Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 07-13-1982AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION July 13, 1982 - 7:30 P.M. Chairman: Jim Ridgeway Members: Joyce Dowling, Pd Schaffer , Bill Burke. 1. Approval of the Minutes for the Meeting Held on May 11, 1982. 2. Public Hearing - Rezoning Request - Rosewood Corporation. 3. Public Hearing - Variance Request - Blocher Outdoor Advertsing. 4. Public Hearing - Variance Request - Hal Wehmann. S. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment - For a Go -Kart Track. G. Public Heariny - Conditional Use R --quest - Jim Teslow, 7. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment - Planned Unit Development. 8. Consideration of a Concept Plan for the Development of a Parcel of Land - Jim Boyle. 9. Consideration of a Concept Proposal - Mike Rehr. 10. New Buoineos. 11. Meeting Remindor. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission will bo on August 10th, 1982. Planning Commission Agenda - 7/13/82 AGENDA SUPPLEMENT 1. Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting Held on May 11, 1982. 2. Public Hearinq - Rezoninq Request - Rosewood Corporation. Mr. Howard Rekstad of the Rosewood Corporation has made a request for rezoning a portion of the property which the Rosewood Corp- oration owns on the west side of the Monticello Mall. (That portion of property is depicted on a zoning map enclosed in the supplement). Enclosed in the supplement is a copy of a map from OSM, the City Engineers, showing proposed alternate routes for a Collector Road which would collect Country Club Road in the Country Club Estates near Ruff Auto Parts to 7th Street in the vicinity of Walnut and 7th Streets near the Holiday Station. According to the map, Alternate 2 A, which is hilighted, shows a possible route fur the Collector Road if the parcel which Mr. Rekotad has proposed for rezoning is, in fact, rezoned and development occurs on that parcel. Also enclosed in the supplement is a copy of a letter from Mr. John Badalich of OSM explaining his opinion of the development of this Collector Road. The reason the Collector Road comeG up for discussion at this time in that if the property propocad for rezoning is developed as was proposed for development, Alternate Route 42 would not be able to be developed an was chosen for development at an earlier City Council meeting. Although there is no reason why development could not occur on that parcel and Alternate 02 for a collector road be abandoned in favor of Alternate 02 A, it is necessary that the Planning Cosaniooion addrons thio issue at this time, since dovolo)xecnt is cloning in on the area for which a Collector Road would develop and a final routing for that Collector Road should be taken into consideration at this time. As Mr. Badalich states in his latter, "If the property of the Rocowood Corpor- ation io to be developed, I believe it would be in the beat in- terost of the City to construct or at least acquire the right- of-way for the Collector Road from Elm Street to 7th and Wlnut Streets along the prepared Alternate 2 A alignment" and therefore, any approval of rezoning and construction permits for any development might be made contingent upon Rosewood Corp- oration dedicating the property for Alternate 2 A as it crosses their property and also that they be required to provide or make arrangements for the City to have the property dedicated for a otreot between the center of vacated locust Street along that proposed route up to the interooction of 7th and walnut Streets. Planning Commission Agenda - 7/13/82 Also, Mr. Rekstad has requested that rezoning of this property be made contingent upon the hospital district getting approval for the development of an apartment complex on that property for the elderly and construction actually taking place. APPLICANT: Rosewood Corporation. CONSIDERATION: Consider recamnending approval or denial of this rezoning request for changing the property in question from B-3 to R-3, taking into consideration the necessity for property for Alternate 2 A for a Collector Road. REFERENCES: An enclosed letter from 00 with cents regarding this property and also enclosed map showing the proposed Collector Road routes. 3. Public Hearin - Variance Request - Blocher Outdoor Advertisinq. Mr. Del Blocher, owner of Blocher Outdoor Advertising, has made a request at this time similar to a request he made two years ago in which he was allowed to replace two existing billboards which sat on wood structuros with billboards which are on steel structures. At the time of his previous request, Mr. Blocher erected his new billboardo on single pole steel structures. At this time, because of the expense involved in single pole stool structures, Mr. Blocher is requesting that he be allowed to replace the present bill board structures, which he terms are loos than desirable in appearance because of their wood structure with stool structures erected on either two or three stool polon ao opposed to a single steel pole and as oppoued to the multiple polo structures which now exist. If this variance is granted, it would be granted contingent upon Mr. Blocher agreeing to tho present ordinance stating that if further development takes place on the property, it can only take place after the removal of the bill board structures. In discussing thio item with Kr. Blocher, he was in agreement that should further development ever take place on any of the lots upon which his signs are located, that his signs would cane down in lieu of the principal or higher and bettor use of that property. - 2 - Planning Commission Agenda - 7/13/82 If this variance is approved, it would be similar to the variance which was approved for the two signs on the north side of the freeway on the [curing property, these signs now to be replaced are on the south side of the freeway on the Hoglund property. We have received no objections from anyone who received a public hearing notice, nor from the property owners upon which this sign structure sets. APPLICANT: Blocher Outdoor Advertising. CONSIDERATION: Consider approving or denying this variance request to replace the existing signs with signs of a more stable structure and more aesthetically pleasing in appearance. REFERENCE: Enclosed map showing the location of the proposed replacement of signs and also showing the location of the signs that were replaced. 