Planning Commission Agenda Packet 02-12-1985AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMM3:SSION
February 12, 1985 - 8:00 P.M.
Members: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Richard Carlson, Ed Schaffer,
Richard Martie.
8:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order.
8:02 P.M. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Monticello
Planning Commission Meeting Held January 8, 1985.
8:04 P.M. 3. Election of Officers.
8:10 P.M. 4. Public Hearing - Review of Conditional Use Permit
Issued to Allow Major Auto Repair in a B-4 Zone -
Applicant, Monti Motors.
8:25 P.M. 5. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow an
Entry Addition to be Built onto the House Within
the 30 -foot Front Setback Requirement - Applicant,
William Malone.
8:40 P.M. 6. Public Hearing - Request for a Preliminary Stage
Approval of a Proposed New Subdivision Plat -
Applicant, Construction 5, Inc.
9:05 P.M. 7. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to Allow
an Apartment Building to be Constructed in Exccoo
of 12 Units - Applicant, Construction 5, Inc.
9: 15 P.M. 8. Public Hearing - Conditional Uao Roq uoot to Allow
an Apartment Building to be Conatruc ted in Excoao
of 12 Unito - Applicant, Metcalf 6 Laroon.
9:30 P.M. 9. Public Hearing - Variance Requoot to Allow no
Garage to bo Conotructod on a 33 -Unit Apartment
Building Site - Applicant, Metcalf 6 Larson.
9:45 P.M. 10. Public hearing - Conditional Uoo Roquost to Allow
a Government Sponsored Program to be Conducted
out of a Rocidentlal Houoo - Applicant, Marvin Kramer.
10:00 P.M. 11. Public Hearing - Conditional Uno Roq ueot to Allow
an Additional Numbor of Vchicloo to be Placed
on an Outdoor Saloo Lot - Applicant, Monticello Auto Solan.
10:15 P.M. 12. Public Hearing - Conditional Uoo Roq ueot to Allow
au a Homo Occupation an Auto Galoo Office - Applicant,
Monticello Auto Salon.
10: 20 P.M. 13. Public Hearing - Conditional Uoo Roq uoot to Allow
Outdoor Baloo Service and Outdoor storage in
a s-3 Zone - Applicant, Samuel Propo rtico.
Agenda
Monticello Planning Commission
February 12, 1985 - 8:00 P.M.
Page 2
Additional Information Items
10:35 P.M. 1. Set the next tentative date of the Monticello
Planning Commission for March 12, 1985, 7:30 P.M.
10:40 P.M. 2. Adjournment.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/12/85
3. Election of Officers. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the request of the current Chairman of the Monticello Planning
Commission, Jim Ridgeway, we are having an election of officers
before the start of the public hearings at tonight's meeting.
We will have an election of two officers, one being the Chairman
of the Monticello Planning Commission, and el so the Vice -Chairman
of the Monticello Planning Commission. As of the writing of
this agenda supplement, I have had no one come forth seeking to
accept the position as Chairman or Vice -Chairman.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Nominate a Chairman for the Monticello Planning Commission.
2. Nominate a Vice -Chairman for the Montice 1 to Planning Commission.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has no recommendation at this time as to a Chairman or
a Vice -Chairman for the upcoming 1985 year. we do have an existing
Chairman of the Monticello Planning Commission, Jim Ridgeway,
but we are now at thio time lacking a Vice-Ctaairman duo to the
relocation of Mr. Don Cochran, former Planning Commission member.
