Planning Commission Agenda Packet 12-06-1983AGENDA
` REGULAR HEFTING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Cwcember 6, 1983 - 7.30 P.M.
Members: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Ed Schaffer, Richard
Carlson, Don Cochran.
7:30 P.M.
1.
Call to Order.
7:32 P.M.
2.
Approval of the Minutes of the Special November 22,
1963, Planning Commission Meeting.
7:35 P.M.
3.
Public Hearing - K 6 H Auto Repair - Conditional Use
Request to Allow Major Auto Repair in a B-4 Zone.
7:50 P.M.
4.
Public Hearing - Seitz Our Own Hardware - Conditional
Use Request to Allow Outside Liquid Storage in a B-4
Zono.
8:05 P.M.
5.
Public Hearing - Murfin Landscaping - Conditional Use
Roc,3uest to Allow Outside Storago and Sales in a B-3
Zono.
8:20 P.M.
6.
Public Hearing - John Sandberg - Preliminary Plat Review
of the Proposed New Development to be Named Par west.
8:50 P.M.
7.
Public Hearing - Monticello Country Club - Preliminary
Plat Review for tho Propoued Now Subdivision to he
Named Country View Terrace.
Additional Information Itemn
9105 P.M. 1. Tho next tentative datu for the Monticello Planning Com-
miaoion meeting will be on January 10, 1983, 7130 P.M.
9.20 P.M. 2. Adjournment.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
November 22, 1983 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Don Cochran, Juyee Dowling,
Richard Carlson.
Members Absent: Fd Schaffer.
Staff Present: Thomas Eidem, Gary Anderson.
The meeting was called to order by President Jim Ridgeway at 7:44 P.M.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular November 8, 1983, Planning
Commission Meeting.
A motion was made by Don Cochran, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to
approve the minutes of the regular November 8, 1983, Planning
Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Continuance of Public 11carinq - John Sandberq - Rezoninq Request
to Rezone from R-1 to R-3.
John Sandberg was present to relate to Planning Commission members
in regard to the Planning Commission agenda supplement memo. John
commented on the special committee meeting stating how the Planning
Commission members must vote in regard to the Comprehensive Plan and
how it was laid out in the overall outcome of the Plan. This iu
definitely rezoning, and the Comprehensive Plan does not allow for
R-3 zones within an H-1 zone. Planning Commission member Chairman
Jim Ridgeway opened the mooting for public input. Don Pitt auk, -d
the Planning Commiuuiun mcmburs if tlwy tied made their deciuiun.
Planning Commission Chairman Jim Ridgeway answered that the Planning
Commiuuion memberu had not made their decision yet and that they
would Ix, making a dcciuion un John'u rezoning request uhortly.
MI . Pitt commented that buying a home is a married couple'u larycut
investment. If Mr. Sandhety wau granted his rczuning requeut, this
could devalue the outimated market value of Mr. Pitt's hume and othor
neighhoru' within the arca. Mr. Pitt commented if the variance we!,
granted to Mr. Sandbuty, he in turn could do with the property whatever
he co chose, and in doing tie, could hu Gull the property to a new
developer and the devoloper, upon meeting all the building code re-
quirementa and the zoning requirements, build a building cumpletely
difforont from what John has presented hero. Chairman Ridgeway
eoturtontod on Mr. Pitt's remarks and countered that the estimated
market value of the homes would definitely not be devalued due to the
presence of a propoued eonduminium unit there. Chairmen Ridgeway
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/22/83
at thi s time turned the meeting over to Planning Commission members-
for
embersfor their comments. Don Cochran questioned Thomas Eidem as to when
and how long the new Comprehensive Plan would take. Tom countered
with possibly starting as early as January and taking up to six to
eight months to complete. Most of the time put into the new Compre-
hensive Plan would be spent by Cite City staff, Planning Commission
members, and City Council members with outside consulting help from
our Consulting Planner, Howard Dahlgren and Associates. Planning
Commission memMr Joyce Dowling asked if Planning Commission member
Richard Carlson would comment on his committee meeting with City
staff. Mr. Carlson commented as to the background of the meeting
and commented on a couple points of interest for him, that being
court decisions in regard to spot rezoning and the original intent
of the 1978 amended Comprehensive Plan not allowing for any R-3
zoning with an R-1 Zone. Chairman Jim Ridgeway commented on his
perception of a new community outlook within the new Comprehensive
Plan to be adopted and possibilities of a special zoning district
set up specifically for this type of housing combined with other
types of low to medium density housing. Mrs. Nicolai, neighboring
resident to tho proposed rezoning property, questioned as to where
the location of the government subsidized units would be and questionud
as to why this proposed condominium unit couldn't be located on the
west side of River Street. Chairman Jim Ridgeway indicated that the
specific areas would be brought out in the new Comprehensive Plan
with public hearings to be held as the new proposed districts would
be out up in the new Comprehensive Plan. .john Sandberg commented
that the property that is available for the proposed condominium unit
could instead Ile available for three new homes if the proposed condo-
minium unit request is turned down. lie also commented that tho time
is now to take a serious look at the need for this type of housing.
