, questioned Zoning Administrator Anderson if everything vas in order for the Concept Plan as presented. Zoning Administrator Anderson answered that there are certain items that aro missing from the Concept Plan before them, those being water and sower plane as presented need additional tootage added to the water and never pipe in the newly constructed road through the proposed Planned Unit Development; it would also need additional pipe size than the size indicated; it would also need croon sectional drawings of the manhole and the water hydrants proposed in the water and never construction; also City staff had questions as to the 1 -toot outlet between the newly platted Sandberg Road extension through the Planners Unit Development and the next adjoining property owner, Monticello Ford. Two other questions were rained on two other outlets, those not having a building or building size allocated to those proposed outlets for any proposed use of those outlets. Other than that, City staff felt that all the items were addressed in the Concept Site Plan submitted before them. Planning Commission Chairman, Jim Ridgeway, along with the other Planning Commission members present, Joyce Dowling, Richard Carlson, and Don Cochran, were very opposed to actually hearing the proposal for the Concept Plan it everything wasn't in place as needed per Concept Stage Planning Commission Minutes - 9/11/84 of the Planned Unit Development. That is per the requirement in a Planned Unit Development that everything has to be in order before approval or denial by Planning Commission and the City Council. Having an indication from Jim Powers- partner in the proposed Planned Unit Development that evez:ything would be in order for this Planning Commission meeting from the last Planning Commission meeting held on August 14, 1984 , Jim Powers countered that everything was in order except a few changes that Zoning Administrator Anderson and City Administrator, Thomas Eidem, had found in a meeting with Mr. Powers at 11:30 A.M., Tuesday, September 11, 1984. Mr. Powers indicated that there are three different firma that are involved with the Planned Unit Development, each of them specialists in different fields of development as so indicated cn there. They had received promises that they would be to City staff by Thursday, September 6, at the latest and then only received portions of them Friday, September 7, and portions Monday, September 10, and the final portion Tuesday. September 11. Planning Commission Chairman, Jim Ridgeway, reiterated that that in a developer's problem, not a City staff or Planning Commission problem and that, as a partner in the proposed development of the Planned Unit Development. it to his responsibility to coordinate between him and the people doing the work for him so it does arrive to City staff, Consulting Engineering, and Consulting Planning Firm on time for their review. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members that City staff in recommending to Planning Commission members their approval of the Concept Stage of the Planned Unit Dovolopment with the conditions or revisions an mentionod earlier and that we fool the Concept Plan stages of it aro intact and of good design with the few exceptions that we have noted earlier. Commission members reiterated to the partner ir. the proposed Planned Unit Dovelopmant that they will not look at any future development stages of the propooed Planned Unit Devolopment until everything is in order, has boon reviewed by City ate rf, Consulting Engineer, and Consulting Planning Firm and to recommended to them for their approval. Motion by Don Cochran, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve the Concept Stage of the propound Planned Unit Development, Plaza Partners, with the condition that all rovioiono of the City staff, Consulting Engineer, and the Conaulting Planner be oddrooced in the Concept Stage of the Planned Unit Development. Motion carried unanimously. Also, as o diractive motion, motion by Don Cochran, seconded by Joyce Dowling, that the Planning Commiuoion members as a Planning Commlonion body, direct City otatt to work with the developers of tho Planned Unit Development, Jim Powern end Kent K jelltwrg, to inform them in writing and with their presence, any ltomn that aro no odod before oubmitting the next stage of the Planned Unit Development, that being the Development Stage. Motion carried unanimouoly. -5- Planning Commission Minutes - 9/11/84 Additional Information Items A discussion was held on the next proposed tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission regular meeting in October. The regular meeting date, being the second Tuesday, would fall on the 9th. The first meeting of the Council would be on the 8th, but the 8th is a holiday, Columbus Day. The Council will be meeting on the 9th. It was the general consensus of the Planning Commission members to meet on Wednesday. October 10, 1984, at 7:30 P.M. Motion by Don Cochran, seconded by Richard Carlson, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:39 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Gary Mderoon , Zoning Adminictrator -6- Planning Commission Agenda - 10/10/84 3. Public Hearing - Variance Request for No Curb or Gutter in a Parking Lot - Applicant, IXI, Inc. