Planning Commission Agenda Packet 10-17-1978ate% AaENU
REGULAR MEETING - M MCMI PLAHN3NG OMOaSSION
Tuesday - October 17, 1978 - 7830 P.N.
Chairmant-Jia.iddSew W
Memberat Fran Pair, Pred Topel, Dave-Beaes, Deaton Erickson
Loran Klein (ex -officio)
1. Public Hearing - Rezoning d Conditional Use Application - !teas Brianke.
2. Public Hearing - Consideration of Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Unit Development - M=ticello I-94 Tri -Plaza.
�. Public Hearing - Consideration of Temporary Use Permit to Allow Light
Manufacturing within an R-2 Zone.
4. Public Hearing - Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment to Add Jewelry
Stores as Permitted Uses within a B-3 Zone.
5. Consideration of Variance Request - Wain— Lot Size - Arne Bolbjornsen.
6. Consideration of Variance Request - Sideyard Setback - Tadako Pratt.
7. Conoideration of Variance - Off Premise Sign - Electro Industries. '
S. Approval of Minutes - September 201 1978 Meeting.
Unfinished Business -
Now Buoinoaa -
8
3 I�
o
t- 0
Planning Goad esion - 10/17/78
4. Public Hearing - Rezoning A Conditional Use Application - Ken Krienke.
�( 4( Mr. Hen Krienke has applied for reraning and a conditional use permit to
allow for the construction of a 24 -unit apartment building an the SW corne
of the J. 8. Culp farm on the south edge of town (see enclosed maps).
He has proposed R-3 Rezoning.
Presently, that property is zoned 8-1. In order to build a 24 -unit apart-
ment building, he needs a conditional use permit, since only up to a 12-ur
building is allowed in an R-3 zone as a permitted use.
�+ The parcel contains approximately 143,820 square feet, or approximately
.a 3-1/3 acres.
PAccording to Monticello Ordinances, if all 24 unite were 2 -bedroom, the to
onlywould require
exceeds the requirement tby 59�.
65,500 square
of
a, or 1.55 acres. Accordingly
the 1
v permit �
an plans or specifications or pe applications have been submitted at 1 �
♦ this pointl however, the developer has indicated the apartments would be
low to moderate income subsidized housing.
POSSIBLE ACfIOH:'4Reapproval or denial of this request.
REFERENCES: Enclosed maps.
CANE: W. Kenneth Krienke, Sr.
2 11 Her�-iinn&- Consideration} of Qk ditiQnal Use Permit for a Planned
Unit vefopment - gonticeino 1,-`%4 Tri-P1aze.
Mr. Sam Peraro is proposing that the property he owns southeast of the
intersection of I-94 and State Highway 25 be granted a conditional use
permit for a planned unit development. A planned unit development io a
conditional use permitted within a B-3 Zone.
Mir. Peraro to proposing that the alto whdah is approximately 3 acroo be
granted a planned unit development conditional use permit to allow for
the eventual aonatruction of two restaurants. As you probably are aware,
the third site io the Vanceo Amoco Oseoline Station alto which in already
under construction.
Reason for the request to go to a AID is that Mr. Peraro does intend to
continue ouerership of the entire three acres. A PUD gives flexibility to
a developer and also to the City in that it allows the developer to make
better use of a particular parcel in allowing parking requirements to be
met in total but not to be required on each specific site. It could so
happen that one site suer not technically meet the City a requlreaunto in
terms of parking spaces for a particular use, but as long as there was an
,< excess from another site in the FUD, the overall parking requiremento would
L be adhered to. An advantage from the City9s standpoint is that it has great
flexibility in the ultimate approval of What types of businesses and stereo
are allowed within the PUD itself.
r
IV
IV
t
t
Reason for the request to go to a AID is that Mr. Peraro does intend to
continue ouerership of the entire three acres. A PUD gives flexibility to
a developer and also to the City in that it allows the developer to make
better use of a particular parcel in allowing parking requirements to be
met in total but not to be required on each specific site. It could so
happen that one site suer not technically meet the City a requlreaunto in
terms of parking spaces for a particular use, but as long as there was an
,< excess from another site in the FUD, the overall parking requiremento would
L be adhered to. An advantage from the City9s standpoint is that it has great
flexibility in the ultimate approval of What types of businesses and stereo
are allowed within the PUD itself.
