Planning Commission Agenda Packet 04-14-1987J AGENDA
1� REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING C0MMISSION
Tuesday, April 14, 1987 - 7:30 p.m.
Members: Richard Carlson, Joyce Dowling, Richard Martie, Barbara
Koropchak, Jim Ridgeway.
7:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order.
7:32 p.m. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held
March 10, 1987.
7:34 p.m. 3. A request for a partial subdivision of a residential
outlot, Outlot H. Meadow Oak Addition, to be known
as the Meadow Oak Fourth Addition.
Applicant, Dickman Knutson.
8:14 p.m. 4. A request for open discussion on a proposed concept
plan for unplatted property. Applicant, Jim Boyle.
Additional Information Items
8:34 p.m. 1. Conditional use request, Tom Holthaue. Request approved Q
with conditions.
6:36 p.m. 2. Public hearing for annexation of the Monticello Orderly
Annexation Area will be held on April 21, boginning
at 1:30 p.m. in the Monticello Township Hall Chambers.
8:38 p.m. 3. Bet the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for May 12, 1987, 7:30 p.m.
8:40 p.m. 4. Adjourn.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, March 10, 1987 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Barbara
Koropchak
Members Absent: Richard Martie
Staff Present: Thomas Eidem, Gary Anderson
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Carlson at
7:33 p.m.
2. Motion by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve the
February 10, 1987, Planning Commission minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Annexation of the Entire Monticello Orderly Annexation Area - Tom
Eidem.
Mr. Tom Eidem, City Administrator, was present to explain to Planning
Commission members the City'a proposal for annexation of the entire
Monticello Orderly Annexation Area. Mr. Eidom explained that the
public hearing, as of last night's Council meeting, was still on
for March 18. 1987, beginning at 9:00 a.m., and to be continued for
up to three days of public hearing testimony. Mr. Eidam showed two
maps which were posted on an easel showing the proposed area to be
annexed and how it fit into the existing city boundaries. Mr. Eidom
indicated to Planning Commission members some of the positive and
negative effects which could happen if any or part of the annexation
would occur. The City would like to see all or part of the entire
Orderly Annexation Area annexed into the City or that the whole Orderly
Annexation Board be dissolved. The City is currently paying approximately
027,000 per year to the Monticello Township for the Orderly Annexation
Board. That money is used to subsidize keeping the Township residents'
taxes at a lower rate. Mr. Eidem encouraged Planning Commission
members to take part, if they would like, in part or all of the public
testimony at the public hearing. Commission members did raise some
Questions in regards to annexation. They are as followo.
Is the City set up to handle the entire Orderly Annexation Area from
the standpoint of utilities? City Administrator Tom Eidem indicated
that the City is set up to handle the entire Orderly Annexation Arne
to be served with utilities; however, it may not be financially feasible
for the City to do the entire thing at one time.
How is the City to serve an existing residential development of minimum
one acre Sots? Mr. Eidem indicated the approximate coat right now
to date would be approximately 038,000 to serve a one acre residential
lot in the Orderly Annexation Area. Under county standards, that
is the minimum lot size they allow in a residential development in
the township or into the county. However, if it Is brought into
-1-
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/10/87
the City, depending on where the house is placed on the one acre
lot, one could conceivably have two additional lots on either aide
or on one aide of their existing home to sell off for a new house
to be built.
With no further information from Mr. Eidem, Planning Commission members
thanked him for the input on the pending annexation public hearing
process.
d. Zoning Conference Report - Gary Anderson.
Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, explained to Planning Commission
members and City Administrator that Planning Commission members Richard
Carlson, Mr. Jim Ridgeway, and himself had attended a zoning seminar
at the Earl Brown Center on the U of M campus on March 5, 1987.
Anderson indicated that he felt the overall course was very informative,
as much of the oral information as well as some of the written information
that was presented in the packet actually related to many of the
issues that the Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator
had dealt with in previous Planning Commission meetings. Planning
Commission members Jim Ridgeway and Richard Carlson also indicated
to those of us in attendance the input they got out of the zoning
seminar. Commission members felt that the Zoning Administrator should
have copies made of the written information that we received at the O
seminar and pass it on to the Planning Commission members which weren't
able to attend and also onto City Council members. Zoning Administrator
Anderson said that he would have the information copied and have
it distributed within the week.
