Planning Commission Agenda Packet 02-14-1984AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
February 14, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
Members: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Ed Schaffer, Richard
Carlson, Don Cochran.
7:30 P.H. 1. Call to Order.
7:32 P.M. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular January 10, 1984,
Planning Commission Meeting.
7:35 P.M. 3. Final Plat Review for the Proposed Par West Addition -
John Sandberg.
7:45 P.M. 4. Public Hearing - Rezoning Request to Rozono Lot 9, Block 1,
Auditor's Subdivision #1, and Part SWC of the SW% Section
12, Township 121, Range 25, from R-3 to RB Zoning -Applicant,
Audrey Warner.
8:00 P.M. 5. Public Hearing - Replatting Request to Replat Existing Lots
into Now Loto -Applicant, Hal Wchman.
8115 P.M. 6. Public Hearing - Conditional Une Roqueot to Allow Wall Signa
to be Placed on a Building in Which There are Two or More
Buuineoa U000, A Variance Request to Allow Moro than 5% of
the Gr000 Wall Arca for Wall Signo- Applicant, Metcalf c
Laroon.
Additional Information Itemn
8130 P.M. 1. The next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commiunion
Meeting will be on March 13, 1984, 7:30 P.M.
8,35 P.M. 2. Adjournment.
MINUTES
RECULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
January 10, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Don Cochran,
Richard Carlson, Ed Schaffer.
Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Thomas Eidem, Rick Wulfsteller, Gary Anderson.
The meeting was called to order by President Jim Ridgeway at 7:35 r.:!.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Special December 27, 1983, Planning
Commission Meeting.
Motion was made by Joyce Lxrwling, eeconded by Ed Schaffer, to
approve the Special December 27, 1983, meeting minutes. Motion
carried unanimously.
Informational Item
Proposed Sharinq of Par king Lot for the New FiruL National Bank
with the Monticello Public Library.
Jim opened with public input for discussion on the proposed
parking lot. Margo Bauct, Monticello librarian, and Mr. Warren
Smith, Library Board Mernber, were Chore to prevent views of Lite
Library. Much discussion centered around the aofety aspect of
the increased traffic flow proposed around the Public library
building. Possible alterations to the Library property wete also
discussed with costs to be incurred by the d.rveloper. Tluma air
as follows: lie uldewu I to I,- iu:a al led arouwl thin t'uma im n9
perimeter of tho buildi nq, which docs not have ujdewalk now;
exploring the pouaibilt Ly of a new entrance to the east side of
the Library Iwildiny. I-lannioq Comillil,l,ion members felt thin could
probably be a wotthwhile joint paikino let vcntur., and r.-tm'ned it
to City staff tor ti-ir i.-vicw to cuno up with a tecottmendaLiun
for Lite prop -Ned Pdrking lot deoiyn at Lite next regularly uchoduled
Planning Commiusiun mcatinq, F.•hruaiy 14, 1984.
3. Public Ilearinq - John Sandberg - Preliminary Plat for the Proponcd
Par Went Addition,
Bob Rohlin iterated as to the aspeeta of the propooud plat revinion:i.
