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.