Planning Commission member Don Cochran commented on John's ideas and
indicated that the issue at hand is rezoning, but he does foresee
a definite need for this type of housing here in Monticello and stated
that this should be seriously addrenoed during the preparation for
a now Comprehensive Plan to take place in the upcoming months. John
Sandbciy questioned Planning Commission members as to other spot
zoning which hao Laken place wi thin tho City, not particularly in regard
to R-3 zoning but rezoning in commercial districts. Jim Ridgeway
commented on the fact that, with the, increased growth that has Laken
place in the last couple of years in i-.mticcilo and the upcoming
projected growth for the City of Monticello, the time is now here for
this typo rat housing to Ir- adjusted in the Comprehensive Plan. lie
aluo r.tated that the old Comf,rvhuiuive Plan as a whole be taken into
consideration and all area -i of tho zoning which han Laken place in
the City hr looked at and considered for further study in the now
Cumpr,•hannive Plan. At thin limo Chairman Hidgeway called for the
queot.ion on Mi. Sandhorg's rezoning request. Motion was, made by
Richard Cai l!.un to deny the i, r.oniny reqs v t. The motion died for 1„Ck
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/22/83
of a second. Don Cochran questioned City staff on a point of order
and asked if this could be tabled and picked up at a later Planning
Commission meeting after the new Comprehensive Plan has been adopted.
Thomas Eidem commented on Don Cochran's point of order request and
stated it would just be passing it on to City Council for their
action,as the Planning Commission did not take any type of direction
in Mr. Sandberg's rezoning request. A motion was then made by
Richard Carlson to deny the rezoning request based on the City
Attorney's opinion that this request is spot zoning. Motion was
seconded by Don Cochran. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting
was recessed at 8:17 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:19 P.M.
1. Public Hearing - Gus LaFromboise - Conditional Use Request to Allow
More than the Maximum Allowed 12 -unit Apartment Building, and
Variance Request on Minimum Lot Size Requirement.
Mr. LaFromboise presented his plan to Planning Commission members
indicating the reason for his variance request on the minimum
amount of lot size required; that is, it would provide a better
mixture of bedroom units within the proposed 24 -unit building.
What Mr. LaFromboise is propouing in his 24 -unit building would
be 18 two-bedroom units and 6 one -bedroom units. The minimum
lot size needed for the combination of the above units is 62,500
square feet. The size of Mr. LaFromboiso's lot is 59,941 square
feet. Ito, therefore, naods a 2,559 square foot variance. Chairman
Jim Ridgeway questioned Mr. LaFromboise and asked if there was
another way he could conform without requiring a variance. Mr.
LaFromboiso countered with he could have the building designed
with 12 two-bedroom units and 12 one -bedroom unite and, therefore,
meet the requirements of the minimum square foot lot size. He
would have no problem proposing to build a 24 -unit apartment
building with that mixture of bedroom unitu. However, Mr. LaPrombeiue
could have a better mix of apartment buildings with 18 two-budroum
units and 6 one -bedroom units. Motion by Don Cochran to deny Mr.
IaPronboise'a variance request of 2,559 square feet, seconded
by Joyce Dowling. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Joyce
Dowling, seconded by Ion Cochran, to grant the Conditional Use
request to build an apartmont building of more than 12 unita.
Motion carried unanimously.
5. Planninq Commivaion Review - Monticello Country Club - Proposed
Country View Terrace Subdivioion.
The applicant, Mr. Joan Brouillard, along with Howard Cillham were
preoult to diccuas plans with the Planning Commission members in
regard to their proposed Country View Terrace Preliminary Subdivision
Addition, that Using 10 residential lots for now single family dwellings.
C��
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/22/83
Motion by Don Cochran, seconded by Richard Carlson, to eat a
public hearing date for December 6, 1983, 7:30 P.M. for the
preliminary plat review of the proposed Country Vier Terrace
Subdivision Addition. Motion by Don Cochran, seconded by Joyce
Dowling to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:14 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
!i,'tLW �iCI1,L�17
Gary Arldeison
Zoning Administrator
- 4 -
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/6/83
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
3. Public Hearinq - K 6 H Auto Repair - Conditional Use Request to
Allow Major Auto Repair in a B-4 Zone.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Ken Stolp, owner and operator of K 6 H Auto Repair, is in before
you to request a Conditional Use Permit to allow major auto repair
in a B-4 Zone. As you may recall, the previous owner of the building,
Mr. Jim Teslow, operated a used auto sales out of the current
property. Mr. Teslow's used auto business was quite a controversial
item, which necessitated legal action and anout-of-court settlement
came because of it. Enclosed you will find a copy of the settlement
between the two affected property owners, Mr. Jim Teslow and the
City of Monticello. The decision came about back in 1976. Also
as part of Jim's business, he also did a little minor repair of
the autos before and/or after the cars were put on the lot to be
sold. This is where Mr. Stolp came into the picture. He did the
miscellaneous repairs to the autos, which probably back then was an
overnight that should have boon taken care of then with a separate
Conditional Use Permit to operate his auto repair business there.
We will leave it as an oversight back then and work only from the
present. Mr. Stoll, has been more than accommodating to the City
to do something to continue to operate his present business there
at the pito, oven though lie has been in operation for a little over
five years. Mr. Stolp is willing to abide to the conditions that
were attached in the out--of-court Battlement reached butwoun Mr.