Public utility items have all boon addressed an per O.SM recommended
changes. The proposed plat will now have two tonco within it. Bloeka
1 and 2 will be zoned R-1 and Blocks 3, 4, and 5 would bo n-Zonrd to
R-2 toning. President Jim Ridgeway opened it up to comment from the
pub]ic. Mr. and Mrs. Llitko were pror,unt Lo ask what the propoacd
toning was for Lite arca. Zoning ALIMinit,Lrator Nrdernon pointed out
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/10/84
to the Dirks the intent of the zoning for the areas of the proposed
plat. Diane Jacobson was also present to discuss the increased
traffic flow from the other additions pouring onto Prairie Road. with
the increased development out there in the Meadows, something should
be looked into as an alternative exit other than Prairie Road. Thomas
Giroux was also present to discuss possible playground facilities for
his children in the proposed development and the increased traffic
to be generated from the proposed addition onto Prairie Road. Zoning
Administrator Anderson indicated that a traffic count was conducted
starting January 4 through the 8th. The average number counted was
297 cars on Prairie Road and approximately 2,352 cars accountable
on Comity Road 75 during a 24 hour period. Zoning Administrator
Anderson also indicated that two other traffic related matters should
also be addressed at some point in time before the development is
to take place. One matter is a petition to the State Highway Department
to extend the 30 mile speed zone from where it ends by the elementary
playground area to extend it past Prairie Road to keep the traffic at
30 m.p.h. or increase it only to 40 m.p.h. and not the 55 which is there
now. Also discussed was the possibility of bituminous surfacing of
the shoulders of Comity Road 7S at, the intersection of Prairie Road
and West River Street from the west and from the cast to allow traffic
to flow around left and right turn traffic onto Prairie Road off
County Road 75. Park dedication was also discussed. Thomas Eidem,
City Administrator, indicated the City's position as definitely being
opposed to the land proposed for park dedication due to the nature of
the land being very low and underneath the power line. It is not suitable
in the best interest of the City for patk land. John Sandberg countered
with the proposal that some day the power lines would not be there,
therefore, necessitating a need for additional park land. Much diu-
cussiun centen•d around the land proposed for park d,-dication. John
SdntH,ry trade a willing offer to give the, land to the City for park
and also 55,000 for park equipment to the land. lie further indicated
his willingnobn to live .i total cauh cqutvolent for de4ir_ation of the
park land and kccp the park land strictly an an oullot for proposed use
ut name other time. Motion by lion Cochran to approve the prosentud
proposed plat with accepting a cash dedication for park land for
estimated cauh value of $11,000. Seconded by Joyce Dowling. Motion
catricd unantmounly.
4. Public llearing - Reroning Rruueut to Rezone part of th,. 1:ast � of the
Northedrl i Section 10 from u-1 to U-3 - Applicant, City of Mont-ia•llo.
I
oning AdmrsinUdtor Andert.un it-'tdLed Lo tl- Iuekyround in regard to
Mt. Matv'in Schrrer, previoui, applicant., t.(.j allow him to build a bturage
builditn3 within an R-1 Zone. 71io intent of the City for the public
hearing watt to get public input from the surrounding ncighhoru within
the aflceti-d rezoning area. Mr. Marvin Scherer indicated hit) main
ins nt of ptopouing to build the proposed storage building would be to
Clean up the exii.tiny old caro that he ban utured at the pito and put
thein in under cover and thus, climinating his blight nuinaneo.
- 2 -
Planning Commission Minutes - 1/10/84
Motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Richard Carlson, to deny the City' s
rezoning request to rezone R-1 to B-3. Motion carried unanimously.
Informational Items
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission Members
that the next tentative date for the regular February meeting of the
Monticello Planning Commission will be Tuesday, February 14, 1984,
7:30 P.M. Motion by Richard Carlson, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to
approve the proposed February meeting date of February 14, 1984, at
7:30 P.M. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Fd Doran was present to address to the Planning Coaaiss ion members
his intent to sell the former Rand Mansion to Audrey Warner. Mr.
Doran indicated Audrey Warner's intention of establishing a business
at the proposed site and also accommodating overnight lodging for
perspective out-of-state clients. Mr. Doran also indicated that
Audrey Warner would be completely renovating the house as close as
possible to the initial state of condition when it was built.
Planning Commission members noted which typo of zoning which would
be appropriate for this type of use and indicated that tate zoning
currently is R-3.11wy propo sed that Mr. Doran indicate to Audrey
Warner that she should cane before the Planning Commission at Lhe
next mooting cm February 14, 19B4, to apply for ruzoninq from R-3
to RB zoning (residential business). Mr. Doran indicated to
Planning Commission members his willingness to pass the information
on to Audrey Warner and ask her to pursue the rezoning of the
proposed Rand Mansion property from R-3 to R8 zoning.
Motion by Richard Carlson, aecoudod by Fal Schaffer, to adjourn the
meeting. Meotiny adjourned at 10:11 P.M.
