Planning Commission Minutes 06-19-1979
""
.
.
.
..
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
June 19, 1979 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Ed Schaffer, Dick Martie, Dave Bauer
Members Absent: Fred Topel
1. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Dick Martie,
unanimously carried to approve
meeting held May 15, 1979.
seconded by Ed schaffer, and
the minutes of the regular
Motion was made by Dave Bauer,
unanimously carried to approve
June 16, 1979.
seconded by Ed Schaffer, and
the special meeting of
2.
Consideration of Variance Request - James Refrigeration.
James Refrigeration Co., developer of the Tom Thumb Superette, requested
a variance to install a special type of pre-formed curbing around
the parking area of the store at the Intersection of Oakwood Drive
and Highway 25.
A representative from the Concrete Curbing Company, along with
a representative of James Refrigeration Company explained that the
reason for the request was based upon price and also for speed of
installation. The Curbstone representative also asked that the
planning commission consider a blanket type variance for his
products since he has had additional requests from other firms
to install the same type of curb in Monticello.
Motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Dave Bauer, and unanimously
carried to recommend that approval be given to this preformed curbing
for the Tom Thumb Store provided it is continuous around the
perimeter of the parking lot.
Additionally the James Refrigeration Co. representative informed
the planning commission that an estimate from Fran Fair for the
landscaping for the Tom Thumb Store was estimated at $896.00.
Although the ordinances require a $1,500.00 landscaping minimum,
a motion was made by Bauer, seconded by Schaffer, and unanimously
carried to recommend that the $900.00 additional landscaping along
with the existing cedar trees on the lot would meet the $1,500.00
requirement per the ordinance. It was noted that the landscaping
plat should be revised to show that the existing cedar trees are
part of the plan.
.
.
.
3.
Consideration of a Variance Request - Best-In-Web.
The Best-In-Web Company located in the Oakwood Industrial Park,
also requested a variance to install the same type of special
pre-formed curbing around their parking lot that was referred to
in item 2.
Motion was made by Schaffer, seconded by Bauer , and unanimously
carried to approve of the pre-formed curbing for Best-In-Web.
4. Consideration of a Variance Request - Mike Slagter.
Mr. Mike Slagter requested a variance to build an attached
garage to his home at 115 Marvin Elwood Road to within 6'
of his sideyard property line. Ordinances require a 10' setback
but the garage as proposed would in one corner, be within 6' of
the neighbor's property line.
A letter was presented by Mr. Slagter indicating the abutting
property owner had no objection to the garage being within
6' of his property line.
Motion was made by Bauer, seconded by Martie, and unanimously
carried to approve the variance of 4' for Mr. Slagter's garage.
5.
Consideration of Variance Request - Vance Florell.
Vances's Service Center in the 1-94 Tri-Plaza requested a variance
to extend their pylon sign 10'0" higher than it is.
Current ordinances allow the pylon sign to be 32' high plus the
difference between the business property elevation and the
height of the road abutting it. In this case, the Standard
Station sign is approximately 42' high since the elevation of
highway 25 is 10' higher than the present location of the sign.
The reason for the additional 10' request was that cars traveling
to the west on Interstate 94 are unable to see the sign because of
the trees blocking it's view and also cars traveling east from St.
Cloud are unable to see the sign because of obstructions by other
pylon signs from neighboring business.
Motion was made by Schaffer, seconded by Martie, and unanimously
carried to table this request until the next meeting to allow the
planning commission members the opportunity to view the sign from
the freeway.
6.
Consideration of Variance Request from Hard Surface parking
Requirements - MelWolters.
Mr. Mel Wolters, owner of the Dairy Queen Store requested a
variance from the hard surface parking requirements for the
neighboring lots next to his Dairy Queen Operation. Mr.
Wolters indicated that he would like to build a new business on
on Lots 9 & 10 in Block 5 in the near future, but until that time
would like to use the lots for additional overflow parking for his
Dairy Queen Store operation. It was indicated by Mr. wolters that
-2-
..