Jim Toolow, and the City of Monticello through their attorneyn.
Mr. Stolp seems to operate a very buain000-like business there,
being very open to some of the City's roqueoto being asked of him
and trying to accommodate a very workable relationship with the City.
Mr. Stolp is also aware of the fact that the property he purchased
is oleo in the tax increment district and should further future
development take place, his Conditional Use Permit could be cuopended
at a given point in time, and he would have to relocate his buoinuuu.
Mr. Stolp also has some porspectiva plans in mind which he would
like to diaeuun at some point in time with the City in regard to
Mr. S[olp continuing to operate his business at the same location.
I will not explain in depth any further hie perspective future
plans, as the item before you in the Conditional Use Request to
allow major auto repair in a B-4 Zone.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS,
1. To approve Mr. Stolp'u Conditional Use Request to allow him to
do major auto repair work in a B-4 Zone.
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/6/83
2. To deny Mr. Stolp's request to allow major auto repair in a B-4
Zone.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the out-of-court settlement between Mr. Jun Teslow through
hI s attorney and the City of Monticello through the City Attorney
and the agreement that came about back in 1976; Pictures of Mr.
Stolp's current business location to be presented at the Tuesday
night Planning Commission meeting.
- 2 -
The above -entitled matter having come on for hearing before the
court in the Wright County Courthouse in Buffalo, Minnesota, on the
3rd day of May, 1977, and the parties having dictated a stipulation
into the record. Now, therefore, pursuant to said stipulation;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Any temporary restraining orders, injunctions or other pro-
hibitions issued restraining the defendant herein from operating his
used auto sales business at 349 West Broadway, Monticello, MN, be
and the same hereby are discharged, and the defendant is hereby
authorized to operate his used auto sales business at said location
in conformity herewith as a permitted use in a B-4 district.
2. That the plaintiff herein shall issue to the defendant all
licenses, permits, etc. which may be necessary for the defendant to
operate his used auto sales business at the above-described location
as a permitted use in a B-4 district.
3. That the defendant shall erect a five foot -high screen fence
on the rear (east side) of his property.
4. That the defendant shall maintain all lighting on the premises
as the same existed on the 3rd day of May, 1977.
5. That the defendant shall erect signs only in conformity with
.the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Section 10-3-9 (E) 2.
U
6. That the defendant shall maintain at the oforedescribed loca-
tion at least six (6) offstreet parking spaces.
7. That the defendant shall surface al l outdoor area with black-
top, concrete, or other surface in conformity with the Monticello
City Zoning Ordinance.
B. That the defendant herein shall not be required to erect a
fence or any other barrier along the north side of his property.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCO.
Dated this ay of / 47�L�: , 1977.
Judge of District Court
E
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/6/83
4. Public Hearinq - Seitz Our Own Hardware - Conditional Use Request
to Allow Outside Liquid Storage in a B-4 Zone. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Seitz is currently selling bulk kerosene out of two 265 gallon
storage tanks located on the outside of the rear most portion of
his building. First of all, outside storage of flammable materials
must be allowed within the City Ordinance before any fire code
requirements would apply. First he must have the Conditional Use
to allow outside storage in a B-4 Zone and then the following fire
code violations are noted. The violations are as follows:
1. Two outside 265 gallon storage tanks right next
to existing retail business building.
2. Two existing 265 gallon tanks not securely fastened
to a permanent stand or platform.
3. No outside area provided for spillage or overflow
of existing kerosene contents.
4. Gravity flow of outside storage tank contents
directly into the inside of an existing retail
business building. Contents shall be pumped from
existing outside storage tank into containers to
be filled by a manual pump or an electrically
activated pump, not by gravity flow.
Mr. Seitz iu willing to conform to some of the above fire code violations
in order to continue hie bulk kerouene business. Mr. Seitz has in-
dicated lie is willing to label the two outside storage tanks, put
them on a permanent foundation, provide a barrier for catching an
overflow or ovoropill of the contents. However, ho would not like
to install the hand pump or the electrically activated pump to
gat the contents out of the tanks. lie would, therefore, like to
utilize the gravity flow of the tanks and fill the cane from the
outside of the building. Therefore, he would shut off the gravity
flow of the liquid contonto after cacti business day. One thing to
look at is, is this the place where we want outside storage of
liquid products. Another thing to look at is Mr. Seitz has been
operating for over one year with his outside kcrouene storage value.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. To approve Mr. Seitz' Conditional Uuu Request to be allowed to
store liquid products in a B-4 Zone with the above noted fire
code violations corrected and applied au conditions to the
Conditional Use Permit.
3
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/6/83
Deny Mr. Seitz' Conditional Use Request and have him terminate
his bulk kerosene storage sales business.
D. SUPPORTING DATAo
Location of the two existing 265 gallon kerosene storage tanks
to the rear of Mr. Seitz' Our Own Hardware Store Business; Pictures
of the outside storage tanks to be presented at Tuesday night's
Planning Co®ission meeting.
-a-
_... USE REQUEST
L To allow exterior liquid
j storage in a B-4 Zone.