Respectfully oubmitted,
Gary Anderson
Zoning Adminictrator
3 _
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/14/84
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
3. Final Plat Review for the Proposed Par west Addition - John Sandberg. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Sandberg will be here before you with the final plat request
approval. The basic stumbling block has been resolved in the
park dedication and is as follows: Mr. Sandberg will dedicate 1.68
acres to the City for park dedication. This land for park dedication
is from the 20 -foot easement for entrance to the park between Block
3, Lot 3, and Block 4, Lot 1, to the north to Kevin Longley Drive.
The balance of the park dedication, 5% more or less, will be given in
a monetary amount of $5,750.00 to the City of Monticello. Lots 1, 2,
3, and 4 of Block 4 will be extended to the existing property lot
line, adding more depth to them. These are the only changes from the
proposed preliminary plan to the proposed final plan for Par West
Addition. The only other change is the last names have been added
to the streets, which were named Kevin Drive and Jerry Drive. They
have now been changed to Kevin Longley Drive and Jerry Liefert Drive.
All of the proposed problems indicated by O.SM have been addressed
by the developer, John Sandberg.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the proposed final plat subdivision addition to the City
of Monticello as presented.
2. Deny the proposed final plat subdivision addition to the City
of Monticello as presented.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff would rocommend approval of the proposed final plot subdivision
addition to the City of Monticello as presented.
D. SUPPORTING DATAi
Copy of the proposed Par West Subdivision Plat addition to the City
of Monticello.
cb
�. �4C
41 � � /��/ � � . � •, � j ; Q
IkeOr
\ 0
N' Iq aW.
����'�
ltir ow m1arr
/ ! � �`' � � Park �, -�` � I - - � -- • �
� _ Qin � (,(/� .. -•,:�� _ / I h —I� \�,Idl. ; �_ �-.
_-i ask QwIMhll 40
' n
LD i1 Z. }7 4 _ _ N. 4 f. E E N 1
u�e�M.e r c�eutc eats• uyt G��1 Di l�oloil �i►D—' r �17
loot I ALIL Puiff-4- � ✓ _� / '� .. `
Aa1LT��rfAt�4 •d_G/. EohvENl�ti/A K e��fktMhw �4�_�OGh Lib / i_� 1�' :,`�I
--� - -,_
17
r
_ W l
y �
95
O
7
0
a
a
��
NI
a�
OEL
I
�/S
of
O
O
2
v
m
u
G
G
44
a1
.+
.4
V
p
4.-4
N
�
O
7
p
G
a
O
a
�
n
s,
ul
v1
O
C
L
ds
95
O
7
0
��
NI
OEL
I
�/S
of
O
O
2
44
N .-1
7
oe
u o �+
N
tC L
p w
C
0 .+ y O
w
4 a
f°• ;°•
•
A,j
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/14/84
4. Public Hearing - Rezoning Request to Rezone Lot 9, Block 1, Auditor's
Subdivision M1, and Part SA of the SWi Section 12, Township 121,
Range 25, from R-3 to RB Zoning - Applicant, Audrey Warner. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you will recall at our January Planning Commission Meeting, Ed
Doran along with an employee of Audrey Warner was present to
discuss with you the proposed use of the old Rand Mansion, which
Mr. Doran currently owns and which Audrey Warner is proposing to
purchase from him. Audrey has plans to renovate the entire structure
into a proposed business type company, which she currently owns, this
being a computer programming company. The company sells computer
programs to different companies outstate, mostly to the far cast
or to the far west of Minnesota. Business is not really a retail
activity, as the prospective clients fly in to the nearest airport
and are picked up by an employee of Audrey Warner and are brought
out to the proposed new site of her business. Once at her place of
business, the prospective client is presented with the different
programming aspects which her company could do for the prospective
client. Sometimes it may require overnight lodging for her prospective
clients, for which she intends to use the second level of the former
Rand Mansion, Meals would also be prepared on the first
level and served on the first level for the prospective clients of
her business. She is also proposing to renovate the third level of
the existing former Rand Mansion into working areas for her computer
programmers. This would be primarily used as a working area and
not sleeping areas for the computer programmers. Any conditions to
be attached to her proposed rezoning would have to come on or before
the issuance of the building permit. If you have any comments on
proposed conditions to attach, please inform me at the Planning
Commission Meeting. Some possible conditions I can think of would
be the hard surfacing of the driveway leading into the property and
also a parking area being designated with hard surfacing of it; before
the issuance of the building permit, an understanding should be made
that the entire former Rand Manuion must be renovated from the foundation
to the top of the roof, interior and exterior, and the entire building
be brought up to the uniform building code no we don't encounter a
piecemeal typo of renovation project, a little here and a little there
and the entire thing not being entirely completed. We'd like to look
at a posnible completion data on the entire renovation of it aloo.