.
the reason for not wanting to black top the parking would be that
once a new building was built he would have to tear up the expensive
hard surface to build the new building.
Abutting property owner Holiday stations tore sent a letter to
the planning commission voicing the opposition to the parking lot
being hard surfaced.
Motion was made by Bauer, seconded by Schaffer, and unanimously
carried to recommend approval of a variance from the hard surface
requirements for Lots 9 & 10, Block 5, for up to one year at which
time it would have to be renewed.
The consensus of the planning commission members was that this area
had just been recently developed and has been unpaved for years
and felt that a one year variance would appear not to be a hardship
on any other business.
7. Continuation of public Hearing on the James Maus Meadows Subdivision.
Mr. Jim MauS re-submitted his preliminary plat plan for his
"The Meadows" subdivision, which was proposed for development in
two stages over the next several years.
phase I of this subdivision development would propose to develop
only the lots abutting prairie Road.
.
As part of the Phase I development, the city engineer recommended
that a cul-de-sac named Clover Circle be developed as a rural type
street and that the ditches be continued from around Clover Circle
in a ditch formed between Lots 5 & 6, Block 1, and continue to the
culvert between Lots 15 & 16, Block 1, where the water would then
drain under the railroad tracks and drain away. It was felt by the
city engineer that if this drainage plan was implemented that the
phase I development of the lots along prairie Road would not require
additional storm sewer facilities to handle the run-off. It was noted
that if the balance of the plat is ever developed, the storm sewer
issue will have to be resolved at that time.
Attorney Jim Metcalf representing Jim Maus requested that the planning
commission approve the entire plat as presented with only the lots
fronting on Prairie Road being allowed to build on in the first Phase.
Motion was made by Bauer, seconded by Schaffer, and unanimously
carried to approve the revised the preliminary plat indicating
a two Phase development of the plat contingent upon the drainage
plan being implemented by the city engineer.
.
8. Discussion on OUtdoor Advertising Signs.. by Blocher Advertising Co.
Mr. Ray Galarneault, of Blocher Advertising Co., requested previously
to be on the planning commission agenda to discussion with the
planning commission the possibility of changing the present city
ordinances which prohibit billboard advertising in Monticello.
-3-
~'
.
.
.
"
The primary reason for the discussion was that Blocher Advertising
Co. would like to put a billboard on Mr. Maurice Hoglund's property
along Interstate 94 and requested that the Planning Commission
consider either allowing this type of sign as a variance or possibly
rewritting the city ordinances to allow billboard signs.
Although Mr. Galarneault did not attend the meeting to discuss his
views for the request, the Planning Commission consensus with that
the ordinance should remain as is, thereby, not allowing any future
billboard sign.
Motion was made by Schaffer, seconded by Martie, and unanimously
carried to deny any variance request to Blocher Advertising Co.
or to consider amending the current ordinances to allow such a
use.
9. Consideration of Proposed Ordinance Amendment to Allow a Combination
of Residential and Commercial Uses in B-3 and B-4 Districts.
At the previous Planning commission meeting held May 15, John uban
of Howard Dahlgren Associates, consulting planner, was asked to
review and draft a proposed ordinance amendment to allow for
buildings in B-3 or B-4 zoning districts to contain residential
uses along with commercial uses.
A proposed ordinance amendment was written by Mr. Uban and presented
to the Planning commission for review.
After discussion by the Planning Commission members, it was the
consensus of the members that perhaps an ordinance amendment would
not be appropriate as they would like to be able to review each
request on a separate basis. Therefore, a motion was made by
Bauer, seconded by Martie and unanimously carried to not recommend
approval of an ordinance amendment to allow a combination residential
and commercial use as a conditional use in these zoning districts.
Motion by Schaffer, seconded by Martie and unanimously carried to
adjourn.
RW/ja