,. Seitz our own Hardware
4
40
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/6/83
Public Hear:Lnq - Murfin Landscaping - Conditional Use Request to
Allow Outside Storaqe and Sales in a B-3 Zone. (G. A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Walt Murfin, Murfin's Landscaping, is again before you with
another Conditional Use Request to allow outdoor sales and service
in a B-3 Zone. He is at another location just cast of the previous
requested site with basically about the same type of plans as what
was submitted in his previous Conditional Use Request. Mr. Murfin's
Conditional Use Request would be located at the property formerly
known as Dino's, which is owned by Floyd and Judith Kruse. Mr.
Murfin's plan is to lease 2/3 of the property from Mr. Kruse with
Mr. Kruse maintaining 1/3 portion for himself for a proposed use
to be acted on possibly later. Due to the nature of the proposed
site for Mr . Murfin's Conditional Use Request (the area is rather
high at the road frontage end of it and it drops off to the back ) ,
Mr. Murfin would be utilizing the front most portion of his 2/3
leased portion of the lot. Mr. Murfin is proposing to put an
8 -foot chain link cyclone fence around the cast and west boundaries
and the front portion abutting County Road 75, with the fence to go
back on the cast and want sides back to a point where it drops down
below the crabankmont. Mr. Murfin, as you enter the current entrance
to the proposod site, would have a gate entering into the property
with parking to your immediate right and to your immediate loft
upon entering the gate. Over on the northeast portion of the
property iu where Mr. Murfin in proposing to put his r-reeo and
ohruba. Alno, the area in currently blacktopped and Mr. Murfin
is proposing four or five decorative rock and/or dirt and wood chip
bino to the northweat part of the property with the proposed sales
office in approximately the center of the property. Zn looking
over Mr. Mtufin'a plans of his prop000d site, he in utilizing the
front mout portion of the lot with keeping much of the ualeable 3tcma
to the rear moot portion of the lot right before it dropu down the
embankment. Ono thing possibly to consider as a condition to
approving rho Conditional Use Request would be the utorage of
equipment and/or trucku primarily used in Mr. Murfin'c type of
busincuu. Thio should be limited to very few items, if any, that
would be le ft there for overnight or for any extended period of
time.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS,
1. To approve Mr. Murfin'o Conditional Use Requout to allow outdoor
oalea and oervice in a B-3 Zona.
2. To deny, Mr. Murfin's requout to allow outdoor salsa and uervico
in a B-3 Zone.
- 5 -
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/6/83
V C. SUPPORTING DATA:
Mr. Murfin's proposed plans will be presented at the Planning
Commission meeting on Tuesday night; Map depicting the location
of the proposed site; Pictures to be presented at Tuesday night's
meeting of the proposed site.
- 6 -
3
Iry
n
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST
To allow outdoor sales and
service in a B-3 Zone.
Murfin Landscaping
I
o : �
/
y
� { 1 Y a 1
1
• I
♦ I
r
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/6/83
6. Public Hearinq - John Sandberq - Preliminary Plat Review of the
Proposed New Development to be Named Par west. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Here is a brief background on the location of the property. It
is located on Highway 75 west adjacent the railroad tracks inter-
secting with the golf course and Prairie Road. It is about a 28
acre tract. Mr. Sandberg is proposing to develop this parcel into
R-1 single family housing and also two R-3 zones, one proposed for
townhouse or condominium units and the other for a proposed apartment
house. Plans were sent to our consulting planning firm, Howard
Dahlgren 6 Associates, Inc., and the following comments were noted:
No additional park laud will be needed; the R-3 zoning is inconsistent
and should be eliminated or converted to planned unit development;
Jerry Lane access off of County Road 75 should be relocated to pre-
serve the present pine trees located along the railroad tracks; a
grading plan should be presented showing saving of the oak trees
in the proposed development. In regard to not taking the park land,
the whole subdivision should be moved down with the lots fronting
the railroad tracks having a greater depth to them. A copy of the
consulting planner's comments is attached with the supplement. Also
enclosed you will find comments from Consulting Engineering Firm,
Orr -Scl;u leu-Mayeron b Associates, Inc. Here are some brief comments
regarding the consulting engineer's comments. In the R-1 zone under
Lot 1, Block 1, is 54,500 square foot, which would allow us 11 town-
house units at 5,000 per square foot. The current proposal we could
have in multi -family for apartment units is 24 one -bedroom or 19
two-bedroom units. Lot 1, Block 4 consists of 100,440 square feet,
which would allow us 20 condominium or townhouse units consisting
of 5,000 square feet apiece. The legal description on the proposed
subdivision needs acme revision. We do currently have an casement
of the land under the power lint). Ile has also not shown on the plan
what the existing zoning is surrounding the proposed subdivision
addition, nor does he note the existing ownership of the land 350 feet
from the Plat boundary. Part of the major concern from the City's
standpoint is the proposed sower line. Duo to the fairly flat grado
of the proposed sower lino, they have proposed putting in a 12" pipe.
Putting in a fairly flat level sewor line requires quite abnormal
maintenance on behalf of the City. This would be an ongoing mainten-
ance, which would require at least once a year going in and cleaning
the oxisting sewer line pipe, whereas our current schedule on cleaning
of sewer Lines within the City runs on a 4-5 year schedule with
periodic cleaning of different coctiono of sewer line in different
parte of the City. The sower lines in the development are proposed
to run out to hook up to the existing sower line servicing the properties
off of Prairie Road, which are in the Anders Wilhelm and Meadows Addition.
