Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 04-13-1984MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION v March 15, 1983 - 7030 P. M. Members Present: Joyce Dowling, Richard Carlson, Don Cochran, Fd Schaffer. Members Absent, Jim Ridgeway. Acting Chairman: Don Cochran. 2. Approval of Minutes. A motion was made by Schaffer, seconded by Carlson, and unani- mously carried to approve the minutes of the last regular Planning Commission meeting. 4. Consideration of Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit for Multiple Family Apartment Complex - Dale Hunt. Mr. Dale Hunt of Monticello was present and requested a conditional use permit to allow for the conversion of the formor Assembly of God Church into a multiple family apartment complex. The property located on Lots 1, 2, 3 , 4, and the south 25 foot of the coat half of hot 9, and the south 25 foot of Lot 10, Block 35, Inver Monticello would require a conditional use permit and rezoning from the current R-2 to R-3 to allow for the proposed 21 unat apartment building. The developer noted that the church would have a second story addition added with each apartment unit having a separate gable typo roof to give the appearance of individual typo housing. The proposed building would contain 7 unite on oath level including the baaemont. Mr. Hunt also noted that he to also requesting a variance from the minimum lot size requirement for 21 apartment units requiring 56,500 square foot to 46,035 as he folt the present structure currently londo itcolf to a second story addition and thus, 21 units would fit proporly within the proven building size. Mr. Hunt also noted that he is planning to construct a 10 unit garage facility to moot City requirements on the property which counts towards the 42 parking rpacoo required. The apartment complex would be a market rent facility and would be available to all tyloma of individualo in- cluding senior citizens. The public hearing wan open to comments from citizens and the following people were heard in reoponco to the roqueot, Duane Rajanon, adjacent property owner preounted a petition signed by 29 area residents who are opposing the proposed rezoning and conditional use permit. Mr. 1�ojanen felt that the City of Monticello has currently enough arca zoned for multiple family s Planning Commission Minutes - 3/15/83 dwellings and that the planned apartment complex would disrupt an otherwise quiet neighborhood. The next person was Gene Putnam who expressed concerns over the number of children that might possibly be living in the apartment complex and questioned whether the develop- ment would have a playground and also questioned what type of siding the apartment complex would be built of. Blaine Nelson noted that recently the City adopted a comprehensive plan and a complete set of ordinances regarding proper zoning and uses within those zones and felt that the ordinances should be adhered to. If the ordinances were always amended or variances were always granted, she felt the ordinances are not doing the job they were intended to do. Dr. Clarence McCarty noted that le was not a resident of the affected area but felt that the complex as proposed was well thought out and would upgrade the neighborhood appearance wise. In addition, he felt that the proposed change of the church building to an apartment building would be a good use of the property and would solve the problem of the building possibly deteriorating due to non-use. In addition, he noted that an apartment complex will provide a tax lease for the City whereas the currentuso as a church in tax exempt. Earl Nordby,Pastor of the Assembly of God Church, felt that the property should be put on the tax rolls and that tLo property lot under this proposal will be paved and have curb and gutter installed to alleviate the current dust problem and that the resulting apartment units would result in loss traffic in the area compared to the present church facility and school that is currently on the property. In addition, he felt that there would he loss noise in the neighborhood and not an much congestion with the children using the 0th Street playground and streets during the week. Alditional Comments from that citizens were heard expressing similar opposition and also coma epxreoning approval of the proposod concept. Brio developer, Dole Hunt, again responded to come of the questions roicod by the citizens and noted that a playground area would be Incorporated into the plan with posuibly coma picnic tablou, etc. In addition, he noted the exterior of the building will be a wood typo aiding of high quality in a nqtural typo color of brown. Ile felt that the rental of the property would be approximately 0185.00 per month for an efficiency apartment, 9250.00 per month for a ono bodrosm unit and 0325.00 per month for a 2 bedroom unit. - 2 - Planning Commission Minutes - 3/15/83 1-oL Chairman Cochran entered into the records the petition and letters submitted by abutting property