We do, however, suggoot a simple majority voto amongst Planning
Commission members at the Tuesday night meeting.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Nona.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/12/85
4. Public Hearing - Review of Conditional Use Permit Issued to
Allow Major Auto Repair in a B-4 Zone - Applicant, Monti Motors. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Monti Motors was granted a conditional use permit to allow major
auto repair in a B-4 Zone on July 11, 1983. The conditional
use was granted for a period not to exceed one year. On July 11,
1984, it was reviewed by Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson,
and found that Mr. Townsend had been abiding to his conditions
that were attached to his conditional use permit and that there
were no complaints submitted from surrounding property owners
or any concerned citizens. Therefore, verbal approval was given
to Mr. Pat Townsend, owner of Monti Motors, to proceed for another
year on his conditional use permit. In recent developments
on the property in question where Monti Motors is located, the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority has requested that the conditional
use permit for which Mr. Pat Townsend was issued to allow major
auto repair in a B-4 Zone be up for review and public hearing.
Therefore, the matter is before you tonight to simply review
Mr. Townsend's request to continue his major auto repair business
in a B-4 Zone. Mr. Townsend has abided by the six conditions
as attached by Planning Commission and City Council and also
the additional condition which woo attached by Monticello City
Council at their July 11, 1983, Council meeting. Mr. Townsend
will give you a brief update and be able to anowor any queotiono
you may have and concerno to the conditional uao permit which
was issued to him.
City ataff would like to have a couple concerns voiced at the
public hearing. The first io that no outdoor or indoor oaloo
of any kind occur on that property. The second So that Mr.
Townaand io fully aware of the fact that should development
of the oxiating building which Mr. Townaand doeo not occupy
at thio time occur, that with that buoinaoo use of that part of
the building that should hia buoineaa uoa be conflicting to
the other typos of uaea in there that hie conditional uao permit
be aubjoct to being revoked upon a 60 -day notice from the City
of Monticello.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the conditional uco roquoot for n period of one
year with the conditiona ao attached from City Council'o
next meeting date of February 25, 1985.
2. Deny the conditional uao permit oxtnnoion.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommondo approval of continuance of Mr. Towncend'o conditional
uoo permit. Mr. Townaand hao kept the property in quootion
-2-
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/12/85
in a cleaned up and neat type of appearance since the granting
of his conditional use permit back on July 11, 1983.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the Planning Commission Minutes of 7/5/83;
Monticello City Council Minutes of 7/11/23.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/12/85
5. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow an Entry Addition
to be Built onto the House Within the 30 -foot Front Setback
Requirement - Applicant, William Malone. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you will note in the enclosed drawing, Mr. Malone's house
currently sets back 46 feet from the center of the existing
Fallon Street or the old Copeland Road. Fallon Street or the
old Copeland Road is a 66 -foot platted road or street. If the
roadway was laid out in the center, Mr. Malone's house currently
would be 13 feet away from the roadway right-of-way. With Mr
Malone's proposed 8 -foot by 14 -foot enclosed entry addition,
his entry addition would be 5 fest away from our right-of-way.
With the current or future development of Fallon Street or the
old Copeland Road, we foresee no major upgrading of the road
surface except for probably a hard surfacing of the existing
surface and we foresee no real need to widen the street or road
surface at this time. Therefore, we are not seeing a whole
lot of traffic being generated along this road. Even with future
development of the former Rand Mansion property, we foresee
no major heavy traffic pattern developing on this street. The
existing hedge does add as sort of a buffer area to the existing
Malone property and also the Rand property; therefore, it is
basically hidden from view of the public during approximately
6-8 months out of the year.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow an encl000d entry
to be built within the 30 -foot front setback requirement.
2. Deny the variance request to allow an enclosed entry to
be built within the front 30 -foot setback requirement.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City otaff takes a neutral position in Mr. Malone's roquest.
Staff rocognlzoo that there will be p000ibly oomo dovelopmont
of the Rand property. Not knowing the full extent of the development
of the former Rand Mannion property, aloo without knowing the
actual traffic volume to be generated off of the oxieting otroot
or road, we could foresee a high volume of traffic or a low
volume of traffic. However, we do recognize the romotoneoc
of the Malone and the Rand pruportiso that with any future development
as prop000d we would think that the otructuroo within the proportion
would remain their secluded typo of atmoophera from the existing
proportieo around it.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed encloeod entry addition to the William
Malone houso; Copy of the location of the prop000d oncl000d
entry addition.