- 7 -
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/6/83
In looking at the proposed layout of the sewer with the low lots
in Block 3 starting from Lot 6 all the way to Lot 15, we would
look at the possibility of servicing those particular lots through
a sewer pipe to kne extended out across County Road 75 to hook up
with an existing sewer line by Oakview Circle. The water main to
supply the proposed development will also be serviced off of Prairie
Road and is dead ended at the railroad tracks. OSM recommends
that the existing water main line not be dead ended at the railroad
tracks. We also see four proposed problems in the storm sewer water
drainage of the proposed plat. He indicated no erosion control
measures on the plan, nor does he indicate any vegetation protection
plan on the plan submitted. Due to the abnormal lenqth of Blocks
1 and 3, we should consider some type of walkway which would extend
to the existing park located underneath the power line.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the proposed preliminary plat subdivision addition to
the City of Monticello as presented.
2. Deny the proposed preliminary plat subdivision addition.
C. STAFF RECOHMr;NDATIOtt:
The City staff strongly recommends denial of the proposed plan as
presented with the following additions noted to support the above
statement of the City staff.
1. We do not want park dedication. We ouggoot that the whole plat
be moved oouthwootward allowing longer depth of the lots adjacent
to the railroad tracks.
2. We do not want multiple zones in a single zone inconsistent with
our current Comprehensive Plan.
3. Sewer maintenance problems built in as presented in the plane.
4. The water lino dead ended at the railroad tracks.
S. Four drainage problems of storm sewer orator definitely should
be looked at.
6. foto 7 and 8, Block 3, have not Wen clarified.
7. No erosion control areaottroo have been eatabliched.
B. No vegetation or tree saving plans prc ocnted.
9. We, the City staff, based on OSM'o roceaamendation, would like to
see walkwayo presented from Block 3 to the park and the poonibiltty
of an access between Lot 1 through Block 2 to Lot 3 and adjacent
over to the park arca and that there propoued walkways be hard
surfaced.
- 8 -
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/6/83
10. Research alternative access points to save the existing pine
trees along the proposed access adjacent to the railroad
tracks across from Oakview Circle.
11. The property owners within a 350 foot radius of the property
have not been identified and the zoning for the surrounding
area of the proposed subdivision plat has not been noted on
the proposed plan.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the proposed Par West Subdivision Plat Addition to the
City of Monticello; Copy of the report from the consulting planner,
Howard Dahlgren 6 Associates and the consulting engineering firm,
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 6 Associates; Map depicting the location of the
proposed subdivision addition; some pictures will be presented at
Tuesday night's Planning Commission meeting.
- 9 -
ORR•SCHEIEN-MAYERON &ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineers
Land Surveyors
December 1, 1983
Mr. Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Re: Par West Preliminary Plat
Dear Gary:
The Preliminary Plat of the Par West Addition along with the Grading
and Drainage Plan, Preliminary Water and Sanitary Sower Plan, and the
Grading Plan under cover letter of November 16, 1983, has been
reviewed by my staff and we offer the following comments based on the
zoning and subdivision ordinances of the City.
I. COMMENTS RELATING TO TITLE 10, ZONING ORDINANCE:
A. As shown on the preliminary plat the existing zoning of area is
R-1 and the majority of the proposed lots in the plat are designated
as R-1. Two small areas (Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 4) will have
to be rezoned R-3. All R-1 lots exceed the minimum RO ft, width and
12,000 sq. ft. area. The two R-3 lots exceed the 80 ft . width and the
8,000 sq, ft. area. Based on Section 10-3-4 (D)of the ordinance the
maximum number of units allowed on the two R-3 lots would be:
(1) Lot 1, Block 1 e 54,500 sq. ft.
a) Townhouses @ 5,000 sq. ft./unit - 11 units
b) Multiple Family - 24 one bedroom or 14 two bedroom units
(2) Lent 1, Block 4 - 100,440 sq. ft. @ 5,000 sq. ft./unit o 20
units
II. COMMENTS AS TO TITLE 11, SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE:
A. Section 11-3-1: Thin office han not reviewed a sketch plan for
thin plat an indicated in the or+iinanco.
B. Section I1-4-1 (A)2: The legal description in nomewhat ambiquous
in the erect of tho exception and nouns ruviainn. Wo have noted in rcd
as wo would understand it.
(t) Doen John Sandberg own the Fee Title to thono exceptions?
(2) If hu duos, they should be included in the plat and shown
nubj�ct to the poworline saoomont. /^
2071 Cost Mennppup Avenuo • Suite 23R , Mifmpapohs, Minnesota 55413 • G12/331 Rf;60
Page Two
Mr. Gary Anderson
December 1, 1983
C. Section 11-4-1 (B)2: The existing zoning classification for land
within and abutting the subdivision is not shown as R-1.
D. Section 11-4-1 (B)5: Existing ownership of land 350 ft. away
from the plat boundary should be shown. This information may have been
included in the abstract certificate required under Section 11-3-2(A).