owners, Leo Nelson, Jerry Brooks, Rev. Doug Nicholas and Mrs. Neta Mertx, which basically indicated opposition to the proposed development. Copies of the petition and letters are attached as exhibit 11. Mayor Grimsmo was in atterAance at the meeting and noted that the church and school facility has boon in its present location for a long time and that the neighborhood residents surrounding the property have been exposed to alot of uses from the church and school during the entire week. Mr. Grimsmo noted that churches are not very marketable and easily sold once a church use is discontinued and that the uses for the property are quite limited but that the citizens in the area should also be concerned that if an apartment complex is not built on this site, others uses of the property could be worse for the neighborhood. 14r. Grimmeo sug- gosted that possibly by down sizing the complex to a smaller number of units, that soma of the objections from the neighboring property owners might be resolved. The current secretary for the Assembly of God Church and School noted that fencing around the property under the proposal would stop garbage and paper, etc. from blowing into the noighbor's yards and that the proposed black topping of the parking lot will solve the duet problem that has occurred in the past. In addition, she noted that currently there aro comm problems with teenagers using the property for hot rodding and that onto an apartment complex is built, thin would cease. After hearing all comments from the public, the public hearing van closed and discusoion occurred among the caanicsion members. Committee hiembor Ed Schaffer folt that the developor had come uncortaintioe and was concerned about the insufficient square footage of the project. Joyce Dowling questioned whether the developer had done enough market atudica to coo if 21 unito could be ranted on thin cite and would be much more in favor of the project being down aimed to about 12 unite. Committee Member Richard Carloon felt that the City had adopted a eom- prohonnive plan with enough areas for multiple family dwellings. He noted that other roquomts in the pact have Loon denied for apot zoning which he felt waan't desirable no far an the City in concerned. Mr. Don Cochran noted that the building in its current situation io a problem for the noighboichood and will alwaya be a problem unloas come typo of colutlon can be resolved. It wan hia cuggeotion that the church membarsh1p and developers got togothor with the area neighborhood residents to arrive at a euitablo solution for the property that would bu mutually agreeable to all. Thin, in turn, would have all portion involved in the poeaiblo uao of the building either for an opertment complex or other potential ucea. 3 Planning Co®ission Minutes - 3/15/93 After all discussions were closed, a motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Joyce Dowling and unanimously carried to recommend to the City Council that the rezoning request from R-2 to R-3 and the conditional use permit for the 21 unit apartment be denied. It was noted by Chairman Cochran that this item will be forwarded to the City Council for their action. A motion was by Schaffer, seconded by Carlson and unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting. Rick Molfstellor Assistant Administrator -a- O Planning Coemissien - 4/12/83 3. Public Rearinq - Sidevard Set Back Variance Request - Donald 0._ Smith. Mr. Donald Smith of 425 hest River St., has again reapplied for a variance to build a new garage to within two feet of hie east- erly property line. The property is currently zoned R-2 and is on Lots 1 and 10, Block 56, Townsite of Monticello. Mr. Smith previously applied for and was granted a variance by the City Council and Planning Commission in February of 1979 , to build this garage, but since the garage was not built within one year, City ordinances require that Mr. Smith reapply for the same variance . Presently, there is a small garage on the site of the proposed new 24 X 26 foot structure which is right on the property lira. Mr. Smith feels that the old garage is in very poor condition and inadequate to meet his needs and would like to place the now structure two foot from the property lino so that he would not have to remove a large oak troo in the back yard and alae obstruct his view of the river. ' Abutting property owner to the cast, Mr. Kermit Bannon of 419 Moet River M. again does not objoct to Mr. Smith building within two foot of the property. Mr. Bannon noted that he wanted a otatemont from Mr. Smith indicating that Don would not object to Kermit building a now garage come day approxi— mately two foot from hie property lino. As you will note on the enclosed drawings, and photo enclosed, both Mr. Smith and W. Bannon uno a shared driveway with their present garagoo being aide by aide. Mr. Satith is willing to conotruct the easterly wall of his garage with a firm wall as required by the building coda. POSSIBLE ACPIONi