The following additional information items were passed on to Planning
Commission members for thoir information.
Additional Information Items
1. Simple subdivision request, Nick Kampa; request approved with conditions
as recommended by Planning Commiosion.
2. Simple subdivision request, Russell Lovegren; request approved with
conditions except the minimum lot width for Parcel A was decreased
from 90 toot to 85 toot, with the lot width of Parcel 0 increased
from 75 feet to 80 feet.
3. Conditional use request, Thomas Holthaus; request continued to March 23,
1^87, City Council meeting.
6. The public hearing for the annexation of the Monticello Orderly Annexation
Area will be held March 18 beginning at 900 a.m. in the Monticello
City Council Chambers.
5. Notion by Barbara Karopchak, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to sot the
next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting
for April 14, 1987, 7:30 p.m.
ML
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/10/87
6. Motion by Jim Ridgevay, seconded by Barbara Koropchak, to adjourn
l the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 6:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
,zg�# AO& -w
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
11
.3.
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/14/87
3. A request for a eartial subdivision of a residential outlet, Outlot H,
Meadow Oak Additions to be known as the Meadow Oak Fourth Addition.
Applicant. Dickman Knutson. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Dickman Knutson will be present at the Planning Commission meeting
to discuss the possibility of partial platting of Outlot H
to be known as Meadow Oak Fourth Addition. Mr. Knutson will be explaining
his reasons for only platting 14 of the proposed lots in this outlet
are purelyon the economic standpoint to that Mr. Knutson, as the
developer, will be bearing all those costs for the improvements up
front. As you are well aware, the Meadow Oak development assessments
have been a continuing problem plaguing this entire development.
Mr. Knutson has full intentions of developing the entire Outlot H
to be known as Meadow Oak Fourth Addition as explained to Planning
Commission members at their August 13, 1985, Planning Commission
meeting.
Mr. Jim Boyle, an adjacent property owner, will be sending a letter
along, which Is forthcoming and may not be included in your agenda
packet but will be before you at the Planning Commission meeting,
stating his desire not to allow Mr. Knutson to plat part of Outlot H
to be known as Meadow Oak Fourth Addition. Hie sole reason for denial
of that to that Mr. Boyle, being property owner of the adjacent Outlot I,
would like to develop Outlot I: but being not able to develop Outlot I
until Outlot H to developed so he has access to hie Outlot I. The
second part of his reason for denial of this is that Mr. Boyle hoe
boon asseesod on all of his outlets that he owns beginning with Outlot I
which Is adjacent to this Outlot H for a liftetation which was installed
as part of the initial project in 1981.
Enclosed you will find a letter from City Attorney, Mr. Gary Pringle,
regarding the applicant's request. Hie commonte aro short and sweet
and right to the point that it to just not good planning to allow
part of an outlet to be platted not knowing what to going to happen
with the seat of the outlets and not taking the chance of the entire
area to be platted and recorded. Bo another property owner could
take advantage of land which he does own adjacent to this. The sole
reason for the other property owner, Mr. Boyle, to take advantage
of it is that he has boon and still to paying a special assessment
toward a sower lift station.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Deny a request to plat only part of Outlot H to be known as Moodow
Oak Fourth Addition.
Z. Approve the request to replat part of Outlot H to be known as
Meadow Oak Fourth Addition.
10
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/16/87
y 3. Approve the partial platting of Outlet H to be known as the Meador
Oak Fourth Addition with the recorded covenant with the property
that no other lots in the unplatted outlot could be sold off
until all the improvements are in and paid for.
C. STAFF RECOIMEIIDATION:
Staff is recommending from the planning standpoint and also from
the advice of our City Attorney to deny the applicant's request for
partial platting of the Outlot H to be known as the Meadow Oak Fourth
Addition. Staff recognizes the standpoint of the applicant, acknowledging
he only wants to put in what he could afford to do, as he is the
one that is paying for the full amount of the assessment; but staff
recognizes from a planning aspect that it is not good planning not
to approve a whole plat as presented of the Outlot H.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed platting of a residential outiot
request; Copy of the 8/13/85 Planning Commission minutes; Copy of
the 8/26/85 City Council minutes; Copy of the letter from City Attorney,
Gary Pringle; Copy of the replat of Outlot H in its entirety; Copy
of the proposed replat of part of Outlot H to be known as the Meadow
Oak Fourth Addition.
