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.