Consideration of roapproving or denying tfao variance roquoat. MWER2RCE8o A letter and plot plan from Don Smith, picture of existing garage and mop depicting location of property. -1- Donald D. Smith, Editor and Publisher AftTO116 East River Street mes v Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Phone (612) 285-3131 Feb. 14, 1979 TO: Monticello City Planning Commission Monticello City Council RE: Variance Reouest for Garaa_e Construction Lots 1 & 10, Block 56 FROM: Donald 0. Smith We are currently planning a remrdeling project at our home at 425 west River Street...and we'd like to include a new double rtarage as part of the construction. However, to do this we are reouired to obtain a variance from the city since we'd like to build the garage within two feet of the easternly lot line. Actually, we'd be replacing a current structure which is vir- tually on the lot line...and is in quite poor condition. It sits adjacent to Kermit Bensen's garage of a similar size which is also on the lot line. It's my understanding that he, too, some day has plans to upgrade his garage facility and at that time may be requestinn a variance. He knows of our intentions and has indicated that he's not opposed to the variance. And, if it's granted, I would pledge not to oppose a sinilar reouest on the adjoining pronerty. Moreover, if renuired by the city, we would be willing to build a firewall on the east side of this 24x26' structure. The variance is needed because a aarane ten feet from the nronerty line would reouire the removal of a large oak tree...and would also put the structure behind our house, thus blocking the view of the river and .interfering with the deck we're nlannina (see print). i think the important thing to remember here is that we're not adding a new variance here (actually it will he two feet: off the line) ... and that the new garage will be an imnrovement to the nroperty. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Donald 0. Smit o I O /�'I ,, ` �.4 Som 4v r • DDW SM rrH SIDZYMW VAAlAtCE -14 1 ILL 1 %41 (3) el Planning Commission Agenda - 4/12/63 4. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Variance Reauest to Allow for a Pre -Formed Curb - Silver Fox Motel. As you will recall, Reinert Construction Company of Sauk Rapids on behalf of the Silver Fox Motel, requested a variance as part of their current expansion project to eliminate a portion of the permanent curb and gutter on a new area for their parking require- ments located on the south end of the project. The Planning Commission at their February, 1963 meeting denied the request to eliminate any of the required curb and gutter for the new parking area and as a result, a question has came up concerning the use of pre -formed type casting of curb and gutter in lieu of a constructed in place concrete curb. The Silver Fox Motel requested that they be allowed to use this pre -formed type curb and gutter only in one location, that being along the southerly edge of the new parking area for 21 spaces as shown on the enclosed plot plan. Their basic reason for re- questing to be allowed to use a precast type curb is that it can be removed in the future for future expansion which they propose if the metal develops in the future further. They feel that if they are required to put in a permanent concrete curb at the present time, it will just have to be torn up and removed should an additional expansion take place for 22 more cars. They noted that all additional new areas for parking expansion under the present construction project would contain the new permanent curb and gutter. City ordinances require that a curb be cone rote, insurmountable and contiguous. If a precast typo curb and gutter in used, it would not necessarily moot our current ordinances and thus, this is the reason for the variance request. The Planning Commission and City Council did approve in approxi- mately Juno 1979, the installation of a precast type concrete curb for both the Tam Thumb Store and float -in -Webb Printing located in the Oakwood Industrial Park. The Council approved there two variance requests on a trial, experimental bauio to see how this clxocial typo of curb would stand up. Since these two approvals in Juno of 1979, no additional roqueuts have boon made that I am aware of to use thio similar type of curb. Possibly, the Planning Commission momboro should try to take a look at the curb and gutter at the Tom Thumb Store to get an idea of what typo is being proponod. Although this request is a little different from Tan Thumb's In that Tom Thumb does not plan to remove this pro-formod curb and Install now contiguous concrete curb in the future, the Silver Fox Motel indicated they would he willing to replace this pro-formod curb and gutter onto the parking lot is expanded to its future design size. - 2 - Planning Commission Agenda - 4/12/63 The use of pre -formed type curb and gutter has been reviewed by the City Staff including the Public works Director, John Simla, and