B. ALTERNATIVE' ACr10NSi
1. Approve the proposed rezoning requout from R-3 to RB Zoning.
2. Deny the proposed rezoning requeut from R-3 to RB Zoning.
C. STAFF RECOKM124DAT10N i
The staff would recommend approval of the proposed rezoning requeut from
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/14/84
y R-3 to RB Zoning. We feel it would be a very worthwhile project
to renovate an existing historical site and also the type of use
of the property would be pretty much remote, quiet type atmosphere
which is currently existing up there. We also recommend that
conditions be attached to the building permit for the assurance of
the building permit in regard to the renovation of the entire
project.
D. SUPPORTING DATAi
Copy of the proposed area to be rezoned.
- 3 -
x
is
16
Ilk
Rezoning Request to Rezone Lo9, -
Block 1, Auditor's Subdlvial i 01
and pert SW% of SWi Section 2, i 0
Township 121, Range 25, fr
R -J to R/ Zoning. Iat�'•
Audrey Warner
/ �. • IF /
s
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/14/84
5. Public Hearing - Replatting Request to Replat Existing Lots into
New Lots — Applicant, Hal Weliman. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Wehman is here with a proposal to subdivide existing Lots 1,
2, and 7 of Block 1, Holker's Hillside Addition. Due to the
layout of the three new 4-plexes to be located on the existing
Lots 1, 2, and 7, two of the 4 plexes, one on Wright Street and
one facing Ramsey, face perpendicular to the existing lots with
the 4-plex facing Lauring Lane facing parallel with the existing
lots but located on two lots.
One of the problems with torrens title property is that you are
allowed to subdivide torrens property into block and lots, but
you are not allowed to subdivide and set a building on two separate
lots. They have to be on one lot. This is the problem Mr. Wehman
has run into now since he has started with these three new 4-plexes.
He was told by the mortgage company which is financing his 4-plex
project that there would be no problem having a registered survey
done on the torrens property in question and having it recorded at
the Wright County Recorder's Office. When it came to closing date
on the Wright Street 4-plex, the County Recorded would not record
the mortgage because the 4-plex was sitting on two neparato lots on
torrens pronorty. Before you is a plan of the existing loth to be
replatted, Lots 1, 2, and 7, Block 1, Holker's Hillside Addition.
There are , however, three distinct problems which we see with the
proposed replatting of this parcel: 1) Lot D in a land lot and
virtually inacceanible from Wright Street, Ramsey Street, or Lauring
Lane. 2) Lot D in a lot in nonconformance with the minimum lot size
for a buildable lot in R-3 Zoning. The lot does meet the minimum lot
size for ono unit, but it does not moot the lot size requirement for
all four unite in the 4-plex unit proposed to be built there.
3) OULloL A, which is not propound in this plat, is also a nonconforming
lot size lot in an H-3 Zone where the 4—plex actually would oil on a
portion of Outlot A and Lot B. To addre su problem #1, being Lot D,
a road access must be platted through Lot C off of Louring I,ano to
service Loot B. We are chnek:ng with the City Attorney and will reupond
at the Tuucday night Planning Commission meeting if roadway caeement
through loot C it; allowed to service Lot B. A pouciblu colution to
02 and 03 would he OUL1oL D, being nonconformance the way it In, that
this be torrens property and Loto A, B, C, 4, D and Outlot A be abstract
property. ria possibility exloto that Outlet A, being an abutract
property, could be turned into torreno property and the lot linen could
Loi extended between Lot C and Lot D to the Lauring Lane right-of-way,
theref,ire , creating a building lot in I.ot D in conformance with tho
Zoning ordinance. However, thin in a very lengthy process. Ae xm.
