Planning Commission Agenda Packet 02-19-1980141 AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 19, 1980 - 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS: Jim Ridgeway, Dave"Bauer, John Bondhus, Dick Martie
L4
Ed Schaffer, Loren Klein (ex -officio)
C,W.v t
0
(,e°6 1. Approval of Minutes - December 18, 1979 Regular Meeting and
p� January 11, 1980 Special Meeting (Note - no regular meeting
in January due to lack of items).
`2. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Condiitional Use Permit - Northern
States Power Nuclear Plant. so,* OW,
3. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Cpnditional Use - Bradley (1>�,f� Larson's Townhouses. 0M S6'
4. Consideration of a Variance Request - Beauty Shop in an R-1 Zone -
Geraldine Vinar.
S. Consideration of a Variance Request - Beauty Shop in an R-1 Zone -
Barb Soucy.
6. Consideration of Variance Request from Provisions of Monticello
Sign Ordinance Requirements - Scot Wood Partnership.
7. Consideration of Subdivision Request and Variances - John Sandberg.
8. Consideration of Subdivision and Request for Variances from
Minimum Lot Widths - Rick Cole.
9. Consideration of Changing Meeting Date.
CD lA+sy.� Stt�•.a►
P 1/vo...«. iii �v 4p+.
PLANNING COMMISSION - 2/19/80
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
J2. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit - Northern
States Power Nuclear Plant.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has required that NSP
place an overflow weir at the end of the outlet channel where the warm
water that is discharged from the power plant flows into the Mississippi
River, thus preventing fish from going into the channel.
Monticello has adopted the Mississippi Senic and Wild Rivers ordinance,
and thereby, any such work, although it is a requirement in this
case, must be done as a part of a conditional use (federal bureaucracy).
It is a staff recommendation that this item be recommended to the Council
for approval.
APPLICANT: Northern States Power Company.
CONSIDERATION: Possible recommendation for approval of conditional
use permit.
REFERENCES: None.
3. Public Hearinq - Consideration of a Conditional Use - Bradley Larson's
Townhouses.
dl When Brad Larson came before the Council in January with his request for
rezoning the "Baptist Church Property" from R-1 to R-2 with the unani-
mous recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Council requested that
he return on February 25, 1980 with more information about the conditional
use he would be requesting to build townhouses on that property if rezoned.
J
Because of that Council request, Mr. Larson has submitted the enclosed
"site plan" which shows the layout of the proposed development. (Mil �lime
permits, Mr. tahSon will try to here elevntimts prepared for your review
at Tuesday's meeting).
Mr. Larson is proposing to obtain a conditional use permit, as required
by Monticello ordinance, to build five 4 -unit townhouses. Each building
J to be 46'0" x 96'0" and contain four dwelling units plus an attached
�6+,car garage per unit, which would exceed the ordinance require-
ments for garages.
An association agreement, as required by Monticello Ordinance, would be
necessary for approval, and a recommendation for approval could be con-
tingent upon that document being provided. This agreement is binding on
all owners within the project and sets the maintenance requirements, etc.
for the commonly owned property.
-1-
PLANNING COMMISSION - 2/19/80
The cul-de-sac, which comes from the property onto Highway 75, does not
Ualign with Sandy Lane across the Highway, so traffic from the project
would be discouraged from using Sandy Lane as a thoroughfare, as was a
concern of the people who brought in a petition against the rezoning
at the last Planning Commission meeting dealing with this project.
0
io
A variance would be required for the square footage requirement since
the open area per unit is 234 square feet short of the requirement of
5.000 feet. npr unit, nr 4Fi?11TIC�IT 31 chnrt,
Mr. Larson is considering dedicating the street in this project (yet
unnamed) to the public. If that would be done, however, a subdivision
of property would be required, but at a later date than this hearing.
Also necessary at the time of subdivision of property would be drainage
landscaping and parking plans, which would need the recommendations
of both the City Planner and City Engineer at the time of proposal.
The proposal which is presently before you for townhouses and rezoning
has the recommendation of the City Planner.
APPLICANT: Bradley Larson.
CONSIDERATION: Possible consideration of recommendation to City Council
on approval of conditional use permit.
REFERENCES: Enclosed site layout.
/4. Consideration of a Variance Request - Beauty Shop in an R-1 Zone -
Geraldine Vinar.
Geraldine Vinar would like a variance to operate a beauty shop from one
froom of her home, having no employees, and no more than one appointment
at any time, unless there might be an overlap with one person leaving
and a new appointment coming.