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: IXI, Inc., is in the second phase of its development and in the Oakwood Industrial Park . IXI is proposing to be allowed no curb or gutter in the parking lot area on its proposed site. On the enclosed plan, you will note that there is a continuous berm around the entire property except for the entrances into the property. The effect of the berm around the property will allow a roadway surface to be put in with drainage to run along the bottom aide of the proposed berm around the property. As you will note in the lower bottom right-hand corner is a typical roadway and berm section of the proposed development on this project. In looking at the site plan submitted, all of the buildings to the far right aide of the plan are currently in place or under construction. what IXI is proposing is to put in half of their parking lot at this time before commencing with additional buildings to the left of the site plan submitted. The concept of this proposed site plan layout has been reviewed by our Consulting Engineering Firm, OSM, and our Consulting Planner, prior to IXI's submitting an application for a Variance Request. Both OSM and Howard Dahlgren 6 Associatos, have indicated they see no problems with this type of arrangement of their parking lot with their entire Oita plan. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the variance roquont to allow no curb or gutter in the parking lot area of the IXI site. 2. Deny the variance request to allow no curb or gutter in the parking lot area of the IXI site. C. STAFF RECOM14F.NDATION: Staff recommends approval of t ho variance request to allow no curb or gutter for the entire Oita plan, including parking lot curb and gutter and also roadway curb and gutter. We fool that this is probably ono of the al tornativoc to look at in the review of the Comprehensive Plan Zoning portion for curb and gutter requirements. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the prop000d Oita plan of the IXI, Inc., complex. Planning Commission Agenda - 10/10/84 4. Public Hearing - Subdivision Request to Subdivide Existing Un platted Land by a Reqistered Land Survey - Applicant, Thomas liolthaus. (G.A. 1 A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Holthaue' plan as submitted to City staff is incomplete at this time. Additional information was given to Mr. Holthaus and to his Registered Land Surveyor, Taylor Land Surveyors, today, October 5, 1984. The new information given to Mr. Holthaus and Mr. Taylor will allow them to incorporate onto their plat all of the information needed. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve continuance of the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting, November 13, 1984, 7:30 P.M. 2. Deny the continuance of the public hearing to the November 13, 1984, Planning Commission meeting_ C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommondo approval of continuance of the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting, November 13, 1984, to allow Mr. Holthaus, along with his Rogiatered Land Surveyor, Mr. Dennis Taylor, to incorporate into their plans everything needed for the oubdlvicion request by a registered land surveyor. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the proposed preliminary plat as Naua-itod. ,- 1 sa.: ! Z90.0.. f 15) tl c k 1 y 33 93 � ' !` LOT I ' 20.500 SO, FT. LOT 2 (PROPOSED 6 UNIT APARTMENT? 22.550 SO. FT. (PROPOSED 6 UNIT © cr APARTMENT) p" !. ) ACRES Z tr � t p Q ria 33— M All v, s3 274.1 t.J i ORR-SCHELEN'MAYERON &ASSOCIATES INC. Consulting Engineers Lend Surveyors October 9, 1984 Mr. Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Monticello. MN 55362 Re: Proposed Land Subdivision Off Marvin Road Dear Gary: As a follow-up to our telephone conversation today regarding the sketch plan for the Tom Holthaus property. our review at this time is limited. This plan is only a sketch of the applicant's intentions for subdivision for discussion purposes only according to Section 11-3-1 of the City Ordinances. Of significance is that the property is located approximately 42' north of the proposed north right -of -gray line of 7th Street extended westerly according to our alternate 2-A2. This strip of land is approximately 42' x 274' and is arced by the Rosewood Corporation according to our records. We are now proceeding to calculate and write up the property descriptions for the acquisition of right-of-way for 7th Street from approximately Locust Street westerly to Elm Street. If you have any questions in this regard. please cell me. Very truly yours. ORR-SCHELEN-MIIYERON A. ASSOCIATES. INC. khn P.Badalich. P.E. ty Engineer JPB:Plb Enclosure cc: Thomas Eldem. City Administrator 2021 East Hennepin Avenue . Suite 238 • Minneapolis. Minnesota 55413. 6121331- 8660 Planning Commission Agenda - 10/10/84 V 5. Public Hearing - A Concept Stade Plan and a Development Stade Plan Request for a Planned Unit Development - Applicants, Jim Powers and Kent Kjellberg. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Having not received all of the information needed for the approval or denial of the Concept Stage Plan of the Planned Unit Development, on Monday, October 1, 1984, City Administrator, Thomas Eidem, discussed at our Council Agenda staff meeting the suggestions that we contact all affected parties who may be involved with this Planned Unit Development to expedite a conclusion of all necessary data and plans for the approval or denial of the Concept Stage Plan of the Planned Unit Development or to put a halt on anymore progress of the Planned Unit Development until everything is in order. A meeting was then held on Thursday, October 4, 1984, at 10:00 A.M., in the City Council Chambers, with the following people present: Kent Kjellberg, Jim Powers, the Developers; Mr. Jim Ridgeway, Planning Commission Chairman; Mr. John Uban, Consulting Planner from Howard Dahlgren 6 Associates; Mr. John Badalich, Consulting Engineer from OSM 6 Associates; the following staff: Thomas Eidem, City Administrator; Rick Wolfateller, Assistant Administrator/Financo Director; John Simola, Public Works Director; Gary Anderson, Building Official. We went through the punch list items individually with the Developers and other mombora present to bring everything to a head to see what their progrosn was on those particular punch list items for the proposed Concept Stage Plan of the Planned Unit Development approval or denial. The consensus of the Developers was that they would have, by Friday or Tuasday morning at the latent, all of the information needed for review by City staff, Consulting PInnnor, and Consulting Enginaor,boforo the Wednesday night Planning Commlonion mooting. As of the writing of thio supplement at 11:30 A.M., Friday, October 4, we have not soon anymore additional information. D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. If the information to all in and received by City staff and reviewed by City staff, Consulting Engineer, and Consulting Planner and mooto our approval, we would ask you to hold the public hearing on approval or denial of the Concept Stage Plan of the Planned Unit Development. 2. if the information to received and reviewed by City Staff, Consulting Engineer, and Consulting Planner and is found to be incomplete, the Planning Commission may not hold the public hearing on the Concept Stage Plan of the Planned Unit Development. -3- Planning Commission Agenda - 10/10/84 3. If the information is received and upon review is found to be complete, Planning Commission could approve the Development Stage of the Planned Unit Development. 4. If the information is received and reviewed and approved, the Planning Commission could deny the Development Stage Plan for the Planned Unit Development. 5. Do nothing. If the information received is not what the Planning Commission is looking for, you may choose not to look at anything on the Planned Unit Development. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Planning Commission review the concept Stage of the Planned Unit Development if the information is received and reviewed by City staff, Consulting Engineer, Consulting Planner, and found to be complete. We would then recommend your app= -oval of the Concept Stage Plan of the Planned Unit Dovslopmesnt. Staff would also recommend approval of the Development Stage Plran of the Planned Unit Development if the information is received and reviewed by City staff, Consulting Planner, Consulting Engineer, and found to have all of the necessary information for the Development Stage Plan portion of the Planned Unit Davalopment. D. SUPPC3RT1NG DATA: The information hasn't boon received at this time, so thore will be no supporting data. 4- Planning Commission Agenda - 10/10/84 Additional Information Items 1. Review and Consideration of Approval of the Guide Plan Stage for the New Comprehensive Plan. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: With interruptions behind us, we will again be working on the Comprehensive Plan to the finish. As part of the Comprehensive Plan, the Goals and Policies Section of the Comprehensive Plan has been amended and improved by both Monticello Planning Commission and Monticello City Council. The Guide Plan portion of the Comprehensive Plan has been reviewed by City staff with changes made. To be presented before you is the list of appropriate changes as indicated for your approval or denial. The map portions of the Guide Plan are not complete at this time but are in the process of being worked on, with minor changes which are needed to update the Comprehensive Plan, with no major changes in the maps other than the updating of it. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the Guide Plan as presented with the proposed changes. 2. Deny the Guide Plan stage of the Comprehensive Plan as presented. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Guide Plan portion of the Comprehensive Plan with the changes as presented. If Planning Commission members feel there is a nood for a change, wo will take another look at any portion that you might fool a need to be changed and make a recommendation to you on this. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of tho Guido Plan portion of the Comprehonoivo Plan. -5-