Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 05-12-1981AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING r -OMISSION Tuesday, May 12, 1981 - 7:30 P. M. Chairman: Jim Ridgeway Members: John Bondtrus, Bill Burke, Dick Martie, Ed Schaffer, Loren Klein. 1.-A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of April 14, 1981. 1. Public Hearing - Conditional Use - Ralph Munsterteiger 2. Public Hearing - Conditional Use b Rezoning - Marvin George Builders. 3. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendments - Stricter Fire Standards. 4. Public Hearing - Rezoning - Deloris Guille. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Variance - Blocker Outdnor / Advertising. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Variance - City of Monticello. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Simple Subdivision Request - / John Sandberg. Unfinished Business - New Business - Meeting Reminder - The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission will be Tuesday, June 9, 1981. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 14, 1981 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Bill Burke, Dick Martie, Ed Schaffer, Loren Klein. Members Absent: John Bondhus. 1-A. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 10, 1981 (There was no regular meeting held in March of 1981). A motion was made by Bill Burke, seconded by Dick Martie and unanimously carried to approve the Minutes of the February 10, 1981 meeting, as presented. 1. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit Request for Charles Ritze. Phil Ritze, representing his father Charles Ritzu, was present at the meet- ing and explained his proposal for removal of soil from property they own which is part of the northwest k of the southwest : of Section 3, Township 121w, Range 25N, which lies south of County Road 75, across from the exiatinT Ritze Manor. A conditional use permit is required whenever the extraction of sand, gravel, or other material from the land in the amount of 400 cubic yards or more, and the removal thereof is done. Monticello Ordinances define this as "mining". Mining shall be permitted only upon the issuance of a conditional use permit within all zoning districts in the City. This item was brought before the I'lanning Commission as defined as mining, since normally it takes place under a provision as part of the subdivision approval when grading is completed to bring the property to tho proposed grades. However, in this case, the subdivision is not being proposed as such, only the grading work which would be necessary to bring Lite property to the desired grade. Thus, a mining permit, ouch as defined by Monticello Ordinances, was necessary. It would be Mr. Ritze'n intent, that the fill which would be removed from the mining site would lie transferred to the low area in Ritze Manor, to be used for fill to bring the lots up to the required grade. Both of the areas in question, in this coat,, are zoned as R-1. Adjacent to the property on which Charles Ritze is proposing to remove soil for fill in another location, is a high area which Mr. Ritze dedicated to the City for park area. However. in removing the soil from hie own pro- perty adjacent to the, area dedicated for park, it would leave a high area in the parkland. Mr. Ritts has agreed that he would enter into an agrc-mcnt with the City to remove the Soil from the high arca in the park also, thus making the appearance of the arra of the park and of the arra where the soil would be removed, more compatible in appearance upon completion. Planning Commission Minutes - 4/14/81 There was a motion by Ed Schaffer, and seconded by Bill Burke, to recommend approval for this mining operation, contingent upon it not t aking longer than ninety (90) days, and that Mr. Ritze consider entering an agreement with the City for removal of the high area in the land which was dedicated for a park, with all voting in favor. 2. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit P-eauest - Vance Florell. Vance Florell, owner o f the Freeway Standard Station, made an application for a conditional use to allow open and/or outdoor Storage and/or sales on the parcel of the 1-94 Tri -Plaza where the Freeway Standard Station is now located. This property is zoned B-3. Specifically, Mr. Florell's request was for a proposed U -Maul Rental business. Two items of concern in this matter were: A. Outside services, sales and equipment rental connected with the princi- pal use is limited to 302 of the gross floor area of the principal use. (Thio percentage may be increased as a condition of the conditional use). B. That the use does not take up parking space as required for conformity to thin ordinance. Due to the nature of Mr. Florell's proposed rental business, it was necesnary as a condition of thio conditional use to request the increase of the 302 of the gross floor arca of the principal use to a larger fir_ure. Muwever, in increasing the area to larger than 302, it is necessary eo consider not taking up parking apace -an i o required