According to Monticello Ordinances, a variance is required to operate
this business since the request does not fall within the outline of a
home occupation, as defined.
This property is located at 1209 Sandy Lane (Lot 7, Block 1, Creekside
Terrace) and is zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential).
A small sign would be preferred on the mailbox (the Planning Commission
may recommend a size).
APPLICANT: Geraldine Vinar
CONSIDERATION: Recommending approval or denial of this request.
REFERENCES: Enclosed map showing location of property.
-2-
PLANNING COMMISSION - 2/19/80
5. Consideration of a Variance Request - Beauty Shop in an R-1 Zone -
Barb Soucy.
Barb Soucy would like a variance to operate a beauty shop from one
room of her home, having no employees ,and no more than one appoint-
ment at any time, unless there might be an overlap with one person
leaving and a new appointment coming.
According to Monticello Ordinances, a variance is required to operate
this business since the request does not fall within the outline of a
home occupation, as defined.
This property is located at 1305 West Broadway (Lot 9, Block 1,
Doerr Estates) and is zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential).
A small sign would be preferred on the mailbox (the Planning Commission
may recommend a size.)
APPLICANT: Barb Soucy
CONSIDERATION: Recommending approval or denial of this request.
REFERENCES: Enclosed map showing location of property.
NOTE: As you will note, this is the second request for a beauty shop
within this area, and there is some concern relative to the
number of variances the City has approved in the past - the
Planning Commission may want to take this into consideration.
There are various areas within the City that are properly
zoned for such a use.
/ 6. Consideration of Variance Request from Provisions of Monticello Sian
Ordinance Requirements - ScotWood Partnership.
Purpose of this item is to consider the request by the ScotWood Partner-
ship for a ScotWood Motel from Monticello Ordinances relative to height
and sign requirements.
Following are the three variances being requested:
A. 180 square foot wall sign (Ordinance Section 10 -3 -9 -(E) -2-(b)-(2)
allows maximum of 100 square feet).
B. Pylon sign to be either 52 feet above Highway 25 at closest
point, or 65 feet high from base , whichever is less (Ordinance
Section 10 -3 -9 -(E) -2-(b)-(4) allows maximum height of pylon
sign to be 32 feet above roadway ).
C. 32 square foot directional sign (Ordinance Section
10 -3 -9 -(B) -1-(h) allows maximum of 10 square feet).
.i
- 3 —
PLANNING COMMISSION - 2/19/80
l Enclosed, please find a letter from Jon Petters with Brutger Companies, Inc.
outlining their request.
For your information, regarding the height of the pylon sign, the present
Silver Fox Motel has a sign that is 60 feet high from its base, and Vance's
Standard has a sign that is 52' high from its base. Both of these were
previously approved on variance requests. Although there have been other
request: for variance: from the sign provisions, one of the redsnns for
granting uses such as a motel and a gasoline station variances were that
these were uses that depend primarily upon the freeway and the highway
system for their trade.
One possibility regarding the three variances might be to consider the
variance for the pylon sign to be as high from an elevation standpoint
as the Silver Fox Motel, but not to grant the other two variance requests.
in this manner, the City may be more consistent with past variances
granted relative to developments that drew primarily from the freeway,
but did not allow additional variances of wall signs or directional
signs. Jon Petters, with Brutger Companies, inc., will be most likely at
the meeting on Tua`iCW night, but i do believe that their main priority
will be the pylon sign height.
APPLICANT: ScotMood Partnership.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of recommendation on above three variance
.� requests to the City Council.
l
REFERENCES: February 11, 1980 letter from Jon Petters.
/ 7. Consideration of Subdivision Request and Variances - John Sandberq.
Mr. John Sandberg, current owner of a duplex on Lots 1 b 2, Block 30,
Townsite of Monticello, has requested a subdivision of the property.
The property is currently zoned R-2 (Single 6 Two Family Residential).
The proposal indicates a 68' x 132' lot to be created fronting on
Linn Street with the duplex remaining on a 97' x 132' lot.
Reason for the subdivision would be to sell the smaller lot to Les Finn
to build a single family residence.
To provide a little background, Mr. Sandberg had previously applied for
the same subdivision back in April 1977, along with a rezoning request
from B-4 to R-2. Because of the interest by all the property owners in
Block 30 for rezoning the entire block to R-2, Mr. Sandberg withdrew
his request for the subdivision until the zoning issue had been resolved.