M15
April 9, 1987
Monticello Planning Commission
Attn: Gary Anderson
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: Proposed Partial Replat of Outlet "H" to be Known as Meadow Oak 4th Addition
Dear Gary:
Pursuant to our teleph-ne c-nversation about the possibility of splitting up
Outlet "H" for the replacing with the Easterly 14 Lots being developed on an
immediate basis with the Westerly part of it to be done later, it is my opinion
that this would not be a proper approach.
From a planning standpoint the only sensible approach is to develop the entire
Out lot. The only reason a split development would make any sense for the deve-
loper is because it might force the neighboring property to the west to put
water and sewer lines across the remaining part of that Outlet "H" which would
create a hardship for the westerly property owner and would create a windfall
for the owner of Outlet "H".
A lift station has been installed in that area to benefit all of these proper-
ties including the Outlet "H" and the property to the west of it. All of the
properties have been assessed for the benefit of this lift station. To
force the westerly property owner to put a free line across the westerly part of
Outlet "H" in order to benefit from that lift station would not be fair to the
westerly property owner.
It just dosen"t make good planning sense from the city standpoint for this
Outlet to be divided up as proposed.
For the owner of Out Lot 'H" to run the services thru the 14 Iota on the easterly
part of Out Lot "H" and then stop, with a later construction of the service
lines from that point over to the westerly boundary of Outlet "H" would not make
good sense, even for the developer of Outlet "H". It would coat more money to
do it that way.
n
Your truly, / ,'
Q>L.. Pr�ngle'rJ/
GLP/tkm
File No. 87-15802
v
SMITH. PRINGLE & HAYES
HOHTKSLlO os.KE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
207 SOUTH WALNUT STREET
[Lw R.rER C"wa
P.O. sox SSS
GREOORY V. SMITH. J.O.
OLD COURTHoust W-MM04
226 LOWS" AVENUE
MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA 559520555
GARY L. ►RiNaUt. J 0.
ELK RIVER. MRWESOTA 55220
-
1 o/�,CE M,oHE HIM 2642101
THOMAS 0. HAYES. J M
_
YSTRO LME IS,n •21.1620
I.ncE ...GRE n,n
April 9, 1987
Monticello Planning Commission
Attn: Gary Anderson
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: Proposed Partial Replat of Outlet "H" to be Known as Meadow Oak 4th Addition
Dear Gary:
Pursuant to our teleph-ne c-nversation about the possibility of splitting up
Outlet "H" for the replacing with the Easterly 14 Lots being developed on an
immediate basis with the Westerly part of it to be done later, it is my opinion
that this would not be a proper approach.
From a planning standpoint the only sensible approach is to develop the entire
Out lot. The only reason a split development would make any sense for the deve-
loper is because it might force the neighboring property to the west to put
water and sewer lines across the remaining part of that Outlet "H" which would
create a hardship for the westerly property owner and would create a windfall
for the owner of Outlet "H".
A lift station has been installed in that area to benefit all of these proper-
ties including the Outlet "H" and the property to the west of it. All of the
properties have been assessed for the benefit of this lift station. To
force the westerly property owner to put a free line across the westerly part of
Outlet "H" in order to benefit from that lift station would not be fair to the
westerly property owner.
It just dosen"t make good planning sense from the city standpoint for this
Outlet to be divided up as proposed.
For the owner of Out Lot 'H" to run the services thru the 14 Iota on the easterly
part of Out Lot "H" and then stop, with a later construction of the service
lines from that point over to the westerly boundary of Outlet "H" would not make
good sense, even for the developer of Outlet "H". It would coat more money to
do it that way.
n
Your truly, / ,'
Q>L.. Pr�ngle'rJ/
GLP/tkm
File No. 87-15802
v
nPiv1» n•w:
�— F, 1M'A 11'S M•M t
\ + Fs s•r+w w•a IV.. n- t
U.