-4-
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/12/85
6. Public Hearing - Request for a Preliminary Stage Approval of
a Proposed New Subdivision Plat - Applicant, Construction 5, Inc. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Construction 5 is proposing to replat Blocks 41, 48, 49, And 50
of Lower Monticello Addition. In the replatting of tnese blocks,
the newly created replat will consist of R-3 Zoning, which would
accommodate a proposed 18 -unit apartment building, with five
lots in the I-1 Zoning for proposed office warehouse buildings.
The plat has been reviewed by City staff; Consulting Engineer,
OSM; Consulting Planning Firm, Howard Dahlgren 6 Associates.
Their letters are forthcoming and will be presented to you at
the Tuesday night Planning Commission meeting. Their verbal
comments have been incorporated into the caplet to be presented
before you under the Subdivision Section 11-4-1, Chapter 4,
Subsections A, B, C, and D. In going through the preliminary
plan stage, we would like to note that the requirements have
been met by the developer in all Subsections under A, B, C.
and D, with the exception of letter B, Subsection 7. A soil
survey is being done at this time and will not be ready for
preliminary plan stage. This has been addressed by the Consulting
Engineer, John Badalich. He indicates that there is no need
to have this ready for preliminary Otago approval and that it
would be completed by the final stage approval. I tam 08, A
Central Water and Sower System Feasibility Study, is being done
by our own Consulting Engineering Firm. The go-ahead was given
just this week on that. The Consulting Engineering Firm, OSM,
will proceed with the water and oewor feasibility study to be
presented to us before final plan stage review and/or approval
or donial.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the preliminary plan Otago of tho prop000d now oubdivioion
plat.
2. Deny the preliminary plan Otago approval of the prop000d
now oubdivinion plat.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City otaff, along with Consulting Planning Firm, Howard
Dohlgron 6 AOoociatoo, and Conoulting Engineering Firm, OSM,
doao rocommond approval of the Conotruction 5 preliminary Otago
plan of their prop000d now oubdivicion plat. With all throe
of uO reviewing the prop000d preliminary Otago of the prop000d
now oubdivioton and having mat our approval, the corroctiono
were made and will be before you in the completed form at the
Tuooday night Planning Commission mooting.
-5-
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/12/85
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed preliminary plan stage of the new proposed
subdivision plat to be called Construction 5 Addition; Copy
of a report from Consulting Engineering Firm, OSM, and Consulting
Planning Firm, Howard Dahlgren 6 Associates, will be presented
at the Tuesday night Planning Commission meeting.
-6-
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/12/85
7. Public Nearing - Conditional Use Request to Allow an Apartment
Building to be Constructed in Excess of 12 Unite - Applicant,
Construction 5, Inc.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Construction 5 is proposing to build an 18 -unit full market
rental apartment building of similar type construction as the
recently constructed two 26 -unit apartment buildings. The 25
story apartment building wil 1 have 18 garage unite and also
18 open parking spaces. The apartment building on the site
does meet the minimum lot size requirements and also the setback
and open space requirements.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the conditional use request to allow an apartment
building to be built in excess of 12 unite.
2. Deny the conditional use request to allow an apartment building
to be built in excess of 12 unite.
3. Table the conditional use request at this time. The proposed
site for this apartment building is being roplatted for
a new subdivision. Upon approval of the preliminary and
final plan stages of thio proposed now aubdivioion, you
could act on this conditional use request.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends tabling the conditional use request to allow
an apartment building to be built in excoaa of 12 units. The
apartment building site is currently port of a prop000d now
oubdlvioion plat; upon preliminary plan stage and final plan
otage approval of the subdivision plat, Commission momboro could
than at that time act on tht m conditional use roquos t. Staff
foolo the project is vary worthwhile. They have don o an excellent
job with the other throe units that have boon conotructod just
vont of this proposed apartment building alto.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the olio of the prop000d conditional use request.