Since that time, the entire block was rezoned to R-2 from B-4 in 1978.
Since the time of the original subdivision request, the proposed
certificate of survey has been recorded into two (2) parcels, one
being 97' x 132' and the other 68' x 132', with the County Recorder.
- 4 -
PLANNING COMMISSION - 2/19/80
Since the City has never app roved this subdivision, Mr. Sandberg is now
li requesting approval in order to sell the property as a buildable site.
As part of the request, vari antes are needed from the minimum width re-
quirements of 80' since the lot is only 68' wide. in addition, the lot
would only be 8,976 square f=eet and require a 1,024 square foot variance
from the R-2 zone requiremern t of 10,000 square feet.
Also, the lot line as propos ed would be 3.S feet from the stairway of
the duplex, requiring a rear -yard setback variance from the minimum
requirement of 30' a ,for the e-xisting house.
No site plan hasVeen submitted for the house proposed by Les Finn, but
indications are that sideyar-d variances may not be required.
APPLICANT: John Sandberg
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of subdivision of lots and variances
from: 1. Minimum lot width requirement.
2. Minimum lot size.
3. Minimum rearyard setback requirements.
REFERENCES: Copy of certifi tate of survey on proposed subdivision
NOTE: Since variances have been requested, the public hearing on the
subdivision and varim nces will be held at the 2/25/80 Council
meeting.
8. Consideration of Subdivisiore and Request for Variances from Minimum
Lot Widths - Rick Cole.
v
Mr. Rick Cole has requested to subdivide Lots 2 (except W 10') and
3, Block 0, Upper Monticellm ,into two equal size parcels of
61' x165' each. The present lots are 66' x 165' and 56' x 165'.
The present property now has a home located on it which is situated in
the middle of the lots. Mr- Cole has indicated that he plans on
removing the existing house and building a new home on one of
the lots. Because the present house is situated on both lots, the City
presently recognizes this pr-operty as one lot of record.
The new lot sizes as proposeddo not meet the minimum lot width requirement
of 80' and would require variances of 19' each. The present size of
Lot 3 is 66' and although less than 80' requirement, it would be "grand-
fathered in" as a buildable lot since it meets 758 of the 80' requirement.
Lot 2 (56' width) would pressently not meet the 75% rule and would not
be a buildable lot unless variances were granted.
Although the subdivision would add 5' to one tot, bringing it up to 61'
width, both newly created lints would be quite small for someone to meet
the setback requirements for a building, since this property is zoned R -B
(Residential -Business). The R -B zone requires a 20' sideyard setback
_ S -
PLANNING COMMISSION - 2/19/80
J and as a result, only 21' would remain on each lot for building. As
a result, if this subdivision is approved, the Planning Commission
should be ready to grant setback variances, as it would appear very
unlikely that a house could be built without variances on either
of the new lots.
One suggestion would be for the Planning Commission to table any
discussion on the subdivision until a site plan is presented by
the owner as to how a new house will fit on these lots and also
provide space for a garage. This way, we would know what additional
variances may be needed should this subdivision be approved.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of Subdivision Request and Variances
from Minimum Lot Width Requirements. Fa�
�D
REFERENCES: Map depicting location of lots.
APPLICANT: Rick Cole.
NOTE: Public Hearing on this item will be held at the 2/25/80 Council
meeting because of variances requested.
9. Consideration of Changing Meeting Date.
a Purpose of this item is to consider changing the meeting date from the
third Tuesday of each month to possibly the second or fourth Tuesday of
each month.
The reason for this change is that the Agenda for the City Council is
now being prepared as early as Tuesday of the week preceeding the meeting.
Normally, the items from the Planning Commission go forth to the City
Council at their next meeting. By preparing the agenda for the Council's
following meeting on the previous Tuesday, some of the items on the
Planning Commission will have to be brought to the Council not at their
next meeting, but at the meeting after that. Since the Council meets
on the second and fourth Mondays and by having the Planning Commission
for example on either the second or fourth Tuesdays, this would allow
anything that is on the Planning Commission agenda to go forth to the
Council agenda at their next regularly scheduled meeting.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of setting regular meetings for the
Planning Commission on the second or fourth Tuesday
of the month.
+i
-e-
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
U Tuesday, December 18, 1979 - 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: tick Martie, Ed Schaffer, Fred Topvl, Wren Klein (ex -officio)
MEMBERS ABSENTS Jim Ridgeway, Dave Bauer.