it is our recommendation that for a permanent type curb, we feel that this type of curbing does not stand up to a permanent concrete formed curbing. If you have a chance to look at the curbing at the Tom Thumb Store, you may notice that some of the individual curb sections have been moved either by bumping into them with cars or possibly during snow removal operations and the pre -formed curb does seem to have slot of cracking and chipping. It would be the CSty Staff's recommendation that possibly in the future, precast curbing should not be considered as a permanent solution for curb and gutter requirements but could be used in cases where it appears that the curbing would have to be removed for future expansion or other reasons. If it appears reasonable that the Silver Fox Motel would expand their parking lot where they have indicated in the future, possibly a variance for this type of curbing could be granted with the understanding that when the parking lot is expanded to its future design size, the City would require a permanent curb and gutter. POSSIBLE ACTION. Consideration of approving or denying the variance request from Silver Fox Motel to use pre -formed curbing around the south end of the now parking lot only. REFERENCES. A copy of the site plan with proposed pre -formed curbing area outlined. - 3 - �r ,�{ 1 _ 1 ' �-, C'J �' 1 f i N '� ' . � ,...�� :, - i � , .. ut I x � � `` �� ,�� , � � �': Planning Commission Agenda - 4/12/83 5 Public Hearing - Variance Request for Permanent Banner and Permanent Portable Siqn - McDonald's Corporation. McDonald's of Monticello, 100 Oakwood Drive, has applied for a vari- ance to be allowed to display a heavy vinyl 2 foot by 23 foot banner on their roof overhang permanently. In addition, McDonald's also requested that they be allowed to use a 4 by 6 foot portable sign near the entrance on their property that would advertise certain specials, etc. City ordinances due allow the use of search lights, banners, pen- nants and similar devices along with portable signs but only on a temporary basis of ten days maximum and only twice a year (every 180 days). In addition, the City ordinances indicate that portable signs shall be restricted to information only and may not exceed four square feet. The portable sign requested by McDonald's would be approximately 24 square feet. McDonald's has requested the use of a banner that would be changed throughout the year and would not always be up every day but would promote different items or specialties. I would assume that the portable sign being proposed would probably be used to advertise certain specials and would probably be a permanent type fixture oven though it is portable and could be moved about the property . McDonald's currently has complied with the City ordinancoa and has one pylon sign and one wall sign which nays McDonald' s. Under ordinance Section 10-3-9 E (b) 2, the City allows either wall or pylon signs or a combination of both. However, only two product identification signs and one promise identification sign are allowed and these wall signs must be only on one separate wall. In addition, the sign area on the wall is limited to 10% of the gross silhouette area of the front of the building up to 100 square foot. Although the banner would probably be used to identify a product, the proposed location of the banner would not be on the same wall as their present McDonald's sign in and would not moot the ordinance. In addition, I believe both the banner and the McDonald's sign on the building would exceed the 10% now allowed by ordinance. POSSIBLE ACTIONi Consideration of approving or denying variance roquoat to allow for a bannor and a portable sign to be uacd by MCDonald'a Corporation. - 4 - 11L Planning Commission Agenda - 4/12/83 Public Hearinq - Conditional Use to Allow Outside Sales and Equip- ment Rental (U -Haul Trailers) - Maus Tire Service. Mr. Jim Maus of Maus Tire Service, South Hwy 25, has applied for a conditional use request to be allowed to have outdoor storage of U -Haul trucks and trailers located at his tire service building for rental purposes. According to the City ordinances, outdoor service, sale and rental as a principal or accessory use is allowed as a conditional use within a B-3 zoning district which Maus Tire is located in. Mr. Maus recently took over the U -Haul rental business that was pro- viously located at the Freeway Standard Station. As part of the conditional use, the equipment rental is limited to 30% of the gross floor area of the principal use and it would appear that the number of vehicles and trailers that will be located on the property would meet the 30% requirement as they would not take up more than 30% of the floor area of his tire shop building size. The Stor-way building whore the tire service is located has sufficient parking and the storage of these trucks and trailers would not take away from their present parking needs. POSSIBLE ACTIONS Consideration of recommending approval or denial of the conditional use permit request for outside storage of U -Haul rentalo. REFF.RENCESi A map indicating the location of the property and a copy of the ordinance listing conditions portaining to conditional use. - 5 - :J 'onditional bw it -quest t. "11Uut'idC "Alrb a- vqU LjoL-nt 1, lita1- (U -Haul Rentals). KAIJb TIM bEWICE 10-13-4 10-13-4 to change when the Council upon investigation in relation to a formal -request, finds that the general welfare and public betterment can be served as well or better by modifying the conditions. 