-7-
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/12/85
B. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to Allow an Apartment
Building to be Constructed in Excess of 12 Units - Applicant,
Metcalf 6 Larson. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Jim Metcalf and Brad Larson are proposing to construct a 33 -unit
subsidized low to moderate income apartment building. The apartment
building is to consist of 19 one -bedroom unite, 12 two-bedroom
units, and 2 two-bedroom handicapped units, for a total of 33
units. The proposed site plan as submitted does allow enough
square foot site area. It does allow enough area for parking
and the open space green area is sufficient. The proposed 33 -unit
apartment building as submitted per site plan does meet the
zoning requirements.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the conditional use request to allow an apartment
building to be built in excess of 12 units.
2. Deny the conditional use request to allow an apartment building
to be built in excess of 12 unite.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use request to
allow an apartment building to be built in excoon of 12 units.
Staff fools that this typo of project would be quite conducive
to the area that it is proposed to be built in.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the oite plan for the proposed 33 -unit apartment building;
Copy of the location of the propocod 33 -unit apartment building.
-B-
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/12/85
9. Public Hearinc7 - Variance Request to Allow no Garage to be Constructed
on a 33 -unit Apartment Building Site - Applicant, Metcalf &
Larson. (G.A.I
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Jim Metcalf and Brad Larson are proposing a 33 -unit subsidized
low to moderate income apartment building to be constructed
on Lauring Lane. They are requesting a variance to allow no
garages to be constructed on the apartment building site. The
ordinance requires at least S of the apartment units be included
as garage units; therefore, in this case we would have to have
17 garage unite. We have had instances in the past where we
have approved a variance request to allow no garages to be constructed
on a subsidized apartment building site. The garages have their
advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are enclosed garage
space for tenants for their vehicle use and other storage which
isn't provided within the apartment building itself. The disadvantage
of garage apace is that it does up the rent for a low to moderate
income person renting in an apartment building like this. The
coat may increase from $25-540 per month to rent a garage space.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow no garages to be constructed
on an apartment building site.
2. Deny the variance request to allow no garages to be constructed
on an apartment building site.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff taken the neutral position in regards to this matter.
It does, however, weigh the advantages and disadvantages of
this typo of housing and the garages to be constructed with
it. It does have the advantage of having garages on the apartment
site, and it also has its dioadvantagoo as an additional coot
for the proposed typo of rontors which would be renting this
apartment building; and it does add additional coot, as the
developer in this case has to foot tho whole bill for the garages.
They aro not funded by the federal government on theno typos
of housing projocto.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of tho proposed location of the apartment building Oita;
Copy of the Oita plan for the proposed no garages on this apartment
Oita.
-9-
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/12/85
10. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to Allow a Government
Sponsored Program to be Conducted out of a Residential House -
Applicant, Marvin Kramer. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Marvin Kramer is proposing to be allowed as a conditional
use to operate a girls group home out of their residential
house. The property is currently zoned B-3, Highway Business;
that type of activity is only allowed as a conditional use in
a B-3 Zone. We are interpreting the ordinance as a government
sponsored activity or business nature to be operated out of
the home, fully acknowledging that it isn't a government owned
property or building, strictly that it is a government sponsored
program or business activity to be operated out of a residential
house. The girls group home does have the full support of the
Wright County Board of Commissioners. The conditions which
are attached to it have been addressed by Mr. Kramer and reviewed
by City staff and fully acknowledges meeting the requirements
of those conditions.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the conditional use request to allow a government
sponsored program to be conducted out of a residential house.
2. Deny the conditional use request to allow a government sponsored
program to be conducted out of a residential house.