1. Consideration of Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Dick Martic, and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the November 20, 1979 meeting.
2. Public Hearinq on the Consideration of a Re::oninq Request from R-1 to
R-2 by Bradley Larson.
Mr. Brad Larson has requested that the property presently owned by the
First Baptist Church on West County Road 75 he rezoned from R-1 to
R-2. This site is approximately 2.75 acres.
According to Mr. Larson, the intent would he to allow for the construc-
tion of five 4 -unit condominiums. Additionally, the prevent church
building would be converted to a duplex. Initially, the First Baptist.
Church, at tho time of the construction of the Church, hid indicated
that this would eventually lie used as a parnonage if the rIrst Baptist
Ij Church had expanded in this ar a. Mr. Larnon explained that the First
Baptist Church tins now entered into a purchase agreement to buy another
piece of property currently owned by the. Asne.ahly of God Church in
Monticello.
Ftr. Laroon further explained that the condominiumn would Iw: owner -occupied,
and would be alternative housing for people wlto want to eliminate th,
care and maintenance of yards. A,•cording to Mr. I.atnon, there wool' I.
only one curb -cut from County Road 75.
At thio point, tho meeting was opened for the public hearing porti,m
and Mr. Steve Johnnon, a property owner within approximately 35W on
Sandy Laino, mado the followinq commonest
A. Mr. Steve Johnson had initiated a petition (copy of which in attached
to theae minutoo). Thio petition Indieatt,d oppoeitien to the roznniny
from R-1 to R-3. upon a queotion from tho[lanniny Commineion
explaining that Mr. Larson had now chaugoc9 hie rezoning rrquent to R-2,
Mr. Steve Johnuon oxplained that in his opinion, he felt that the
Petition would utill Lu in oppucition to the requeot.
B. Felt area was incompatible with the vurrounding uses and with the over-
all eomprohennivo plan.
C. Felt prohlemo would be incurred with song. ati.n and that the number
unite propoued by Mr. Laroon could moult In additional dt.natty of
100 to 120 popple in the area. Mr. Johnnon telt it. wan too d, nt,r a
Population for an R-1 zone.
MINUTES - PLANNING COMM. 12/18/79
D. Traffic and congestion problems would be created an County Road 75
and Sandy Lane. Mr. Johnson explained there is already a problem
v with congestion and traffic on Sandy Lane.
E. Mr. Johnson explained that he felt that the City did need condomin-
iums, but felt that other areas within the City that were zoned
properly, that is R-2 or R-3, should be proper sites for such a
complex.
Mr. Larson, in response to the concerns expressed by Mr. Johnson, indicated
that he had reviewed other available R-2 6 R-3 properties, and in fact, at one
point, a particular lending agency had indicated that one of the R-3
sites he was looking at leaded itself more to commercial usage as opposed
to condominiums. According to Mr. Larson, this site was in the Lauring
Hillside Addition. Mr. Larson also indicated that he felt the present
sit= is ideal, since it was buffered by the railroad tracks to the south,
commercial property to the west, a school to the east, and County Road 75
to the north, along with pine trees which served as a barrier between the
project and the single family residential areas along Sandy Lane.
Mr. Denton Erickson, another property owner on Sandy lane, indicated he
was concerned about the one entrance onto County Road 75 and the
congestion this would cause. Mr. Erickson did indicate he realized the
site was an isolated parcel, but he was very concerned about the traffic
and the congestion, especially in light of the fact that the school
property by itself generates quite a bit of traffic.
Mr. Rill Swan, also a property owner along Sandy lane, indicated that he
�- was concerned with the devaluation that the rezoning of Mr. Laroons
parcel to R-2 may cause. He initially bought his property on Sandy
Lane with the idea that the surrounding area would continue to be R-1
or single family residential.
Consensus of the Planning Commission was that the congestion caused
by this project would be minimal in light of the present congestion
caused by ouch developments further west - mainly, Andera-Wilholm
Estates, Hillcreat Addition, Balhoul rotates, and Northern States
Power Plant. Generally, it wan felt that it was an ideal situation
to have congestion flow to a major thoroughfare, ouch an County Road 75,
rather than to have it flow onto a rooidential street. Additionally,
it was felt that the area wan somewhat isolated and was well buffered
an indicated by Mr. Larson. Additionally, it was felt that there could
be as much or more concern about the congestion caused by the First
Baptist Church if it decided to expand on its present site, as opposed
to Mr. Larson's project. Motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded
by Dick Martin and unanimously carried to recommend to the Council
•hot the parcel in question be rezoned from R-1 to R-2.