' � ` ` �• 'r,^J »o r'aea•aXi•M'r••ti „:m
0 1'14 n)•w ort w.M
.-R Lr=,1�"•v �ti. �< <�•
' t n• Mr•wmt n.M
r Al
•�4,s: ! " � -fit. ,
'!u•s'rirs- � '� Z � ��
4 y iJ� 1
t .?
i. V1 1 g
J J 1
iu•jrwi u r -y; a:r`w's• -.I "+)p ppa )t)•- j . Tt;ti ,i 1 M I
It
1
- _ _M)•rwt.. t:4 )l,is -. s r's.:li , y i t , 14
0 .-,M i , rt•M alf; ! M.t- N.ti it tl ;,r �1, 11C '�1i 11� F y14 �t' '11 V
F 1 i 1 tl
;
i L 5 t4� 7��!!!,t t 6-'� a �MMiYr I Q i, � ■i }� � j � --�ILJ -J,_-. � t �! I
�1
j M
_..+Y• -+A1 „� � - � .��'+ - i t - _�14�-�� 11i 14 �J i411y�i � 111
W: iAippW"` ,Y:� _ \. -, �M , 1 - I I �1j
I - ) ". 1
1i�•4�;,1 }y
r �'}' 1 - 1 I 1 1� /] ■i� lq d S1, 1 it G� L . - -" i t�tl d•'1 1�•!
$ i`
W
'*_ -�1YYY -.J`-' 1, Iter_. •-^ r ♦ ✓ uin,r
f ,y
-�'�, M- -� / a.�-•11-0��w_�i •q.q_.•\t»+N, Irr, a+r• 'Z. ,
t �1, rwlr
'c,tt'�a�t' ii �!iSw'T:+%��t+S T±y' Mc COMBS _NNU7SON ASSOCIATES, INC, C�)r
/legdow OAk yfh AddifioN
Outlot k
Council Minutes - 8/26/85
The basic subdivision would be similar to what was approved
two years ago in that a new Cedar Street- alignment would be
dedicated and the townhouse development would be included
also. Questions were raised regarding the townhouse development
and the sizes of the proposed garage units for each G"cture
consisting of a 10 1/2 by 21 1/2 foot garage. It was felt
that due to these units being individually owned, a 12 foot
width rather than a 10 1/2 foot width would be more appropriate
for this type of development.
Mr. Reher also noted that he tentatively has a commitment
for one of the outlets to be used as a day-care center.
A motion was made by Fran Pair, seconded by Bill Fair, and
unanimously carried to approve the preliminary plan for the
subdivision to be known as victoria Square Addition provided
the garage units for the townhouse block consist of 12 foot
garage vidths rather than 10 1/2 feet.
7. Consideration of Development Stage Approval of Planned Unit
Development - Ultra Homes, Inc.
Mr. Dickman Knutson, owner of the Meadow Oak development,
request that a development stage approval for outlets C, D,
& H. The outlets will be known as Meador Oak Estates 2nd
Addition, Meadow Oak Estates 3rd Addition, and Meadow Oak
4th Addition.
i
�.
It is noted that the proposed piers for the above outlets
meet all requirements except that the lots do not yet have
utilities installed such as sever, water and street surfacing.
It was recommended that before final approval is granted,
the developer must supply a written contract for the utility
construction or actually install the utilities before approval.
A motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously
carried to approve the development stage of the planned
unit development for outloto C. D, & H. to be known as Meadow
Oaks Estates 2nd Addition, 3rd Addition, and Meadow Oak 4th
Addition with final approval for the subdivisions contingent
upon developers supplying a contract indicating that utilities
are or are about to be installed.
S. Consideration of Development Stage Plan Approval and Final
Approval of a Planned Unit Development - Applicant, Ultra
Homes Inc.
Mr. Dickman Knutson, owner of the Meadow Oak development also
requested development stage and final stage approval of outlet
G which will be known as the Meadow Oak 3rd Addition.
It was noted by the staff that the planned 3rd addition does
moat all City requirements of the PUD except that herd surfacing
0 y of the street has not yet been constructed and recommended
that final approval be subject to the improvements being completed.
. -4
Council Minutes - 8/26/85
.� A motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to approve the development stage for outlet
G to be known as Meadow Oak 3rd Addition.
J A..
A motion was also made by Maxwell, seconded by Fran Fair,
and unanimously carried to approve the final plat for outlet
G as submitted, subject to the requirement that all improvements
be contracted for or installed prior to recording of the plat.
9. Consideration of Conditional Use Reguest to Allow a 24 Unit
Apartment Building in a R-3 Zone - Applicant, Wayne Wieber.