4. Public Hearinq - Variance Request - Hal Wohmann. Fir. Hal Wehvman,who built two condominium units in Holker'n Hillside Terrace this past spring, has made application for similar vari- ances to build the same buildings on two different lots. Previous- ly, the buildings were built on Lots 5 and G (One building on each lot). This request is similar, that is; Mr. Wehmann is proposing to build one building on Lot 3 and one building on Lot 4 of Holker's Hillsido Terrace. In applying the minimum lot size formula for Monticello Ordinances to those proposed two now buildings, it has been determined that each building would require a lot of 15,000 square feet, minimum. However, the same as with the previous two buildings each lot is only 14,025 square fact, leaving this lot 65% short in the lot area required for these buildings. Thus, 6br. Wehmann would need a minimum lot size variance. The new buildings which would be going up aro the name as those which are nearing completion at thin point on Lots 5 and G. If you have any interest in driving by, I am sure that Mr. Wohmann would be glad to have you stop and take a look at the project as it is developed thin far. The two now buildings would be immediately wont of those which are now being developed. APPLICANT: 1lalstad Wchmann. CONSIDERATIONi Concidor granting or denying of a variance request for the minimum lot sizes required for the development of these two additional now buildings. REPRRCNCES: A map depicting the location of the property on which the now buildings will be developed an well as showing tho location of the buildings now being devoloped. - 3 - Planning Commission Agenda - 7/13/82 5. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment - For a Go -Kart Track. Mr. Jim Teslow of Monticello has proposed a go-kart track for his property which lies at the south end of Elm Street on the west side of Elm Street adjacent to the freeway. This property is zoned B-3. Elm Street is the street which runs north south through Ruff Auto Parts. As a result of Mr. Teslow's request to build a go-kart track, and as a result of Monticello Ordinances not having any place where go-kart tracks are allowed, it is necessary that we amend our ordinances at this time to place go-kart tracks in some appropriate district. Mr. John LJban, of Howard -Dahlgren Associates, proposed the following amendment to allow go-kart tracks within a B-3 zone as a conditional use. 'The following is the proposed ordin- ance amendment: Section 10-3-4 (M) - outdoor Go -Kart Tracks provided that: 1. The proposed use must meet all conditions of 10-13-4 (A). 2. The Conditional Use Permit will be reviewed yearly to determine whether or not the use is compatible with neighboring properties. 3. A solid wood, six foot high, fence must be part of the screening required along adjacent residential property. 4. Dust and noise (70 db L10 at residential proporty line) must be controlled at all times to the catiofaction of the City. At this time, only one person hao raised any objection to the or- dinance amendment to allow a go-kart track in a B-3 zone. That objection comer) from Tam and Elraync Brennan, who are adjacent property ownerâť‘ who object to the go-kart track becauno they feel that the go-kart track will into rfer with possible futuro develop- ment of property which they have which is zoned R-3. It should be noted that tho property which Brennana have and is zoned R-3 is over 500 foot away from the proposed property for the go-kart track. Mr. Toolow hao also indicated that the immediate adjacent property owner to his proporty has stated that he hat) no objection and will possibly be oulmitting a letter stating that ho has objection to thio proposal. No other comments pro or con have been received at this time. APPLICANT: Jim Tcolow. CONSIDERATION: Consider approval or denial of this orc3inanco amend- ment to allow go-kart tracks as a conditional uce in a R-3 zone. REFERENCESi Enclosed teat report on go-kart noise levola prepared by L.W. Sando a Ascociatoo of Menominee Fallo,wicconr,infor the go-kart manufacturer. You might find it very interesting to read this report prior to Monday night's meeting, it contains come intereoting information regarding noire levels of go-karts today. - 4 - Planning Commission Agenda - 7/13/82 surprisingly, the engines today have been developed so that noise levels are significantly less than they were a few years ago when go-karts became very popular. 6. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request - Jim Teslow. Because of Jim Teslow's request to develop a go-kart track, the pre- vious item was prompted for adoption. Mr. Teslow wants to develop a go-kart track on his property which is addressed in the previous supplement and is also shown on the enclosed reference map. Mr. Teslow is proposing to build this track to be open to the public and has talked to all of his neighbors around him to find out what their feelings are about development of this track. The immediate neighbor, Mr. Tim Genung, has expressed that he has no objection to Mr. Teslow developing this track and has encouraged Mr. Teslow to do so. Tom and Clrayne Brennan, who own property across the street, which is zoned the same, have objected to the develop- ment of this go-kart track, based on the feeling that they have concerning a problem that could take place regarding the property they own over 500 feet away which is zoned as R-3. However, it should be noted that the noise levels of the equipment uzcd in this go-kart track are below the noise levels which are allowed by Monticello ordinances. Between the time that Mr. Teslow made his application for a go- kart track and that the City Planner had an opportunity to get the proposed conditional uses for a go-kart track suhnitted to the city