18. The provisions of Scction 10-22-1 (E) of this Or- dinance are considered and satisfactorily met. (D) Open and outdoor storage as a principal or accessory use provided that: 1. The area is fenced and screened frnm view of neighboring residential uses or if abutting an "R" District in compliance with Section 10-3-2 (G) of this Ordinance. 2. Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way in compliance with Section 10-3-2 (G) of this Ordinance. 3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. 4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Section 10-3-2 (11) of this Ordinance. S. Does not take up parking space as required for confor- mity to this Ordinance. 6. The provisions of Section 10-22-1 (E) of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. (1:) Open or outdoor nervice, sale and rental as a princinal or accessory use and including ralen in or ftom moLorieed vehiclon. trailers or wagons providvd that: 1. Outside corvicen, nalevi and equipment. rental counucted with the principal uses in limited to thirty (30) peieonl of the gross floor arca of Lhe principal uso. This per—!ntage may be increnood an a condition of th., conditional use permit. (6-27-77 031) 2. Outnido aales areas are fenced or uereoned from view of neighboring residential uuou or an abetting "R" niotrict in com- pliance with Section 10-3-2 (G) of this Ordinance. 3. All lighting sliall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way ur from neighboring reoidencea and shall be in compliance with Sec- tion 10-3-2 (it.) or this Ordinance. 4. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. S. Does not take up parking space as required for conformity to this Ordinance. 6. The provisions , 'ection 10-22-1 (E) of this Ordinance are considored and sati- urlly nw,t. O Planning Commission Agenda — 4/12/83 7. Public Hearing - Conditional. Use Permit for a Minor Auto Repair Facility in a B-4 Zone and Consideration of a Variance from Hard Surfacing of Parkinq Area - Pat Townsend. As you may recall, Mr. Pat Townsend at the November 16th, 1982 Planning Commission meeting, requested a conditional use permit to be allowed to operate a minor auto repair shop at his home located at 107 Locust Street. Mr. Townsend was basically work- ing with transmission and radiator repairs and the Planning Commission granted the conditional use permit on a temporary one year basis. Mr. Townsend has now re-applied for a conditional use permit to open a minor auto repair facility in a portion of the former Monticello Ford Garage located across the street from his present home. Mr. Townsend is requesting to use the former body shop portion of the Monticello Ford Garage which is located on the north end of the building which has access through the alley off of Locust Street. The size of the body shop he will be renting from Mr. Larry Flake is 30 feet by 52 feet and would have sufficient size for at least 2 vehicles at one time. His former location was in a garage at his reoidence which basically had only one service stall at a time. The City ordinances require that a conditional use be granted for an auto repair facility in a B-4 zone even though the present location wao proviously used as a auto repair facility. Parking requirements on cite for thia typo of buoineoo would require 8 parking opacea consisting of 4 for the auto repair buoineos and 2 opaces for each otall available. The proposed area for parking would be on the north end of the building off of the alley and there would be sufficiont space for the cars. As oomo of you may recall, approximately 3 yearn ago after Monticello Ford moved to its now location on 1-94, 0 -to building inspector inapected the Monticello Ford building and recommended that the building not be occupied for any buoineon until the building wao brought up to building codon otructurally. The building innpoctor at that time along with the City P-ngincer felt that the building wao otructurally unoound and would need major repairu to be safe for other uaoo. The City hrao not allowed the !wilding to be uned for any purpoco other than storage since that time but in reviewing the matter with the City Attorney, Gary Pringle , it hao come to our attention that the main coneorns of the City Council and the building inspector proviouoly, were with the old Waic building and did not include - 6 - Planning Commission Agenda - 4/12/83 the body shop area which was added on after the original building