Planning Commission Minutes 04-15-1975
.
.
.
e
e
Plannin~ Commission Meetin~
April 15, 1975 - 7:30 P.M.
Members present: Larry Muehlbauer, Gordon Steinert, Ron White,
Howard Gillham, Fred Topel, J. W. Miller.
Absent: Chuck Stumpf, Willa1'd Anderson.
Minutes of March 19, 1975 approved.
1. Presentation by Rov Lauring on his property north and south of free-
way.
Mr. La.uring presented sketches of planned roads in both areas. On
basis of recommendation from City Planner the planning commission
requested Mr. Lauring present a preliminary plat plan on each area
for the connnission and planner review, before any action could be
taken by the com mission.
2. Dick Holker. representin~ son Tom. asked for approval of plat
20182.
Since no plat available no decision was made.
Dick Holker. representing son Tom. inquired as to buildinll: ~rmit
for property alon~ East River Road. Manhattan Addition Lot J
owned by Leo Kirscht.
No approval could be given since lot was in flood plain zone and
according to federal flood insurance requirements, city could not
issue building permit in this area.
J.
4. Presentation by Robert Roblin on Charles L. Ritze Preliminary Plat.
Motion to approve plat made by Gillham, seconded by Steinert and unan-
imously carried with stipulation that 66 foot area be vacated for street
on Northwest portion of property as indicated on plat.
5. Discussion of Buildinj; Permit application by Texaco. Inc.
Motion by Topel, seconded by Gillham to deny request until a more definite
plan was developed for the property and also in light of our overall comp-
rehensive plan requiring a moratorium on land use development, motion
carried unanimously.
6. Discussion on Buildin~ Permit for Foster Office Building.
City building inspector to review with state bUilding inspector fire
code regulations.
.
.
.'
... 1,"
Planning Commission - April 15, 1975 - continued.
Page 2.
7. Discussion of purchase of public works maintenance site.
City Planner felt the location was a good choice as it will improve
the appearance of the site and the siting of two utilities functions
(NSP and Public Works) side by side represented a good grouping of
facilities. City Council had taken action to purchase property at their
April 14 meeting.
8. Discussion of municipal liquor store site.
Mention was made of the Fullerton Lumber Yard site and Howard Dahlgren
felt this was an excellent location and his preference of this site over
two other locations on the southwest and northeast side of intersection
of 175 and #25. This location was recommended bY' the liquor commissionn
as a possible site at their April 15, 1975 meeting at 5 P.M.
9. Commission informed of City Council's Decision to retain
Howard Dahlgren.
Howard Dahlgren had retired recently from Midwest Planning and Re-
search and given the option the city council decided to retain his
services. Consensus of nlanning commission was that a good choice had
been made.
10. Consideration of recommendations from wri~ht Soil and Water
Conservation District on plats.
Tabled to next meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 10:40 P.M.
a~. tJd-.
Acting ity Administrator
GW/mjq
/.
""."".
.
PLANNING REPORTS
City of Monticell 0
Siting of City Public Works
Maintenance Facility
Gus Hammer, Sabeenor Hammerstrom
and Edward Lane
Vacation of Street
Charles L. Ritz
Approval of Preliminary Plot
.
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
PRE PARED BY:
HOWARD DAHLGREN
April 15, 1975
.
APPLI CANT:
City of Monticello
,
,
ACTION:
Siting of City Public
Works Maintenance
. Facility
~.:',....__' _ !.....J ___..1'_" - -----".! '- ~~_
"
~
Vb efXJ I 1
.
"
--,
(
'S~
'" ,
'Z~,
' "
\\~
,~
~
~~
""",,,
;' ;.' ~",.'
. ~" ___jL..:..:..
.
.."\ ..
,I' .
(pO)
,...f's
APPLICANT:
City of Monticello
.-
. CJ r (ep{-
f~ ,u:; C1J
/). 1- .~
/' q ~
()~
April 15, 1975
.
FILE NO.
ACTION:
Siting of City Public Works Maintenance Facility
LOCATION:
North of County Rood 39 at the Burl ington Tracks
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. As you all know, the City has passed a bond issue for the construction of a
Publ ic Works Maintenance Building and site this past week. Various sites
for the faci I i ty have been under considerati on by the Counci I, staff and
others in liaison with the Consultant Engineers and Planners.