Plenaing 00andsaion - 10/17/73
According to the Monticello City Ordinances for Planned Unit Developments,
the initial stage, called the general concept stage, is subject to a public
hearing at the Planning Commission level. At this meeting, the developer
proposes an overall schematic design and intended uses for his planned unit
development with a preliminary site layout which is enclosed. At the time
of the actual development of each particular area within the RID, another
hearing is held at the development stage level. For example, at this time
it is intended that in addition to the current Amoco Station to be planned,
that a McDonaldts Restaurant would be located within the RID and possibly
another restaurant similar to a Pisa Hut or Mr. Steak be on the third
site. At the time of more definitive plane for these future developments,
It would be necessary to go to another public hearing and a detailed lout
of landscaping arrangement, schematics of the exterior of the building, etc.
along with the approval of the building permit would be required. In thle
manner, it allows the City more control on what is allowed in the particular
planned unit development, but yet the developer is still able to gain the
flexibility by not requiring the entire area to be platted similar to a
subdivision plat.
Another reason that the particular development in this case opted for a
RID rather than a subdivision is that the third parcel planned for a
restaurant is not fronted on a public right-of-way as required of all
subdivisions. It would be the responsibility of the developer and owner
of the PUD to maintain the proposed roadways within the RID itself.
It should be pointed out that the developer, Loren Klein - the Building
Inspector, and myself did review the proposed development with Howard
Dahlgren, our City Planner. Mfr. Dahlgren made some suggestions and
recommendations as to traffic flow, etc. and Mr. Peraro has revised his
initial plan. I have asked Howard Dahlgren to write a planning report
on this particular proposed development, as this would be the first PUD
that has come before the City of Monticello. Hopefully, this will arrive
in time to have it submitted to the Planning Oomnission along with this
agenda supplement. However, it is aW understanding that Mr. Dahlgren has
talked with Laren Klein, our Building Inspector, and has reviewed the PUD
and is generally in agreement with the development at the general concept
stage.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Qonaideration of recommending � or denial of
conditional use permit for PUME
nar w."v.w: Fhclosed Site Layout for the PUD,lus the recommendations
from Howard Dahlgren (if available).
I
NOTE: It should be pointed out that the proposed development underway,
i which is Vanceto Amoco Station, is still proposing a aign that is
approximately 601 high. As you may recall, this woo previously
approved by the Planning Comnisaion, but since it io now part of
tho RID, this could be subject to further consideration by tho
Planning Commission.
- 2 -
Planning Comission - 10/17/78
✓3. Public HeaarjV - Consideration of Temporary Vae Permit to Allow Light
Manufacturing within an R -t Zone.
Mr. Bill Schackor, of Draperies Minnesota, is requesting a temporary use
permit to allow Draperies Minnesota to utilize one room on the second floor
of the Oakwood Elementery School for use by his manufacturing firm. In
talking to Mr. Schackor and also Shelly Johnson, the School Superintendent,
in the matter, the request would be of a temporary nature until such time
as W. Srhackmr's building is complete within the Oakwood Industrial Park.
As a result, the proposal at this point is to allow the temporary use for
a period of one year.
Activity that would take place at the Oakwood Sdrool would be primarily
the sewing of drapes. There would be four sewing machines set up in the
classroom and four individuals would be working within the room itself.
As I understand it, there will be no remodeling of the school itself, and
employee parking will be handled across the street at the existing
Draperies Minmesot facilities.
POSSIBLE ACTION r aideration of rec=mutation oeppmval denial
of temporary use pewit.
4. Public Hearing - Consideration of an 0ardinafce Amendment to Add Jewelr;
Stores as 'Permitted Uses within a &-i Zone.
W. Dan Poirier is requesting an Ordinance Amendment to allow a jewelry
store in a B-3 zone. Presently, under Monticello Ordinances, a jewelry
store is allowed only in a B-4 zone, end to allow Mr. Poirier to open for
business in a 8-3 zone, an Ordinance Amendment would be necessary.
Mr. Poirier is proposing to open his business in one of the retail sections
in the front part
of Mel HoWorls "Store -a -Way" building. \0 .G Qa\
POSSIBLE ACTIONr4y 'Consideration of re�approval r denial of this
ordinance amendment request.
REFFREICM9r See enclosed map.
APPLICANT: Mr. Darr Poirier.
,/ 5. Consideration of Variance Request, - M*inimum Lot Size - Arne Kolbiornsen.