was built. According to the City Attorney, it was his under- standing that the actual body shop building where Mr. Townsend is proposing to locate his repair facility was structurally sound and was not in question at the time an order was issued to have the building brought up to standards. Mr. Townsend would only be renting the body shop portion of the dealership complex and would propose to not have any access into the other portion of the building from the body shop. He had indicated that the doors would be locked from the body shop to the rest of the building and possibly if this conditional use is approved, it maybe should be recommended that the doors from the body shop area be permanently sealed so that Mr. Town- send would not have any access into the other portion for storage, etc. The parking areas on the property of the Monticello Ford building are currently not hard surfaced and according to the City ordi- nances all parking areas should be black topped or concrete. Mr. Townsend along with building owner, Larry Flake, also re- quested that a variance be granted from hard surfacing the park- ing area required for Mr. Townsend's repair facility as Mr. Flake does not wish to expend any money improving the parking area as he does not know the future of the entire building. Public hearing noticon have boon sent to all property owners within 350 feet and as of the date thio item io being prepared, no commenta have been hoard from dny other area property ownero. POSSIBLE ACT10N� Consideration of recommending approval or denial of conditional use permit for an auto repair facility in the body shop area of the old Monticello Ford building. REFERENCES: A map depicting location of the property and a okotch of the body area of the building. k $t to Use POj'atao mat ally fctLs tianee i�a9 axes• facllicY anstac4 P ts"'`iNaztWBO° M Planning Commission Agenda - 4/12/83 8. Public Hearing - Development Stage of a PUD - Victoria Square - Mike Reher. At the February 1983 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Mike Reher who owns a parcel of land in the vicinity of Cedar Street and Dundas Road lying east of Hwy 25 presented a revised concept plan for his planned unit development on the property which would include office condos and townhouses, a commercial complex and a possible motel/restaurant site. As you recall, the revised con- cept plan indicated that all of Cedar Street lying south of the Dundas Road extension would be vacated with half of the property being given to Mr. Reher and the other half to Mel Wolters who plans on joining Mr . Reher in his platting of the property and would become a part owner in what is now known as Block 2 of Victoria Square. The revised concept plan presented in February also indicated that possibly Cedar Street north of Dundas Road would also be vacated and the cast half of Cedar Street would be incorporated into his commercial building lot and be used for parking, etc. Recently, a meeting was held with Mr. Reher along with Mel Wolters, Bob Danner and a representative of the Automatic Garage Door Company to discuss the vacation of Cedar Street according to the amended concept plan. At that meeting, Mr. Danner indicated norm opponition to the eventual vacation of Cedar Street north of Durdoa Road as he felt it would cause problems for his access to his property for his trucking huaincos. Since a rnutual agreement could not be reached with all the property owners involved, it was decided at that time that Cedar Street lying north of Dundee Road would not immedi- atoly be vacated and Hr. Reher and Mr. Danner wuuld be negoti- ating for the poociblo sale of the Danner property to Mr. Roher in the future. As far as Cedar Street located south of the proposed Dundoo Road extension, thin portion was agreed upon by Mr. Mel Wolters and Mr. Mike Reher to be vacated which it; shown on the preliminary plat for Victoria Square an presented. In regard to the Cedar Street realignment, the preliminary plat at this time does not dedicate the now Cedar Street as part of the preliminary plat as Mr. Roher felt that this actual align- ment could to establiahed in the future when la is ready to Covolop the portion of the property north of Dundas Road. At this time, the preliminary plat wan created with Black 1 and 2 located south of Dundas Road and the property north being called Outlet B and Outlot A loving the remainder of Mel Wolter's property. - 0 - v Planning Commission Agenda - 4/13/83 As part of the platting, the proposed Dundas Road extension to Hwy 25 would be dedicated and given to the City as part of the platting process. Although the realignment of Cedar Street would not be dedicated at this time north of Dundas Road, the City dces have control over the eventual placement of Cedar Avenue as Mr. Reher or any subsequent owner would have to come before the Planning Commission and City Council to replat Outlet B. If the replatting of Cutlet B does not conform primarily with the revised concept