2. We have recently reviewed a potential site as shown on the sketch at the left.
This site is approximately 3 acres immediately east of the NSP utility building.
The site has an existing pole type structure suitable for use as part of the facility
needed for the City for the storage of equipment and material.
.
3.
The easterly portion of the land is low and has been used as a land fill
operation which use could be advantageously used by the City. An additional
structure of appropriate size could be constructed on the site to augment the
foci I ity offered in the exisHng building.
4. The site currently represents a problem in the sense that it does not look good
in an area that functi ons as a gateway to the residential area to the west. The
control of this rather unusual piece of property by the City offers a means of
improving the appearance of the site at a location that will be extremely
efficient for siting of maintenance equipment and utilities storage needs.
5. The siting of i-he two u}ilities functions (NSP and Public Works) side by side
suggests (1 f;ood [Jwuping of Facilities.
6. The site planning ond ultimate development of the land by the City can be
done in a manner to improve the oe:;thetic qual ity of the area. The new structure
proposed to b,} built by the City can be sited in a manner to contribute toward
the develop:,k~ill of an enclosed court yard. Such a yard can 6e developed over
a pori od or tirne wi 1'1, on appropriate screened fence and landscaping to provide
the necessary arca for outdoor storage of some public utilities equipment and
and supplies (tonks, ;,alt, plo\'/5, culverts ond the like).
.
7.
\ ~ I ! ;'~ . \II . " 1. 1 . . ... f"
v.e sugS2sr rh~ '-_Ity ~;ive vcry sel"lCUS conSlonO!'Ion to hle ClcquIsltlOn 0 tnls
si;-e Cl3 em C:C'C)I (\t)iirde locutioil rOi' its nevI PuSlic Works Facility.
" ,
~ ( . <t - r
" . .
-. '....,:."
\
.
'\.
~-----------
-- ---- --- ~
--- --..... --
..... ---. ~...''''
\
~opo~o TO
-STCZ eel
t'3e I/ACATep
,<
" iY~-~~"
;/''' .
,~.~ "..
. /' ----_.~--_.
- - - -. ,/. - - - - ",
-- // - -
.. /
'/ ~
1','<1, .Ie!?., 1"1 ~
\S ,..... '"'
'.~
NO.
-....---r-------
"'-,- . (-. l-c~. II . . /. ,J.---- --_
,It.".., .~/..... ~
~ \1<" I '.'~;'r./.
: <> I , '. 1.,. ,.
) ~>._<. .
. I ~, _. . ", .
r:; ",," , I:{ .
~,' ",.,.~ -- -;~l ., -f--
I " I" _ I" I
.~ " -. I ~,.~::::" ~ "
,/ "'7/ ~<~,.~ If'l\'
'I \ \j ~.~--- C H' ,_, ,
7 ' ----
:. : " ....
.! j ;
---......._-~
APPLI CAN T:
" Sabeenor
Gus Hommel I ~ Edward Lane
tr-om <..'<.
H.. n-HT'>i~rS
.1.....41,
"
ACTION:
. f Street
Vacohon 0
..1
1
I (I? aOO
\ \
. \
'",
'co
"
Ap:'il 15, 1)75
.
FILE NO.
APPLlCAN T:
Gus Hammer, Sabeenor Hammerstrom & Edward Lane
ACTION:
Vacation of Street
LOCATION:
Chestnut Street between Broadway and 3rd Street
(See Sketch)
PLANNI NG CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The street in question is, as you know and as seen in the sketch at the left,
one block west of Elm Street, which street is a major north-south street
extending from Front Street southerly through the City to the interstate
highway.
2.
If we were plotting this area of the City now for residential development,
we would not recommend the use of 300 foot square blocks. This, of course,
was a common practice in post eras and most Minnesota original townsites
were platted with this concept. The result is one of too much area in streets
(for the City to maintain) and too many "cross streets" (those running perpendicular
to "frontage streets" - streets on which residences front or face). In new
platting concepts, such streets ("cross streets" such as Chestnut) frequently
ore located from 600 feet to 1,300 feet aport. This allows more area for actual
residential use, cuts down on the number of traffic intersections, and devotes
for I ess area ta aspho It.