Motion, was mads by Dick Martin, coconded by Cd Schaffer and unaninously
carried to adjourn the mooting.
Gary wiebor, City Administrator
GW/no
ATTACH.
/'LINN/N6 4p.y11lirfio. )
v
�.• M;NUTeS
Af
�' • L.O V O d T %a wl-1 L.- U $-C- s Y
13'5-r pM UL .taJ-..`
.%• 6ri D . /aoov.4L. 61iC-
,0 P
���IU.S Atm
To..✓AiAo ✓, c
p��(/G �MNsb I✓
/�. CI r/s r./.0 /N.✓ q br.. a 'W.- r w
u
Fort r
(�'V ♦, sai�I J a N
�.
/4 J .. •. a �aoiJ
Re
/�•
Ui.I /J7A/A� /�ol rf'
8
To..✓AiAo ✓, c
p��(/G �MNsb I✓
/�. CI r/s r./.0 /N.✓ q br.. a 'W.- r w
u
`J
D • QN Cwe To.a7"a 4 Re- ey a so.ae
(�(T6•v1.(G�C I• /�.G �p sat. �M•IQJN�
ow—
S4
C IA N.r
` I� TR•r L L.
�j P,►�c:�J _ Daly �...b/e �i,,�w,,,�
CGws
�J dGe�(No.�F /AL�nCAf�% .','N - /o/.A--e
Q s"a
t
/ Sta pli N�yiw1 - S �w �q�DO�'J�
WO+�� hz Simon 4.0 A4
Siad i.r•
ip • � ►.� a •.sA� :.fix (D+yc .
r��� F 11., S�•�iD��rae0
�i. ���s � �O� i i J � �J ♦IIIc ��• � (�+�
L.�.'
p,M �� h•N.M�.r N ACA4 3.Q. �rL%61 '.r1
BEAUTY SHOP
BARB SOUCV, GERALDINE VINAR,
• �;
ke
'z� tom`.• . �' ' 7If t� ll��; I' � ^•; ,'-•'`-,tl�••�.' 1
•i�\\� CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST — >
\ BRADLEY LARSON — TOWNHOUSES
t
_—t— t � gtt`tf+Y1�� ��.f•.1 `�'�•rtM''%,. \�j•.,; /� �w,•'`�,
`r • Z'1i ' i''t��✓lv`�i" � A.' � � • � 1. 1. .,
�� '?.; =;fit:'; }�i: ��ti t ~� � .. �%. i . % `' ', % • �. .
S r'4 ` . •.
v i o A
3,
-41
SIIE
Aurianpp,
SCOWOOD 00'TEL
NO. 94
--'� (:a m
WIV WTT-M! - BOX NO. 198 - ST. CLOUD, MINNESOTA 58101 . TEL 812/2528282
February 11, 1980
Mr. Cary Wieber
City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Sign Variance - ScotWood Motel
Dear Cary:
•Thank you for the information which was needed to determine what variance
will be required for the signago of the SeotWood Motel. I have enclosed
n the completed Application for Variance along with a check for $15.
V
Part of our request for a variance asks for a total of 180 square feet on
the front of the building. This sign is the one pictured on the EcotWood
E-rochure. The 180 square feet was determined by boxing in the total lettering
area. The actual square footage of the letters on the sign is less than 100
square feet.
I hope this will provide the information you rill need for the variance
application. If I can be of any further assistance, please advise.
Sincerely►
BRUTCFR CDMPANIBS, INC.
C. Petters
J-ct Ada.inintrator
JCP/kaf
rnclosu►os
�.r
cc: Janis P.lumentaln - Architect
Dave Anderson - DCI
Nancy Johnson - HCl
1
C..�.//..! AI -4-
/ / C
a� 0
r � �
O
\ Ii
. ly
7
MEYER-ROHLIN,INC
ENGINEERS•IAND SURVEYORS
tl11MwV ?SN • Buffalo. Mom 5531.
0�{�OM10~ •� O��YKY,
1
~ 4 k�V
i` Zk—
/ / C
a� 0
r � �
O
\ Ii
. ly
7
MEYER-ROHLIN,INC
ENGINEERS•IAND SURVEYORS
tl11MwV ?SN • Buffalo. Mom 5531.
0�{�OM10~ •� O��YKY,
1