Arne Kolbjomom So requesting a variance of a�yproximately 700 square feet
to oubdivido a lot within Creekside Terrace into two parcels. Marrent lot
size is 26,482 oquare feet. The proposed subdltvieion would create two lots
of approximately 9,300 square feet and 17,182 agnare feet. A variance in
nececoary oince the minimum lot size in an P-2 cone is 10,000 square feet.
It should be pointed out that this particular lot wee initially zoned from
R-1 to R-2 to allow for the construction of a duplex. It Is proposed that
the duplex which is currently situated on the easterly portion of the lot
would be loft with the 17,182 square feet, and the 9,300 square feet would
be for o single family dwelling.
Planning Commission - 10/17/78
As you may recall at that time, there was some opposition from the neigh-
bors in the area relative to a duplex. Of prime concern to the neighbors
was the number of duplexes that would eventually be allowed in the future and
one concern was whether there would be another duplex allowed on this par—
ticular lot. Another concern was to some extent whether the lot would again
be subdivided to allow for another single family dwelling. Based somewhat
on the fact that there was initially 26g482 square feet, the City Council
approved of the original rezoning.
As of this date, I have received no comments from the neighbors in the
area, but it should be pointed out that the hearing for a variance
request is at the City Council level so quite possibly there may be'some
input at that meeting.
Enclosed, for your reference, is a possible splitting of a lot by
Mr. Kolbjornsen indicating the existing duplex and a possible layout for
the single family dwelling. Although he does not have the exact figures,
Mr. Kolbjornsen originally thought therewly created lot would be about
9,300 square feet. However, it does appear now that it would approximately
be closer to 9,500 square feet. It should be pointed out that if the
area was not rezoned, that an R-1 does require a minirm,m lot size of
129000 square feet, but since it was rezoned, only 10,000 square feet is
necessary.
1
POSSIBLE ACTION: &onsideration of recommendation o appro or denial �
of variance request. � 3
U REFERFN CE3: Possible site layout of subdivision and enclosed map
depicting area.
✓6. Consideration of Variance Request - Sidevard Setback - Tadako Pratt.
Tadako Pratt, of 301 hest River Street, has requested a variance to build an
attached garage up to the cost property line at her residence. Presently,
her home is 610" away from the property line on the south and 210" on the
east side.
As far as lot nice goes, there is adequate property as can be aeon by the
enclosed map.
POSSIBLE ACTION:} Rccommendotlon ofapproval or denial of this request.
REFERENCE;: Encl000d map.
APPLICANT: Todako Pratt.
��. Consideration of Variance - Off Premise Sig: - Electro Induotrios.
At the loot Planning Oommiocion moeting, Fe. William Seefoldt of Electro
industries had made application for a variance to allow an off premise sign
for hia company to be put on the property of the Monticello Rod h Urn Club.
At the Limo of his request, thorn was some concern as to whether or not
Mr. Seofoldt owned the property across the road Promthe Monticello Rod
Oun Club. I p
rj
� 1 �
Planning Commission - 10/17/78
Mr. Seefeldt does not own the property across the road from the Rod & Gun
Club, and therefore, if he were to have a variance granted to him for an
off premise sign, a logical location would be on the Ow Club's property
as he is proposing.
If this variance were approved, the Planning Commission may want to consider
a sign smaller than normally allowed which is 289 high and 175 square feet.
POSSIBLE ACTICN: )Recommendationf appro or denial on this variance
request.
REFERRICES: Fhclosed maps and information from 9/19/78 Planing Commission
meeting.
APPLICANT: Mr. William Seefeldt, Electro Industries.
- 5 -
w A 1 0 N T
Cz
e
I- is AOT I 3AOCK 2
aft:,, � " CRE�KStgd TFJ?QAe 6'
• I�RJiN7 Co,i�y� M,�uwt,:���
Lgo
� i Cy�a �`S�✓00
,� 'orf?;• ,�.,,.
! � y
t
HOWARD OAHLGREN ASSOCIATES
+".P71'.
CONSULTING P L ANNE n$
OnE GP01El..0 tCn a.�E
win N[.a0��5, min vES� 454 ��±
13 October 1978
Mr. Gary wieber, City Administrator
Members of the Planning -Commission
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 5 5362
RE: Proposed Planned Un it Development (PUD) - Monticello
I-94 Tri -Plaza
We think this plan could be accepted as adequate for the
concept stage of the PUD taking into consideration the
alterations indicated on the sketch overlay. One of the
parcels (Parcel A) in the development has no public
access and because of th is the entire development must
remain under single owne ssh1 p. The development must be
platted as a single lot.