E. Section 11-4-1 (B)8: As to the preliminary layout for sewer and
water main, I offer the following comments. The size of the sanitary
sewer is larger than required in size to meet a certain minimum grade
and to provide a street sewer depth of 7 ft. from invert to surface at
the highest point of the sewer opposite Lot 17, Block 1 on Jerry Lane.
Theoretically with the 0.22% grade and a 12 inch pipe, a velocity of 2
ft. per second (fps) will be achieved if the pipe flows at least 1/2
full. This will not be the case as only 5-10% of this volume will be
available at full development at the south end of the plat. An 8 inch
pipe, which is all that is necessary, would raise the sewer to within
4 ft. of the surface at the upstream end requiring insulation and
shallow depth basements. Even an 8 inch pipe with the minimal flow
that will be generated will only provide 10% of the required volume to
achieve a 2 fps velocity. In other words periodic flushing would be
required whether an 8 inch, 10 inch or 12 inch pipe is used. The 12
inch pipe would probably be desirable in that insulation would not he
required and near normal basements could be constructed but a flushing
program will be required.
As to the watermain, I would recommend that the proposed watermain not:
be doad-onded at the railroad tracks and Jorry Lane, but he extendud
northerly and cut into the existing 12 inch main on the north sid,a of
County Road 75. A 6 inch watermain is probably sufficient within the
plat although this will be verified at. the time of actual design.
P. Section 11-4-1 (B)11: The grading plan indicates no grading at
this time on the R-3 lots. This grading will have to be reviewed on
the site for each lot at the time a building permit is requested no an
to ensure positive drainage throughout the plat. The remainder of the
grading plan appears adequate with soma modification of the rear yard
drainage on Lot 2, Block I and Loto 4 and 5, Block 3, as noted on the
plan.
(1) From the grading plan, the majority drainage is to the
south, thence to Otter Crook via the adjoining golf course
and primarily to the low area at the southwest corner of the
plat. A drainage owalo or positive drainage should he
provided along the west edge of Block 3 to the southwest
Page Three
Mr. Gary Anderson
December 1, 1983
corner along the east side of the proposed Park area. The
drainage carried northward from Lots 1 and 2 and part of 3,
Block 3, and from the south side of Kevin Drive is
landlocked at the southwest corner of Prairie Road and Kevin
Drive. Either a culvert should be placed across Kevin Drive
to carry drainage from west to east under Kevin Drive , and
thence to the railroad ditchl thence southeasterly to Otter
Creek, or a Swale be constructed along the westerly edge of
the Park dedication from Prairie Road South Half way and
across the park to meet with the previously described
Swale.
The drainage plan shows a minimal amount of storm sewer with
street drainage carried for a distance of 1,200 ft, as
indicated on Kevin Drive from Station 5 to the inters._ction
of Jerry tone. This coupled with a low point at Kevin Drive
and Jerry Lane (southwest corner) to be carried by a valley
gutter across the intersection to flow southeast is not a
good practice and may lead to a drainage problem. Referring
to the profile of Kevin Drive, I would suggest that the high
point or break In grade on Kevin Drive be shifted from Sta-
tion 5 + 50 to Station 7 + 04 the centerline of Jerry Lane
thereby splitting the flow northerly and southerly, which
will eliminate the low southwest corner problem. The other
alternative is storm sower and this can be looked at in more
detail at the time of final design.
G. Section 11-4-1 (C)6 i 7: The purpose and disposition of Outlot A
should be defined.
H. Section 11-4-1 ID)5: Lots 7 and B, Block 3 aro over 30,000 srl.
ft. and should show the placement of the buildings at the outer ex-
tremitios. The existing topography will not allow further subdivision
without substantial filling of a low land area.
I. Section 11-4-1 (D)7: No erosion control measures aro indicated on
the plan.
J. Section 11-4-1 (D)8: No vegetation protectinn plan has been
subm ittod .
K. Section 11-5-1(A} : Duo to the lnngth of Blocka 1 and 3, come
walkways could be roquired. Boceuso Block 1 borders the railroad, I
would advise against an internal walkway. A walkway however, should
be provided through Block 3 from Jerry Lane to the proposed park.
C()
Page Four
Mr. Gary Anderson
December 1, 1983
L. According to the City's floodway boundary plan the 100 year flood
in Otter Creek in the vicinity of this plat is at elevation 915. The
500 year flood elevation is at elevation 918. No problem should he en-
countered because of any flooding.
M. One final comment relates to the location of the park. This park
is located under a power line and within an easement and to me would
probably serve no useful purpose.
This concludes our comments regarding the Par West Preliminary Plat
and accompanying plans. A copy of the plans are being returned along
with some of our comments noted in red.
If you have any questions in this regard, please call.
Yours very truly,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYF.RON
ASS IATES, INC.
ohn P. Badalich, P.E.
City Engineer
JPBtmin
enclosures
cca Mr. Tom Eidom, Administrator
Mr. Bob Rohlin - Moyer-Rohlin, Inc.