for the conformity to the Urdinanee. Mr. Florell felt that even though he provides the required parking spaces in conformance to what: Monticello ordinance requires, that ehere in not a need for all of the parking spaces required, and that Own- is adequate room for all of hio customer parking, etc., plus enough additional room to allow him to provide U-Itaul Rental from that property. A motion wan made by Dick Mortic and oeconded by Bill Burke to allow the U -Maul buoinesa to be opened, contingent upon it not exceeding 30% of the groan floor area of the principal use, and eontingi-n t upon the second pylon uign, which advertioed U -haul rentaln, tieing removed and incorporated ao part of tho now -existing pylon oign. All voted in favor. - 2 - Planning Commission Minutes - 4/14/81 3. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Rezoning Request by Mel Wolters in the Meadows Subdivision Plat. Mel Wolters, owner of The Meadows, was present and proposed changing the zoning of the Meadows from R-1 to R-2, for Lots 1-11, Block 2, Late 1-9, Block 3, and Lots 1-15 and Lot 24, Block 4, and Lots 1 6 2 of Block 5. Mr. Wolters made his proposal, based on a desire to locate zero lot line duplexes on various lots throughout The Meadows subdivision, although he indicated that it would be his intention to most likely not make more than 50% of the lots with duplexes upon them. Some discussion followed as to whether or not Mr. Wolters could be held to his intention of only building duplexes on 50% of the lots if the entire parcel were rezoned to R-2, and consequently, Dick Martie made a motion, seconded by Bill Burke to recommend the change from R -I to R-2 only on Lots 1-11 of Block 2 and 1-9 of Block 3. When Mr. Wolters indicated lie would be favorable to accepting that recommendation, all voted in favor. 4. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit Request (He - Hearing) for Medical Facilities Company. On September 22, 1980, a public hearing on the rezoning and conditional use for a proposed medical clinic east of the Monticallo-Big Lake Community Hospital was held. Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital had requested rezoning of Lots 1 A 13, and the West 33' of Lot 2, Block 22, Lower Monti- cello, and the coat half of Oak Street lying between Block 22 and 23, Lower Monticello, from R -I to R -B. in addition to tLeir rezoning request, the Hospital had also made an application for a conditional use for a proposed medical clinic. At that meeting, it had been noted that previously, the City of Munticello had received correspondence from people living in the area of Ellison Park, expressing; concern with the possible extension of River Street to accommodate a parking lot at the rear of the proposed medical clinic. At that time, the rezoning request and conditional use for the clinic did not propose to have River Street extended to meet the parking lot, but rather it was designed to have the parking lot traffic enter and exit onto [tart Blvd. At that time, the developer of the Clinic indicated that, if fur some reason, Hart Boulevard could not be used exclusively as the cntrancc and exit point to the parking lot, that they may approach the City for the possible extension of River Street to the rear of the parking lot. Barb Schwientak, Executive Director of the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital, was present and indicated it in now the developers intention to extend River Street to allow access to the parking lot, thus the rehearing was necessary. - 3 - Planning Commission Minutes - 4/14/81 Mrs. Irvin Kollin, a resident of the area, presented a letter to the Planning 1 Commission, and outlined some of her concerns. They were as follows: A. A potential of increased traffic flow which will increase the traffic danger to the children. B. A potential of further increased traffic if the parking lot is used by Hospital customers rather than just employees as originally proposed. C. A potential of lowering the asset value of their property as they now have a quiet, low -traffic area and this could possibly change. D. It could provide an idea, new remote area for additional problems to occur at night, including drug useage. E. It could create a great location for drag racing. Further, a petition was presented by several of the neighbors in the. area, which basically outlined the same concerns as the letter presented by Mrs. Kallin. Fred Topel objected if access were going to be used to bring the arnbulance into the. Hospital on River Street. Bud Jensen objected to increased traffic in the area. Fred Topol was concerned as to who would pay the cost of , the assessments for the extension of River Street (this cost would be borne by the abutting property owners, who in this case, is entirely the Hospital District). (swell Severson questionned whether or not a years delay could be instituted before opening up River Street to ace if it was really necessary. Barb Schwientelt pointed out that not passing on this issue would jmopardite the proposed clinic. A motion was made