.
3. You will note that "Chestnut" extended to the south runs diagonally into the
school grounds, and then to the tracks. It would serve no purpose and be a
duplication of the railroad crossing on Elm Street.
4. The strco;;, ii vClcarc:'.:, would ,everl- Lalf to.he lots on the west and the east.
This would produce bC'"tter lot and siting conditions for all the lots affected,
and pcrticularly the triangular lot (Lot 5) contiguous to the street on the west
. f
S we.
.
"t\ ~...",:,.".
" / .
) ;' ~ ......
I "-
....- .'"
APPLICANT:
16 f>.vl:(. ',5"
Charles L. Ritz
\
---r-
ACTION:
Approva I
Plat
of Prel iminary
.'
1
'"
;
"
\
COUNT!Y
/
./
.--'
(
,/
,
.
,
I
I
I
,
\ I{::: &;0
K
.<
" I'~""""""'"
~ J
"
i
.....-
e: t ., r
:.-~,- t ,f .. t"
L c; t
Ol
Ol '\\:>
''':
~ /' ~,~>.
......, \S' ....~"....>,
~,~ />
", ,.0
~.\ ^
g
..
;:
1
~
..i
./
.f
1
~ .
~
~
-~,1--.....,
;j-~
..
t
~
!
~
6.... .\
~\- .......
.D.
./"I'J-:.,............
I '='j :~c:-
I
z ;
A
~~ ',,'<.::;:
I _. ,. ~
i :.
.. r~~r-
-) .. l
,. \ .
i !
! {""i
!
'-1
r--..............---;
-~--
----=- - _. -------...........,..,.
-..=;;----:--- ~ _..i..-=~~:'!:~;--'~-=-T--:--====-:=--'~;";'( .
"=-- "'~ . 1
.1.
April 15, 1975
..--.....,
FiLE NO.
APPLICANT:
Charles L. Ritz
ACTION:
Approval of Preliminary Plat
LOCATION:
North of Highway 75, and generally west of the
Cemetery (see sketch of area enclosed by dashed line)
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. This plat was submitted to the Planning Commission at the last meeting at
which time it WClS referred to the Consultants for consideration. The plat
consists of 51 lots varying in frontage from 60 feet to the largest single lot
with 280 feet. The plat as submitted features 0 one acre lot encompassing
the old homestead overlooking a wooded slope to the north near the middle
of the plat.
2.
We suggest first of all that the platting of a single lot at 1 acre to accom-
modate the current lot size requirement without sewer could be a mistake
in view of the inconvenience of the sewer construction in the area. In the
event of an existing private system serving a single home in an area to be
platted, there is little risk of a serious pollution problem if sewer services
are contemplated in a short space of time.
,"-.
3. In general, the lots me PI"oposed at 100 foot frontages with depth of 135
feet to 180 feet. Thus1 the minimums required (with sewer) are generally
considerabl y exceeded.
4. Another area of concern with respect to the plat is the very dangerous
intersection ot the west end of the plat. The road noted as "public road" on
the plat intersects at q less than 30 degree acute angle with Highway 75
proceeding :ol'd:erly ond easterly from the intersection. We suggest that the
easterly part of the intersection design be corrected with this plot by bringing
the "public road" into Highway 75 at a right (900) angle. This would olso
improve the site condition for the lots in Hillcrest Addition just north of
the intersection.
s.
\Ve hove met v/ith the I'ksrs. t/\eyer and Rohlin to discuss these and other
suggcsti ons for considel'(lti on in our offi ce ond have sent them a sketch overlay
rl8ting parenti.:-: I Jesig!l changes. These suggesti ons are offered as constructive
id2GS in the spir'it of co:-)perotion in the inter,-~5ts of using I'he land efficiently
ond c:chievi:lg the best 1 o~s thut the site is copable of producing.
.~.
6. Mssrs Meyer and Rohlin are capable good people. They are going to prepare
revisions based on our mutual exchange of ideas. The revised plat may be
ready for the April 151h meeting of the Planning Commission. The final text
Of the quality of the plat lies with the review of the Planning Commission and
City Council.