Mr. Wayne Wieber requested a conditional use permit to build
a 2 1/2 story conventionally financed 24 unit apartment building
on lot 6, block 1, Lauring Hillside. Mr. Wieber also requested
a variance to allow a 30 foot driveway access width and also
to use landscaping timbers as a barrier around some of the
parking lot area in lieu of concrete curbing. The plans indicate
that the building will be somewhat recessed into the surrounding
landscaped area and the timbers will be necessary under the
landscaping program and would provide an adequate insurmountable
barrier around portions of the parking lot.
Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional
use request and variances for the driveway width and landscape
timber usage in Lieu of curbing.
A motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to approve the conditional use request for the
24 unit apartment building and to approve the variance for
a 30 foot driveway width and the use of landscape timbers
as barriers in lieu of concrete curb.
10. Conaiderationof A4provinq an Assent to Land Regiatration -
Applicant, Michael Soltis.
Mr. Michael Soltio, who resides along Hart Boulevard, has
engaged an attorney to prepare the necessary documents for
the registration of title of his property. The City Administrator
informed the Council that apparently there are a number of
gapo in the title to hie property and that to legally provide
clear title in the future, Mr. Soltis is seeking to have the
property under torronce title. Since the City of Monticello
owns abutting land known as Platted River Street, the City
must approve of the torrance title application by Mr. Boltio
before the procedure can be initiated.
A motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously
carried to consent to allowing Mr. Soltis to apply for
torrence title on his property.
Planning Commisaion Minutes - 8/13/84
Mr. Reher indicated to Planning Commission Members,in his
presentation, all the aspects which meet the minimum requirements
as spelled out in the zoning ordinance under the preliminary
approval stage of a subdivision. Chairman Elect Richard Carlson
opened up for any comment from the public, Mr. Mel Wolters,
indicated he wanted to go on record as should Dundus Road
be extended to State Highway 29, that he not be assessed until
his property is sold, should he not be able to reach an agreement
with the developer, Mr. Mike Reher. Planning Commission member
Ed Schaffer questioned Zoning Administrator Anderson if everything
was done as per minimum requirements of the preliminary stage
of a subdivision request Zoning Administrator Anderson
countered that everything is in order. Mr. Reher did meet
the minimum requirements of the preliminary stage of a subdivision
request except that the actual writing of the information
onto the subdivision request of the preliminary Otago of the
subdivision request was put in by Mr. Reher himself and not
a professional registered engineer. However, Zoning Administrator
Anderson indicated that this would be done before the next
Council Meeting to be held on August 26, 1989. Motion by
Ed Schaffer, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve the preliminary
plan stage of subdivision to be knovn as Victoria Square Addition.
The motion carried unanimously with Jim Ridgeway absent.
7. Public Hearing - Reguest for a Final Stage Plan Approval of
a Planned Unit Development - Applicant, Ultra Homes, Inc.
Zoning Administrator Gary Anderson indicated to the Planning
Commission members that due to a conflict of interest the
owners from Ultra Homes, Inc. could not be present to propose
their request. He did, however, indicate to Planning Commission
members the background information which was supplied
to them in their agenda supplement. The Meadow
Oak Third Addition, also knout as Outlet G, to be platted is
ready for development stage approval subject to some written
agreements as to the final grating, as per grating plan for
this Outlot G and an agroement so to when the curb and gutter
and aophalt surface would be put in. The properties have
currently been assessed for storm sever, water and sever improvemante
(which are already in). However, the rough grating, the curb
and gutter, and the hard surfacing of the street, these improvements
are to be at the developers expenoo.
At the development stage, the Outlet H, which io the Meadow
Oak fourth addition; Outlot C, which is the Meadow Oak Eatatoo
second addition; Outlet D, which is the Mridow Oak Estates
third addition ars before you, the proposed platting of these
lots. The staff however, feels that the Outlets, C, D, G H
be approved at the development stage approval only and not
be passed on for proposed final approval. The rsaocning behind
this is that should the developer decide to sell off these
platted lots with no improvements into them whatsoever, the
individual property owner or owners could at some point in
time, in the near future, come into the City to request improvements
be put in to service their vacant lot properties.