Wehman haf; indicated, it could p000ibly take a year and then some to
have Oullemt A turned from alystract property into torrens property.
- 4 -
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/14/84
Mr. Wehman is presented with a problem of not having the time to
wait for a year or so to have Outlot A turned from abstract property
into torrens property. He has subcontractors to pay for the building
of the Wright Street 4-plex, which he would like to close on. He
does not have enough money on his own to pay for that. The mortgage
company will not release any money until the mortgage on the property
in question, the Wright Street 4-plex, can be recorded at the
Wright County Recorder's Office.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the replatting request as presented.
2. Deny the rezoning request as presented.
3. Approve the replatting request as presented with the understanding
that Mr. Wehman have Outlot A turned from abstract property into
torrons property and come back with replatting of Lots A, B, C,
and D showing that Outlot A, Lauring Hillside Terrace, becomes
actually a part of Lot C and Lot D.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Map of the proposed area to be rezoned, copy of map depicting the
location of the property.
- 5 -
tt,
') "'Wo
Ct A
Qb
V61
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/14/84
6. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to Allow Wall Signs to be
Placed on a Buildinq in Which There are Two or More Business Uses,
A Variance Request to Allow More than 5% of the Gross Wall Area
for Wall Signs - Applicant, Metcalf 6 Larson. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Metcalf 6 Larson, owners of the proposed office retail building,
are here before you with their request for a Conditional Use to
allow more than two signs on an existing building with more than
two businesses in the building. They also are requesting a Variance
from the maximum square footage allowed for signs, that being 5%
of the gross wall area on the longest portion of the building.
All signs indicated on the proposed drawing are uniform in width
and have the same background color. Only the length varies from
the five proposed businesses to locate there with their proposed
signs. With the existing ordinance, a Conditional Use is needed
for buildings in which two or more businesses occupy it with 5%
of the gross area of the front portion of the building to be allowed
for wall signs. Five percent of our square footage would equal
665 sq. ft. allowed for wall signs within this proposed building.
With the wall signs proposed, a Variance would then be needed of
53S fact for the now signs to be placed there, if permitted.
However, we have the entire lower level which is unoccupied at
the time, which we must also take into consideration when looking
at a Variance request for more than the maximum amount of square
footage allowed. Ono possible solution would be to allow a higher
percentage of the square footage currently allowed under a Conditional
Use but allowed as a permitted use with a single building with only
one tenant, that being 20 sq. ft. of the gross wall area, which
is 1,330 sq. ft. Another option would be to allow only 10% of the
gross square footage of the wall area. Ten percent of the wall area
here would be 133 fcot,with 20% being 266 feet. Also a posuiblc
consideration would be with the other busineanea occupying the lower
level of this building, their proposed sign must meet the maximum
square footage allowed for the total building if the Variance in
approved. Alue their uignu must be of the same design and overall
appearance as the signs that will be propabed before you Tuesday
night.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS,
1. Approve the Conditional Use Request to allow signs to be placed
on the building and to allow a Variance 1n excess of the 5%
maximum gross wall area.
2. Deny the Conditional Use Request to allow uigns to be placed
on the building and deny the Variance in exccue of the 5%
maximum gross wall area.
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/14/84
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City staff would recommend approval of the Conditional Use
Request with the following conditions:
1. The signs must be of the same design and appearance
as the five signs presented.
Staff would also recommend approval of the Variance request for
more than the 5% maximum allowed of the gross wall area, that
percentage not to exceed the maximum allowed for a single
business building, that being 20%. There is a possibility of
looking at a percentage in between the maximum allowed in more
than two businesses and the maximum allowed in one business building.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed sign layout on the Metcalf 5 Larson proposed
office retail building. Realty Station will be present and the
designers of the sign from the sign company will also be present
at Tuesday night's Planning Commission Meeting to present pictures
of existing buildings with their types of signs on them.
7
DAV��S_Pi�OTGGRAPNy A i � fAf�`, I1�
- -- _=77
Ur
SLIT - r N T .- DF;-
- -
REAt'rl 5Y)gTtO*N
C
:
I
..v
_..."i...
- --- - AInPR,UN
MWTICELLO
ISS
EYE CARE Er��?Ess
re -a