Consutbrin Planners One Groveland Terrace (6121377-3536
Mmneapois
Minnesota 55403
Hftwd DddWen Am ck tes / Incorporated
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: 1 December 1983
T0: Monticello Planning Commission and
city Staff
FROM: C. John Uban
RE: Review of Par West Preliminary Plat
The property is triangular in shape and is bordered on the south by the
Monticello Golf Course, on the west by the NSP 230 KV, 115 KV, and UPA 69 KV
transmission lines, and the Burlington Northern Railroad on the northeast
edge. A portion of the transmission line corridor has already been dedicated
as park for trail purpo nes by the Anders Wilhelm Lotates Subdivision. With
the Montissippi Park to the north, additional park land is not needed from the
proposed development.
The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as being single family and is
presently zoned R-1. The two proposed R-3 lots are inconsistent with the
total development. Perhaps a PUD Plan with more detail could better integrate
the two uses co that the total density does not exceed the R-1 density of
three units per acre.
The access onto Prairie Road in the only rea nonable northern entrance available.
The southern access of Jerry Lane onto County Highway 75 would remove a largo
stand of pines in the right-of-way. An alternate access point should be
souq h t .
The grading plan shown that a groat amount of lite wooded area will be graded
thus removing many of the trees. Althouqh I believe the devoloper'n intentions
are to save the woods, a grading plan should be submitted showing what oaks
will remain after development.
All the lots appear to mont the minimum requirement of 12,000 squaro foot with
80 foot widths at the notlwck line. Int It. of Block 2 may be alightly undei-
sizod because of its unconventional shape. By Incorporation the proposed
park land lack into the adjeininq luta, the devololim,mt could be rearranged
giving the lots abutting Lite railroad right-ofway more depth. The movement
of hazardous wantoo on the tracks should he considered.
As a point of clarification the ownerohip of the property west of the proposed
plat and oast of the pork land (37.5 foot trail) should be identified and
incorporated into the Preliminary Plot.
(0
-LI ti
---------------------- ------- ----------
--------------
G
Q al
Request for Preliminary
Plan Stage. PIC at to
Subdivide and Razono .
Now Addition Co be known
as Par Most Subdivicion
Addition-_- .John Gandboy;g
I
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/6/83
7. Public Heating - Monticello Country Club - Preliminary Plat
Review for the Proposed New Subdivision to be Named Country
View Terrace. (G. A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The proposed Country View Terrace is located just north of the
existing entrance into the Monticello Country Club Golf Course.
Monticello Country Club is proposing to develop the land adjacent
to the Golf Course Road, County Road 43, to develop into 10
residential single family lots. Consulting Planner, Howard
Dahlgren and Associates, had the following comments on the over-
lapping of the right of way of the City street and the County road.
The street right of way should not overlap onto a County right
of way. Any further development or land expansion of the golf
course should also be planned in advance so that any access
situations do not occur here in the future. Consulting Engineering
Firm, OSM, had the following comments. The impact of this new
development hasn't been indicated on the plans. The 10 -foot side -
yard setback is not shown on the plat, nor is the 20—foot corner
lots sideyard setback. The plan also does not indicate an existing
20 -foot easement shown adjacent to the cast line of tho plat for
the 42 inch in place storm sewer. The plan also does not indicate
the existing permanent structures within a 350 foot radius of the
proposed plat. No cross section showing existing or proposed ground
elevations were submitted. Preliminary plat drainage arrows indicate
a swale along the rear lot line directing water to a proposed storm
sewer. This uwale doea not appear on the Cross sections of the plane.
Plano do not indicate construction of Club View Drive without a Curb
on the south or County Road 39 aide. The cross section plan should
indicate either a slight drainage Swale in between County Road 39
and the proposed Club View Drive or a gentle eloping of the ditch
area in between County Road 39 to the proposed Club View Drive. No
erosion control plana were submitted.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONSi
1. Approve the proposed preliminary plat aubdivinion addition as
prceonted .
2. Deny the proposed preliminary plat uubdivislon addition as
prooented.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City staff rocommnndo denial of the proposed eubdivioion addition
with regard to the ro-slignmont of the prop000d Club View Drive
and requiring redrawing of the plans with the following conditions
as listed below not indicated on the proposed plane.
- 10 -
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/6/83
1. The 10 -foot sideyard setback is not indicated on the drawings,
nor are the 20 -foot corner lot sideyard setbacks shown.
2. There is no 20 -foot casement shown on the drawing of the 42
inch storm sewer which goes through the property.
3. No structures or owners within a 350 foot radius of the proposed
subdivision addition indicated on the plans.
4. Surface water drainage needs to be addressed.
5. Storm sewer and curbing of the south side access road also
need to be addressed.
6. No erosion control indicated on the plans.
7. Storm sewer water sent into the 42 inch storm sower line instead
of into the drainage ditch.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Map depicting the location of the proposed subdivision addition:
Map indicating the proposed subdivision plan: Pictures to be
presented at Tuesday night's Planning Coamission Mecting: Consulting
engineering firm, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron a Associates, comments are
enclosed: Consulting Planning Firm, Howard Dahlgren and Associates,
comments are also enclosed.
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON bASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineers
Land Surveyors
December 1, 1983
Mr. Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Res Club View Terrace
Preliminary Plat
Dear Gary:
The preliminary plat of the proposed Club View Terrace Addition, along
with the Proposed Street and Grading plan, Storm Sewer Plan and cross
sections sent under your cover letter of November 16, 1983, have been
reviewed by my staff. We offer the following comments based on the
zoning and subdivision ordinances of the City.