-3-
i_
Planning Commission Minutes - 8/13/85
At that time, should the City approve putting in the public
utilities, we would have to bond for them. With the last
two additions that have come into the City, all the public
Improvements for these subdivisions, and the cost for these
have been borne by the developer himself in its entirety.
Chairman Elect Richard Carlson opened the meeting up for any
Input from the public. There being no input from the public,
he read aloud a letter submitted from consulting planner John
Uban of Dahlgren, Shardlow, Uban and Associates. Having heard
the above information, a motion was made by Joyce Dowling,
seconded by Richard Martie to:
1. Approve the development stage of a Planned Unit Development
for Outlet G to be known as the Meadow Oak Third Addition.
2. Contingent upon the written agreements being approved by the City
of Monticello, they would also recommend approval of the
final stage of a Planned Unit Development for Outlot G
to be known as the Meadow Oak Third Addition.
3. That they also approve the development stage of Outlot C,
Meadow Oak Estates Second Addition; Outlet D to be known
as the Meadow Oak Estates Third Addition; and Outlot H
to be known as the Meadow Oak Fourth Addition.
The motions carried unanimously with Jim Ridgeway absent.
Additional Information Itsma
1. Motion by Ed Schaffer, it is the general conaenoue of
the Planning Commission members present, except Jim Ridgeway,
that the next tentative meeting of the Monticello Planning
Commission be held on September 10, 1985, at 7:30 P.M.
2. A request for a special meeting was proposed by Mr. Gary
Meibor, who was representing his brother Wayne weiber. Mr.
Neiber-s request is for a Conditional Use Request to allow
a 26 unit apartment building to be built in an R-3 Zone.
There is also a request submitted from Mr. Richard Martin,
on behalf of Rick and Jan Iona, for a Variance Request
to allow a house with an attached garage to be built within
the side setback requirement. Taking the above two roquoota
Into consideration, it waa the general conoonauo of the
Planning Commission members in attendance, except Jim
Ridgeway who wan absent, to set a special Monticello Planning
Commission Meeting for Auguat 26, 1985, at 6:30 P.M.
3. Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Richard Martin, to
adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:02 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Zoning Administrator
-a-
3)
�1
L
— — _ • � � � gYr�0.MM wrap/ MwYv tl a yrYl willw A
' OM N.•sfL M M �• Y Ytt
Mba L fm r• ••t1• o d nwv oYa V.w
p ,�• • t !� , M Y.Y. •v w1 iM. u U..M1 �Y.� .w u
;;I r t�ylw � P �e r •a. w IY rlll�
�+ �•.wrl W itn �• ••... •1•r•r swnl
t�
'; I •.a.• v rrw mr•
1-
. I, `.1 r 1r•Y•• Irlr• .• .rw4•.. •.�Y. r u•1.
��11' r�i Mwr�IrN a•� •
' V
f � �YrWwe•1�
I 1 �A•P �'
91
5 � '•�• • -a , • �L:,: •'��' "1• �� a `,'� { e 6ti,',i T '', a' I P�'
06
1-q
• ..t»•M'1•'
�j' •r•Y'II• tl 4
••: �• YtCOYE6-NNUTBON Ag80CIATE B. INC. ,
n •nt t.. ue .... I. •..
O
LN
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/14/87
4. A request for open discussion on a proposed concept plan for unplatted
property. Applicant, Jim Boyle. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Lynn Clark, representing Mr. Jim Boyle, will be present at the Tuesday
night Planning Commission meeting to discuss the possibility of some
proposed concepts of industrial lot subdivision of unplatted heavy
industrial land. The intent of her request for discussion with Planning
Commission members is to get input and some possible ideas of what
they would look favorable to subdividing existing unplatted land
into platted industrial lots and blocks. The information being sent
along with this supplement is very limited. She has more in-depth
information which will be presented at the meeting in the form of
visual aide to explain some of her proposed concepts for the development
of this unplatted industrial land. The information enclosed will
be just the area they are proposing to start with their concept plan
for and also just showing a partial area in which lots and blocks
could be created in this unplatted property.
S. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Depending on the information that is presented and how it reaches
your acceptability, you may want to consider having her go on
with further developing of her concept plan into a preliminary
plat.