C. STAFF RF.CnmmrNnATinN:
Staff recommends approval of Mr. Kramer's conditional use request,
fully realizing that it is not a government building in which
this business activity would take place, but it is a government
sponsored and approved program to be conducted out of a residential
house, fully recognizing the groat need for this type of program
in the Monticello area and also recognizing the benefits which
accrue from this type of activity being increased employment
with this typo of activity.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of tho proposed cito for the govornment oponuorcd program
in a residential houoo.
-1n-
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/12/85
11. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to Allow an Additional
Number of Vehicles to be Placed on an Outdoor Sales Lot - Applicant,
Monticello Auto Sales. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Dr. McCarty is requesting a conditional use request to allow
him to increase the number of vehicles currently parked on his
outdoor sales lot on the former Dino's Other World property.
Dr. McCarty is requesting to be allowed 10 additional vehicles
from the present number of 10 total amount of vehicles allowed
to be parked on his sales lot. In reviewing of the conditions
attached to Dr. McCarty'e original conditional use permit, Dr.
McCarty has adhered to all of the conditions set forth by the
Monticello Planning Commission and Monticello City Council.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the condition as a conditional use request to allow
ten as the number of additional vehicles to be placed on
an outdoor sales lot.
2. Deny the condition as a conditional use request to allow
ten additional vehicles to be placed on an outdoor sales
lot.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends a poroval of nr. Mrrart-,- 'c condition to his
conditional use permit to allow him ten additional vehicles
to be placed on hio outdoor sales lot. Dr. McCarty has mot
tho conditions placed on his original conditional uoe permit
and has placed vehicles which are in good condition and appearance
on his outdoor sales lot.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of tho conditiono of Dr. McCarty's original conditional
use permit.
2M
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/12/85
12. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to Allow as a Home
Occupation an Auto Sales Office - Applicant, Monticello Auto
Sales. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Since the public hearing notice was published, we received additional
information from the State of Minnesota as a Dealers Guide of
Laws and Procedures for Minnesota motor vehicle dealers. Within
their procedure of the laws for used motor vehicle dealers,
they are required for a place of doing business a building to
be a permanently enclosed commercial building on a permanent
foundation. In checking with Mr. Art Heatherington, an examiner
for the State of Minnesota, Used Motor Vehicle Division, he
indicated that he was aware of Dr. McCarty's requests, and he
indicated to me that the only place that he would allow used
auto sales office would be in a commercially zoned, permanent
commercial building. Therefore, the request for Dr. McCarty's
conditional use to allow it as a home occupation be denied and
not acknowledged at this time. A simple motion would be to
acknowledge the public hearing on it and to close it in the
same time due to conditions that would pertain to his request.
There will be no alternative actions, staff recommendations.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the Dealers Guide of Law and Procedure for the Minnoente
Motor Vehicle Doalere.
-12-
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/12/85
13. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to Allow Outdoor Sales
Service and Outdoor Storage in a B-3 Zone - Applicant. Samuel
Properties. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Sam Peraro is proposing to build a 40' x 601, 2400 sq. ft.
retail business building. The retail business building will
accommodate a rental equipment business. Within the rental
equipment business building, to the rear of the property or
adjacent to Sandberg Road, will be attached a 30' x 40' fenced
In storage area. The parking lot will be hard surfaced with
curb and gutter to accommodate 12 parking spaces, with one space
for the handicapped parking. The developer himsolf is requesting
no variances other than the conditional use to have this type
of activity allowed as a conditional use in a B-3 Zone.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the conditional use request to allow outdoor sales
service and outdoor storage in a B-3 Zone.
2. Dony the conditional use request to allow outdoor sales
service and outdoor storage in a B-3 Zone.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff rocommanda approval of tho conditional use request to
allow outdoor sales service and outdoor storage in a B-3 Zone.
Mr. Poraro, owner of Samuel Properties, has constructed previous
building to the ordinance without asking for any variances as
indicated. This is what he would like to do with this particular
proposed building.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of tho location of tho proposod new building; Copy of the
proposed alto plan for the now building.
-13-