staff, Mr. Teolow was admitted to the hospital for surgery. Because he was in the hospital for surgery and conoe- quently upon being released from the hospital for aurgcry wont to visit his in-laws during recuperation the zoning administrator has not had an opportunity to diocusa the proposed conditional uaeo with Mr. Toslow, however, just from my personal observation I would suggest that Mr. Tonlow would probably be willing to comply with all of the requirements for a go-kart track, although I am cure that he would want to discuss item 03 dealing with a solid wood fence. I am sure that Mr. Toslow will be present at Tuesday night'a meeting to discuos that with you. My feeling as zoning administrator in that Mr. Teolow might want to put up something other than a solid wood fence since hio go-kart track is on a rather large parcel of land and the nearest rooidontial property to his go-kart track is over 200 foot from that area of his par - col of land upon which the go-kart track might be erected. How - over, as zoning administrator I do not havo the authority to opoak for Mr. Teslow on thin item, and I am sure you will want to address this item with him at the meeting on Tuesday evening. APPLICANT: James Teolow CONSIDERATION. Consider recommending approval or denial of this conditional uce request for a go-kart track in a B-3 zone. (Pro- vided that the conditional uce is adopted an an ordinance amend- ment). - 5 - Planning Commission Agenda - 7/13/82 REFERENCES: An enclosed map depicting the area of Hr. Toslow's property, and a plot plan showing the proposed development of that parcel of property and a test report with noise level infor- mation about go-karts. 7. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment - Planned Unit Development. During 1981, at the recommendation of the City Administrator, the Planning Commission recommended for adoption a new Planned Unit Development Ordinance which was subsequently adopted by the City Council. However, it appears as though that recommendation for adoption of new PUD was done without consulting with the City Planner. At this time, the City Planner is recommending that the City consider readopting the old planned unit development ordinance in lieu of the new one which was adopted last year. Enclosed in your agenda supplement is letter addressed to the Planning Commission regarding readopting the old PUD ordinance and points out some examples of what the planner feels are short comings. As a result of my conversation with the City Planner's office re- garding the old Planned Unit Development Ordinance and ito short- comings and being familiar with problems that could be created with planned unit developmonto if they are pursued under the now presently enforced ordinance as opposed to the old ordinance which is suggcntod for roadoption, it is the zoning adminiatrator'n rec- omnandation that the Planning Commission consider recommending roadoption of the old Planned Unit Development Ordinance. APPLICANT, City staff. CONSIDERATION: Consider rocommending readoptton of the old PUD ordinance and eliminating the now PUD ordinance. RF.FERENCESt A letter from Howard-Dahlgron A000ciatcs pointing out the short comings of the now PUD ordinance and alco a copy of the old PUD ordinance. - 6 - Planning Commission Agenda - 7/13/82 B. Consideration of a Concept Plan for the Development of a Parcel of Land - Jim Boyle. Jim Boyle, who purchased several hundred acres from Morris Hoglund on the south side of I-94 in the eastern portion of the community, is going to be present to present his concept plan for the develop- ment of his "Meadow Oak" project. At this time, Mr. Boyle is pro- posing to develop only 177 acres of the approximately 600 acres of land which he owns in that area. Mr. Dick Knudson will be along with Mr. Boyle at that meeting at which they will present this concept plan for your consideration. Enclosed is a copy of the Meadow Oak booklet which describes in much detail the proposal which Mr. Boyle is making for the develop- ment of this property. APPLICANT: Jim Boyle. CONSIDERATION: This is the first of thrce(3) hearings which will be hold on this Meadow Oak concept. At this time the only action necessary will be to accept the concept for further consideration at further public hearings in the future. At this time, it is likely that the next public hearing will be held at the August 10th, 1982 Planning Commission meeting. RFFF.RENCES: An enclosed booklet entitled "Meadow Oak" which fully doaeribea the concept and proposal for Nr. Boyle's property. 9. Consideration of a Concept proposal - Mike Rehr. This proposal is similar to the above item. Mr. Mike Rehr, who owns the former Joe Culp farm on the south edge of Monticello woot of Ilwy 25, will be present to procent his concept for the development of what lie has named "Victoria Square". This item will be handled similarly to the previous item for Mr. Boyle in which the Planning Commission will review the information submitted as concept and will recommend approval for consideration at a further public hearing which in thin case will moot likely be considered on August 10th, 1982,olco at a Public hearing. APPLICANT. Mike Rohr. CONSIDERATION, Consider approving this concept plan for further consideration at a future public hearing. RFFF.RF.NCFSi Enclosed concept plan and booklet describing the pro- posal for thls property and a map depicting the location of this parcel of property within the City of Monticello. - 7 - Planning Commission Agenda - 7/13/82 10. New Business . (If Mr. Uban of Howard -Dahlgren G Associates has had adequate time for the preparation of new ordinance amendments dealing with manu- factured homes, he will be able to present them for your consider- ation at this time. However, no action would be able to be taken on them, they would only be thrown out to you for consideration and comment and brought to a future Planning Commission meeting at which a Public Hearing would be held for consideration of adopticn). 11. Meetinq Reminder. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on August 10, 1982. - 8 -