Z. Deny the concept of her initial concept plan for the proposed
development of the industrial unplatted land.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Planning Commission discuss in a short length of
time with Lynn Clark some of the possibilities for development of
this unplatted industrial land into lots and blocks. Staff fully
rocognizea that this is preliminary at best, a concept stage of a
proposed subdivision plat. Staff urges any indications you may give
to Lynn Clark be of the nature that everything discussed and to be
implomonted into a preliminary plat will only be looked at in its
entirety, with the entirety meaning everything Is in on time and
recognized by the City staff, consulting engineer, and consulting
planner, and that it is ready to go on to Planning Commission for
a public hearing.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed concept plant Copy of the proposed
lots and blocks of the unplatted industrial land.
-3-
INTERSTATE 84
—1Yrlb4c tIT oevocirMlsNT_GD3E�tiMltYs--
"— lro,WNINb re6rORMANLE "ANVAZP41
1lt"1 0, LO 10fDALUd(r6 0iG• • .
—MMtIN 10 (/VO
71'6011 f0i0►TK
CHELSEA ROAD
DEVELOPMENT
PREPARED FOR JS DEVELOPMENT
.o�a,aroou
o�.asc .w.men '
Council Minutes - 3/23/87
7. Consideration of Grantinq a Conditional Use for the Operation of
a Convenience Store and the Dispensing of Motor Fuels Incidental
to that Convenience Store. Applicant, Thomas Holthaus.
On January 13, the Planning Commission recommended that the City
Council grant approval to the issuance of a conditional use permit
for the purpose of dispensing automotive fuel incidental to a principal
use, namely, a convenience store at the former Charlie's west Supper
Club on County Road 75. Additional conditions that were attached
by the Planning Ccmaission included 1) a detailed landscaping/screening
plan would be required prior to a building permit being issued;
2) a full hard surfaced parking lot with proper curb and gutter and
sidewalks would be required; 3) prior to granting a certificate of
occupancy, money would be required in escrow to guarantee the full
completion of any landscaping, screening, and parking not yet completed;
6) the hours of operation would not exceed 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily;
5) only four fuel dispensing pumps would be allowed; 6) the dispensing
of motor fuels would not be allowed for automobiles and trucks over
one ton.
The City Council on January 26, 1987, was presented with a petition
calling for an environmental aaeassment worksheet from the neighboring
residents on this project. The City Council at that meeting officially
denied the petition stating that an EAW would not be required. In
order to allow for the filing in Diatrict Court of any appeals on
the Council's decision not to require an EAW, the public hearing
was continued until March 23, 1987. Administrator Eidem noted to
the Council that the Court Administrator in Buffalo indicated that
no appeal had been filed and thus the City Council was able to consider
the conditional use request.
In reviewing the proposed development plan for the convenience store
and gas station, the Wright County Highway Engineer, Wayne tingalson,
noted that problems existed with the driveway entrances off of County
Road 75 into the development so proposed. The County Highway Department's
main concern wao that the propoaad weoterly driveway would be located
only 75 feat from the entrance of the existing Otte- Creek Road and
would cause traffic problemo. In addition, the County Engineer indicated
0
N
Council Minutes — 3/23/87
that a right turn lane on County Road 75 would be required into this
development, as it would generate more than 60 vehicles per day.
Administrator Eidem noted that Otter Creek Road currently connects
to County Road 75 at an angle, and the road could be realigned to
e 90 degree angle which would provide 90 feet between Otter Creek
Road and the entrance into the convenience store. This footage would
be acceptable by the County, but the proposed realignment of Otter
Crack Road would cost approximately 37,000, which the County would
not help pay for. Although the developer, Tom Holthaus, did not
feel the realignment of Otter Creek Road should be their responsibility,
they did indicate a willingness to share in the realignment cost
of $7,000 in an effort to avoid redeveloping their site plan. It
was estimated by the City Engineer that the establishment of a right
turn lane would coat approximately 32,000, which should be entirely
borne by the developers, as it is an access to their property.
As a result of the above discussion, motion was made by Bill Bair,
seconded by Fran Pair, and unanimously carried to approve the issuance
of a conditional use permit for the dispensing of motor fuels provided
the six conditions recommended by the Planning Commission were adhered
` to and that the developers pay 50 percent of the realignment of Otter
Croak Road coot and all of the right turn lane cost into the development.
The total estimated cost to the developer would be $5,500, and their
share would be paid to the City with terms to be negotiated with
City staff.
0