by Ed Schaffer and seconded by Dick Martie to recommend opening River Street with better police protection in that area to be provided. All vote' in favor. S. New Business Jim Sorenson, a representative of Blocher Outdoor Advertioing Company, was present to make a request that in l ight of the fact they would be removing two of their outdoor advertising signs in Thomao Park, that they would I ike to request a variance to erect a new pylun sign uver In Lauringllilloide Terrace. Mr. Sort -noon was Instructed by the Chairman to mnke a formal variance application in the tuning adminiu- trator'n office and pay the required fee, and that it' this was: dont, In adequnto time, that he could be placed on the next Planning, Curtmin- aion agenda on May 12, 1981. Moot rg Adjourned. SL Lord Kloin, Zoning Adminiotrator Planning Commission 5/12/81 AGENDA SUPPLEMENT V 1. Public Hearing - Conditional Use - Linn Street Manor. Ralph Munsterteiger, is proposing a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on that part of the Nw� of the SWS of Section 11, Township 121, Range 25, which lies at the approximate intersection of Linn and West 7th Streets, containing approximately 4.74 acres. This being the general concept stage, it serves as the basis for the public hearings so that the proposal may be publicly considered at an early stage before the developer incurs substantial expense in the preparation of plans, surveys and other data. At this time the general concept stage, the developer has filed a preliminary development stage plan, a copy of which is enclosed, which shows basically what he intends to do with the property if the PUD is approved as a conditional use. At a later date, he would then come back at the development stage of the PUD with his final proposed plan. Between this general concept plan hearing, being held now, and the next hearing, which will be the development stage plan, it will be neceaaary for the developer to be involved with the city planner, city engineer and the city staff to discuss such things as water main sizing, the location of a proposed interceptor sewer which could possibly cross a portion of the property, the relation- ship of this PUD to a proposed collector road that is an extension of Weat 7th St., which would ultimately connect with Country Club road, atorm oewera and other items which may be pertinent to the development of thio PUD. Baaieally, at tonight'a meeting, the only action necessary would be to determine whether or not to recommend this general concept plan for approval ao a PUD. APPLICANT: Ralph Munotertoiger. CONSIDERATION: Consider reconmmonding approval or denial of thio conditional une for a PUD in the general concept stage. REPERENCESs An enclosed map ohowing the location of the area pro- posed for a PUD and a map ohowing the posoible routeo of the ex- tenaion of Weat 7th St. which would ultimately become a collector road connectiong with Country Club road, a propoccd develolmont otago plan of the propooed lay -out of the PUD area and a copy of the minutes of the 1979 meeting of the City Council at which time the Council indicated thuy would prefer to uao Alternate 02 or pouaibly Alternate #3 an the propooed collector road. Planning Commission 5/12/81 2. Public Hearing - Conditional Use 6 Rezoning - Marvin Georcle Builders. Marvin George, Pres. of Karvin George Builders, has made application for rezoning of Outlot A of Country Club Manor, from B-3 to R-3, and contingent upon that possible rezoning, an application for a conditional use for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for town- houses. This proposal, in its general concept stage, would be similar to the proposal in Item 1; that is, it is being held at a public hearing at this preliminary level so that the developer may obtain guidance as to the general suitability of his proposal for the area which is proposed before incurring substantial expense, and the preparation of plans, survey and other data. If the Planning Commission recommends this for approval, and ultimate approval is granted by the Council, it would then be necessary for the developer to come back at a later development stage at which time the development plans for this project would be submitted for consideration and approval after having been reviewed by the city planner, engineer and staff. The developer has submitted a preliminary development stage plan for your review at this, the general concept stage, so that you might got a better indication of what his proposed development would be. However, at this meeting, you would be taking no action on the development stage plan, but rather would be taking action on the proposal for the PUD and possible rezoning. APPLICANT. Marvin George. CONSIDERATION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this rezoning request and a subsequent conditional use for a PUD. REFER04CES: A map depicting the location proposed for rezoning and a conditional use, and a map showing the proposed development stago of the PUD. NOTE: Pleaue return the development stage map for thio project at the meeting on May 12. 3. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendments - Stricter Fire Standards. At a recent meeting of the Monticello City Council, it was suggested by the Council that the City of Monticello consider amending the Zoning Ordinance Section 10-3-4-(A), to change the height limitation in zoning districts R-3, R-0, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, 1-1 and 1-2 from three stories to two storioo. Thus, three story buildingo would only be allowed ao a conditional use eontinaent unon otrict annlication of a reauirement that fire extinquiahina systems (serinklero) be required throughout the building, installed as thouah thov were reauircd throuahout the entire buildino by the State Building Cod o.so adopted by the Citv of Monticello. Based unon a recent otatuto which was adonted by the Minn000ta leaislaturc. it is now iousiblo for a community to adont stricter fire standards than th000 which are uromulgated as Dart of the Buildinq Code. (Only otaicter standards are allowed - Dreoent standards may not be rolaxed). -2- Planning Commission 5/12/81 Also, it is a proposal to amend the State Building Code, as provided for in the Minnesota statutes, to provide a stricter fire prevention standard in Section 1214 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) which would be adopted as stated, "Doors between the garage and the dwelling shall be self-closing." This amendment is prompted because most fires in which life is lost, happen within individual homes, and that statistics show that many of those fires which destroy a life in a home are started in a garage and thus move on into the dwelling, in many cases, because doors are left ajar and open. By adopting an amendment which would require the door to be self-closing, whenever someone left the door open it could automatically close, thus thwarting any fire which may start in the garage and ultimately move into the building. APPLICANT: City of Monticello. CONSIDERATION: Consider recommending approval or denial of these two ordinance amendments which would increase the standards required for fire safety. REFERENCES: None. Public Hearing - Rezoning - Deloris Guille. Deloris Guille has requested to have her property at 806 East River Street rezoned from R-1 to R-2 so that they may be able to rent out their basement as an apartment. In addition to the rezoning re- quest, a variance from the minimum lot size for a duplex which requires 5,000 square feet per unit is also requested since they have only 9,7875 square foot of lot area. They are, however, only 2% short of the required Gquaro footage for a lot upon which a duplex can be located. The legal description of this property is Lot 5, except the easterly 20 feet of Block 16, Lower Monticello. This request was brought before the City Council at the regular meeting on December 11, 1978, at which time the citizens in the neighborhood were informed of their rezoning request and were present at the council meeting to express their opinions. The same notice as was done at that time has been done this time and those property owners who have their property within 750 feet of this lot have been notified of the public hearing and will have an opportuinity at this public hearing to express their favorable or unfavorable remarks to thin rezoning request. This request at that time was unanimously denied by the City Council. Tho Guillos presently live in the uppor level of this dwelling, and a relative of Mrs. Guille raoides in the lower level of the dwelling. However, it is possible that the Guillea would like to make this duplex into rental property, or possibly acll it and advertise it as a duplex, which might land to bring a better price for the pro- perty. In order for them to advertise thin an a duplex or to rent or utilize it as a duplex, rezoning would be required. APPLICANTi Doloric Guille. CONSIDERATIONS Consider recommending approval or denial of this rezoning request. REFCRCNCESt The minuteo from the December 11, 1978 city council regular meeting and a map depicting the location of this property. -3- Planning Commission 5/12/81 Public Hearinq - Consideration of a Variance - Blocker Outdoor Advertisinq. NOTE: Decision of the Planning Commission will be final, unless decision is appealed by 5:00 P. M. on Monday, May 18, 1981, by an individual. Appeal must be in writing, signed and state the reasons for the appeal. If an appeal is filed, the City Council shall hear the appeal on Monday, May 26, 1981, at 7:30 P. M. in the Monticello City Hall. Notice of an appeal shall appear in the Monticello Times on Thursday, May 21, 1981. Del Blocker, of Blocker outdoor Advertising, has made an application to erect an off -premise sign (billboard) of 200 or more square feet, on Lot 12, Block 2, lauring Hillside Terrace. This property is zoned R-3. Mr. Blocker, who now owns two signs of similar description in Thomas Park, is contemplating building a new sign as above described on Lot 12, Block 2, in Louring Hillside Terrace, and giving the City of Monticello a letter