There should be provided by the developer, before
development stage is acted upon, a lighting plan
indicating continuity wi th eL light specification cut, a
complete landscaping pla vindicating type and size of
plant materials, a sign& ya plan, a grading and utility
plan, and a continuity o fbuilding material statement
(for example: dark brick facade, etc.)
The following are suggestions concerning the PUD layout
accompanied by the enclo sod sketch overlay:
1. Signs must be located wi th the following critoria
in mind:
a. one pylon per lot allowed,
b. must not be placed Ln the front yard area
(30 feet) (Front -Yard being defined as any
and all eidoo fr-onting on public right-of-
way) ,
c. must not bo plat ed less then five feet from
parking and drives.
2. Curb radius should b -e installed where indicated
on the plan to facil hate traffic movement
(15 foot and 25 foot radius) .
13 October 1978
Mr. Cary wieber, City Administrator
Members of the Planning Commission Page Two
3. Entrance curb cuts should be no wider than 30 feet.
4. The parking island that splits the entrance to
the service station and McDonald's should move
forward creating two,well defined, 30 foot
entrance drives (also creates two more parking
stalls).
5. The easterly entrance to the pizza establishment
should have a curved parking island to direct
traffic easily into the parking area.
6. Additional traffic control islands have been drawn
around the McDonald's building to show how the
drive -up facility should operate.
we think this project will work well and be a good addition
to the City of Monticello.
Sincerely,
IIOWARD DAIILGREN ASSOCIATES, INC.
C. John Uban
enclosure: Sketch Overlay of Site Adjustments
HOWARD DAHLGREN ►SSOCIAIES
13 October 10 -.-
Mr. Cary Wieber, City Administrator
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Monticello
250 Fast Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
RE: Possible extension of Chelsea Road Westerly to
State Highway 25
The extension of Chelsea Road is a reasonable expansion
of your present road system. In the preliminary
Thoroughfare Plan, Dundas Road would also be extended
westerly to State Ilighway 25. Chelsea Road would
intersect one-quarter mile south of County highway 11"
and State Highway 25, and one-quarter mile north of the
probable intersection of Dundas Road and State liinhway 25.
These intersections will have ample spacing for safe
flow of traffic and also serve to disperse traffic
congestion at the intersection of County Iliahway 117
and State Highway 25.
Sincerely,
HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES, INC.
3 J,4—_ �, LRU,�
C. John Uban
NOTICl OF PIIBI IC IfFAkING
Notice is hereby given (hat a pobl it lic.u•lo_
will by held by the Monticello City Count it
on pc. tuber 23 r Io 78 , at 7o F`. t1. to
(.he Monti cul to City Ilal l to rortr.irlrr thr t'ccl l.c inu,
mat'Ler:
A variant to allow T. Pratt to build
an attached garage within :tn" of the
easterly property line on the Sly ho'
of Lots 6 & 7 and al I of Lot 5, Blot k ii.
The property address is 301 Nest Ri%er Street
APPLICANT: Tadako Pratt.
Written and oral testimony will be aceepttvl tut
above subject and all persons desiring to be heard on
referenced subject _will be heard at, this meeting.
W!�
G atqti.e,�b
t`
t -
RERER1RlJ AT LEAST TOD WEEKS BEFORE SCHEDULED MEBTTING DATE'S l
APPLICATION FOR V4RT&E
FEE - E15.00
*SCHEDULED METING DATE /0//7/79
Name of Applicant: fD>'. f . AR 4E KOL J : re R V t a N
Date: /2 2"/78 Mailing Address: %//QJ"U S 11"4-' yMA.s
Phone Number - Home: ✓/- y77•v r, -1 Business: `' i- 1.07 3- .F f.2 U
Legal Description of Property: Loi / /7t R 2
CW, -e ,&.l n c
Type of Variance: N Twpp Le S . 1 e- V.
Currently Zoned:
Names of property owners within 350 feet of location:
Please explain reasons for requeeted variance below, indicating how land is to
be used, etc.:
/9/!z 6, ?
Signature of Applicant
To be filled in by City of Monticello
Date application received: 9/2 078 Date of Publication
Date of Planning Comsiooion consideration: Date of Mailing_,_
Rocomeondstione of Planning Coomission:
Date of public hearing at Council:
Approvod: Moopproved:
Commante:
C. —....
D