I. TITLE 10 ZONING ORDINANCE
A. The zoning map indicates the existing zoning is R -l. The proposed
usage or proposed zoning change, if any, for the plat is not stated.
The review has, therefore, been based on the existing zoning.
B. According to Section 10-3-4 for an R-1 Zone, the fol lowing
setbacks will apply.
1. The 30' front yard setback is shown on the plan in accordance
with the ordinance.
2. The 10' aide yard requirement is not shown on the plat.
3. The 20' aide yard on the corner lot is not shown on the plat.
C. Section 10-3-1 indicates the area and size requirements for R-1
zoned lots.
1. All lots exceed the 12,000 Sq. Pt. minimum area.
2. All lots exceed the 80' minimum width.
II. TITLE 11 SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.
Ii
A. There should be an existing 20' easement shown adjacent to the
east lino of the plat for the 42' in-place storm sewer she required
2021 East Hennepin Avenue • Suito 238 , Minneopobs. Minnesota 55413 - 612 / 331.8660
Page Two
Mr. Gary Anderson
December 1, 1983
under Section 11-4-1(B)4. This easement area should be dedicated on
the final plat as a 20' drainage and utility easement. All existing
permanent structures within 350' of the proposed plat should also be
shown.
B. Ownership of land within 350' of the boundary of the plat should
be shown as required under Section 11-4-1(B)5. This may have been
included with the Abstractor's Certificate (not submitted to this
office) as required under Section 11-3-2(A).
C. Cross Sections showing existing and proposed ground elevations
were submitted in lieu of the contour grading plan as required under
Section 11-4-1(8)11.
D. A statement should be submitted regarding the proposed use of the
residential lots as per Section 11-4-1(D)1.
E. Section 11-4-1(D)2 asks that provision for surface water disposal
be indicated. The preliminary plat drainage arrows indicate a swale
along the rear lot line directing water to a proposed storm sewer.
This swale does not appear on the cross sections. As an alternative
to the beehive catch basin and storm sewer along the rear of Lots 8,
9, and 10, these lots could be graded so that the rear yard drainage
could run overland to the now ditch going north through the country
club property. This way, the rear yard beehive could be eliminated,
thereby also eliminating the portion of the storm sewer running
between Lots 7 and 8 from Club View Drive to the rear of these lots.
P. The catch basins shown at 3 + 40 loft should be further out from
the centerline (placed at ditch bottom) with beehive grate if Club
View Drive is to be constructed without curb on the south or County
Road 39 side as shown on a typical section. The typical cross section
should show the ditch between County Road 39 and Club view Drive. The
cross section as shown on the plan would indicate that the runoff from
County Road 39 would enter in on Club View Drive, and this should not
be permitted.
If Club View Road is to be constructed as shown on the cross section,
with no ditch on the south side, then curb gutter should be placed on
the south side of Club View Drive. I would recommend that Club View
Drive be constructed with curb and gutter on both sides of the street.
G. Section I1-4-1(D)T7 refers to an orosion control plan. Hay bales
or other erosion control devices should be used within all of the
swales so as to pick up any silt from the disturbed area of that plat.
(.`V 6�i
Page Three
Mr. Gary Anderson
December 1, 1983
This concludes our comments regarding the Club View Terrace prelimi-
nary plat and accompanying plans. A copy of the plans with some of
our comments noted in red are being returned.
If you have any questions in this regard, please call me.
Yours very truly,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
ASS TES, INC.
John P. Badelich, P.E.
City Engineer
JPB:nlb
Enclosures
cc: Thomas Eidem, City Administrator
Robert Rohlin, Moyer-Rohlin, Inc.
�J U
ConsWM Planners One Groveland Terrace- (612)377-3536_
MinneaDolis
Minnesota 55403
F4oirard D*dWen Asaoolatee / Irxorporated
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: 1 December 1987
TO: Monticello Planning Commission and City
Staff
FROM: C. John Uban
RE: Review of Club View Terrace Preliminary
Plat
The ten (10) single family lots north of County Highway 39 are planned so
that no driveways directly access the county road, rather they use a frontage
road called Club View Drive. Club View Drive is proposed with a 50 foot
right-of-way although most residential roads are 60 feet in width. The low
amount of traffic expected on this road does not need a 60 foot right-of-way.
However, the 100 foot right-of-way for County Highway 39 should be dedicated
in full without overlapping the frontage road right-of-way. This type of
access solution is not good, a perpendicular street is preferable for gaining
access to county highways.
A short cul-de-sac should be explored if soil conditions and golf course plans
permit this arrangement. Country Club Road to the north should line up with
Country Club Road to the south. The existing 100 foot center lino offset is
not good dcuign.
The lot sizes meat the ordinance standard. The proposed use in not consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Public/Quasi-Public. The land,
however, in zoned R-1.
Further development and land expansion of the golf courne should he planner]
in advance so that odd accenu situations do not occur in the future.
\
Request for Preliminary Plan
of Proposed New Subdivision
•�, rr I S to be known as Country View
Terrace Subdivibion Addition
A \ Monticello Country Club
it
db
� r r•
Op 4 _ !