relinquishing his "grandfather rights" to those signs in Thomas Park. This action was prompted when Mr. Blocker was notified by the people who own the property on which these signs were located in Thomaa Park notified him that the property was going to be sold and that his signs would have to be removed. Mr. Blacker's concern at this point is that he would like to continue with outdoor advertising in Monticello, and is willing to continue with outdoor advertising under whatever type of variance that might be available to him working cooperatively with the city in similar circumstances as was granted the other sign owners within the city at recent Planning Commission and Council decisions that billboards would have to be removed whenever another principal use wan developed on the property. At this time, the new owner of the property upon which the signs that Blockor will be removing, has not made any formal application for a variance to allow him to erect two signs in place of those which Blocker will be taking down (when Blocker takes down his two signs, whether or not he givos the city a letter relinquishing his "grand- father rights" new a igna cannot be erected by another individual in any cane without a variance). Mr. Blacker's feeling is that if the city would be willing to allow him a variance to put up this proposed new sign, once he has removed the two old signs, that he would sign whatever agreements would be neceooary to allow him to erect that sign. APPLICANTe Blockor Crutdoor hdvertioing. CONSIDERATION] Conoider recommending approval or denial of thin variance request. REFERENCES: A map depicting the area where the two signs are going to be removed, and also depicting the area of the proposed now sign and a letter from Del Blocker dated April 7, 1981, requesting this variance. -4- Planning Commission 5/12/81 6. Public Hearinq - Consideration of a Variance - City of Monticello. NOTE: Decision of the Planning Commission will be final, unless decision is appealed by 5:00 P. M. on Monday, May 18, 1981 by an individual. Appeal must be in writing, signed and state the reasons for the appeal. If an appeal is filed, the City Council shall hear the appeal on Monday, May 26, 1981, at 7:30 P. M. in the Monticello City Hall. Notice of an appeal shall appear in the Monticello Times on Thursday, May 21, 1981. The staff of the City of Monticello has requested a variance to eliminate the curb on the west end of the new commuter parking lot being developed, which is located on the southwest of the intersection of I-94 and Hwy. 25 (north of the Ford garage). This would be a temporary variance request for a specific period of time, until future development of the parking lot is completed. The reason this request is being made is that at this time the entire parking lot is not being developed and will not be developed for possibly a few years in the future. If curb barriers were placed down at this time, it would be then a waste of material and money to have to remove that curb barrier in the future when the parking lot development is completed. Possibly the Planning Commission would want to recommend a variance be granted for a specific number of years, for example three, at which time if the future development is not completed the Planning Commission can recommend further action. APPLICANT: City of Monticello. CONSIDERATION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this variance request. REFERENCES: Enclosed is a plot plan showing the location of the Commuter Parking lot within the community and a plot plan showing the Commuter Parking lot in the area of curbing which is proposed for not being required to be installed. 7. Consideration of Simple Subdivision Requcnt - John Sandberq. John Sandberg, representing the owner of Lot 6, Block 1 of Sandberg Riverside, is requesting a simple subdivision so that Lot G can be trimmed from approximately 18,000 square feet at this time down to approximately 12,000 with the remaining square footage to be added to Lot 5, of Block 1, Sandberg Riverside. If thin simple subdivision request is considered for recommendation to be granted, one item to be of concern would that the newly created property line would he ten or more feet from the !wilding to allow the required sot -back, and that the proper casements along that newly created property line be given and that those casements along the old property line which would be varatod between Loto 5 and 6 be vacated. One item for consideration alto should be that the vacation of these easements and the drawing of the new easements should be done at the expense of the property owner or owners involved, and that proof of these recordings and the casements be brought into City hall before final approval be given. APPLICANT: John Sandberg (on behalf of the owner of Int 6, Block 1, Sandberg Nave CONSIDERATION: Consider recommending approval or denial of the simple subdivision request. F,EFERP.NC1:Sm A map depicting the arca of this lot within the community and a certificate of survey showing the pro)wccd new cubdiviolun.