plan as previously sub- mitted, the City does have control at that point. As part of the preliminary plat, Mr. Reher is also presenting a preliminary plat of Block 1 into 27 townhouse units. As you may recall at the last Planning Commission meeting, it was recommended by the Planning Commission that 2 of the 29 proposed townhouse units be eliminated to provide more open space due to the fact that the City Planner, John Uhan, felt the density for this property may have been too high for the 29 units. In addition, some minor recommendations were made in regard to the set back distances to allow more parking area in front of each of the garage units and these two items have been in- corporated into the preliminary plat. The elimination of the two townhouse units also resulted in a little more area in the corner of the development for playground purposes per the Planning Cammisaion'o recommendation. The actual platting of Block 1 for thi. townhouse units is considered Phase I of the Victoria Square Development, and it is Mr. Rehar'o intention to immediately start some model townhouse units once approval io granted. The preliminary plat will be presented to the City Council after review by the Planning Commission and if approved will be basically platted as presented in the preliminary plat. in the future, if Block 2 or Outlet B is replotted, the Planning Commission and the Council will alto have a chance for additional review. Copies of the preliminary plat and revised development for Phase I along with utility plana, etc. have been given to the City Engineer and the City Planner for their review. To date, no negative comments have boon received from either corcultant and if either party has any recommendations, they will be submitted with the agenda. POSSIBLE ACTION, Consideration of approving the development phase of the Planned Unit Development including the preliminary plat and alto Phase I of the development as presented. REFERENCESs A copy of the preliminary plat, Development phaco 1, and preliminary utility plane. In addition, if any eommente are received from the consultants, they will also be enclosed. - 9 - (km ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON MOCIATES. INC. " onsu/tmg Enyukrs Division of Kidde Consultants, Inc t and Surveyors Hent t+ . 14141 Mr. 1, "' wry.. ♦ h+innrs..ta r xrhantlert. Inc. 2779: rhiaha+l"t avenue North St. PAll1, 9N 1.°.104 Po' Victoria S,4uar4i rr.ntic«)1... 'stnneftota t'somr -1r. R«her I aay.- Ats.:oaao.i .wr parch i •a►.etift, Witt. .turn wcfaltch, hontl- cellu i'ity Anytnw..r. Na concurs wltt, tLv basic results of our neatina if, that: 1. Th• preliminary plat of the total sits shuuln ue aohritted for the croatt..n (it tho outlo►t anct oedicatton of tum a►roat a. 7. roosisr atroet (n1A Highway iss snuth cit Dundas should be 1"elf-do.41 within Outlot n an shown on tie tjOnceyt Plan aeteu wov.,,h»r 1 1 , 14147. This should he arowr, as eatattny right-ut-wy to to vara►r1. 3. with nel VK,ltere )olniny In the 6,10t, his total uwnerwhiy should %# e*nwn within the houndary of the p9opneed plat. 1s.t 11une,sa iYtlnsion can then be %town to hl,hway 7S, the re,%alnln., trlan,Ia nnrthorly of nuntlea tsteealon "Iv tion h.. 140111tunAtwo as an .wtlnt. A. '%itlot ( will havtr t.. run (volt t.• tow-esterly r/yt.t-ut- way of arlsitin) rodar 14reet IWA'hiyhwsly 911 north ut uumoom •tton+iol. ihta ortatin•1 rlyt+t-ot-way will have to resin intll eunh ti•+a as 1:r. lutnner ens the Garago lv,.r Cn-yany for tuture ,wnars of those lands) ayree to the streat Vacation. t..r eut.olttal ..t tt,o vrellpinary plat .•f these outlute, a iisson- +Innen Arawlnu of tho layout slonq with a statement regard/n4 a 2021 fast Hennepin Avenue . Sutre 739 . M .% a, 4rnner,N syaM • 55413 61?/ 3.11 80560 parle Two 'fir. Mike Usher March 9, laNl ownership of the tot+l parcel and prombeci use of the outlots ahoultq suttice at this tiee. The planninw com-Assion and council, however, hav- the final any on wtat data is sufficient. PkAleitional net+ileA intor-,atinn will have to be suomittod as each nutlnt im *urtbr subdivided or develolw►u. J hrve enclose,! a copy of a Certificate of Survey of the Uundam ►:ztension, '4arvin knad, and Cedar Rtreut area for your intor-ation. This was prepared for the city to identity ioce cion ann area of the parcels involved in thr vacation anal creatiun ut thea. ri.lhtM-nt-way. Ynur• ve ry truly, Okw-SCN C1 4'N-9,aYRR(N t'. Erwaro A"es, "Ma-nlfk J. P. hsdalich ✓'r. FIAem, city of Monticello L -al Ince L. Case v Planning Commission Agenda - 4/12/83 9. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Auction Sales/ Consignment Sales Facility in a B-3 Zone - Bob Davis. In May, 1980, Mr. Bob Davis, who ams the property across the street to the west of Heskin's Electric on Oakwood Drive, made an application for a conditional use permit so that he could establish an auction sales facility at that location. A con- ditional use permit was granted by the Planning Commission and City Council, and as part of the conditional use permit, Mr. Davis was granted a variance from black topping and curb and gutter for his parking lot until July 28, 1980 at which time it was to be reviewed. Mr. Davis operated the auction facility for only a couple of months and at that time decided not to continue the operation. Mr. Davis has now reapplied for the conditional use to again allow an auction facility/consignment sales facility at his property. Mr. Davis has a 32 foot by 72 foot building (2,304 square feet) that he would like to again operate as a salca auction facility. According to the ordinances, an auction house of this size would have to have approximately 56 parking spaces and Mr. Davis, according to his cite plan, proposes to provide GG spaces. As part of the conditional use permit, City ordinancoo require a number of conditions be met in regard to outside colas areas and outside storage aruao, etc. As part of the conditions, the ordinances require that the GG parking spaces be black topped and provide curb and gutter around all the parking areas. Mr. Davis plana to immediately, if the conditional use is approved, prepare hia parking area with Class V, etc. and at the prenent time is uncertain ao to whether he can complete the black topping immodiatoly this summer. The loot I hoard from Hr. Davis was that he was fairly euro that ho would be able to black top the parking lot thin summer yet, but regueated that poaaibly the Planning Commicoion approve a variance allowing him one year to comploto the black topping. In regard to the curb and gutter requirements, Mr. Davis would like a variance on a permanent basis eliminating the curb and gutter as he fools the property iu located in an undeveloped area and that the curb and gutter would not terve tho purpose that xt in intended for oinco a curb and gutter would actually possibly hindar water drainage from hia parking arean. lis certainly understood that If and when the area developed cca=re ially further, storm cower or other drainage facilities in tho area might make it nacc000ry for him to provide for drainage to a certain area, but he felt that at the present time with all the land surrounding his property boing open gross area, the water drainage would not be a problem. - 10 - V Planning Commission Agenda - 4/12/83 It would appear that possibly a variance to eliminate a permanent curb and gutter at this stage may have some merit in that the area surrounding this property is not developed at the current time. Possibly the best drainage available from the parking lot would be just to flow into the adjacent grassy areas and curb and gutter at the present time may, in some respects, hinder water drainage as currently a storm sewer does not exist in this vicinity. Possibly, if a variance was granted to eliminate a permanent curb and gutter at the present time, it could be granted with the understanding that once the area develops to a certain level with other businesses adjacent to his property, curb and gutter of a permanent nature would have to be installed. As a result, if this was the Planning Commission's recommendation, Mr. Davis should be informed that his parking lot should be develop- ed with the proper grading as to allow for permanent curb and gutter installation at a later date. If this was not done at the time it was initially black topped, the proper sloping may not be available in the future for curb and gutter installation. If a variance was granted from permanent curb and gutter require- ments at the present time, Mr. Davis did indicate a willingness to install portable curb barriers around the perimeter for the purposes of outlining the outside parking areas. In addition, Mr. Davis felt that this would be acceptable to him in that he would then be able to remove some of the barriers in the winter time to allow for case of snow removal and snow plowing. NOTE: Mr. Davis indicated Thursday that he plans to complete the black topping this summer. Instead of a one year period to finish the black topping, he requested that he be allowed a couple of months for completion, depending upon the weather. lie also noted that he would be placing "no parking" signs along County Road 117 to discourage customers from parking along the road during hie auctions. POSSIBLE ACTIONi Conoidoration of approving conditional use permit for an auction sales facility and consideration for a variance request to eliminate curb and gutter requiremanto permanently and possible time limit for the requirement of black topping the park- ing lot. Mr. Davis or his non will be inattendanee at the meeting and may have more information an to when they will be black topping the parking lot which may be this summer. RURRENCESi A copy of the Planning Commission and Council Minutoo in May of 1980 in regard to the first conditional uoo permit that %as granted and sloe a copy of a map indicating the location of the property and a copy of the site plan indicating building location and parking layout.