Planning Commission Agenda Packet 08-11-1981AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Ausugt 11, 1981 - 7:30 P. M.
Chairman: Jim Ridgeway
Members: John Bondhus, Loren Klein, Bill Burke, Dick Martie,
Fd Schaffer.
1-A. Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of July 14, 1981.
✓1. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment - City of Monticello and Public
Hearing - Conditional Use for a Horse Arena - Little Mountain Riders.
2. Public Hearing - Variance Request - Marn Flicker.
3. Public Hearing - Variance Request - Northern States Power Company.
4. Public Hearing - Variance Request - Travelers Advertising.
✓ 5. Public Hearing - Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development -
Marvin George.
155 ✓ 6. Public Hearing - Set Back Variance - Bondhus Corporation.
1j
✓7. Public Hearing -Conditional Use for a PUD - Jack Xornovich.
Unfinished Business
Now Business
Meeting Reminder -
The next regularly scheduled mooting of the Planning Commioaion
will be September 8, 1981.
✓
�(., / �dA� rlG' V
G
MINUTr:S
REGUTAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COl41ISSIOa
Tuesday, July 14, 1981 — 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, John Bondhus, Bill Burke, hick r4artie,
Ed Schaffer, Loren Klein.
Members Absent: None
1-A. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 9, 1981.
A motion was made by Martio and seconded by Burke and passed unani-
mously to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning
Commission on June 9, 1981.
1. Public Hearinq - Subdivision of Property - Quintin Lancers and Charles
Soucy
Quintin Lanners who has purchased the approximate north half of the
Wayside inn property which abuts Sandy Lane, was present
to discuss his request for a subdivision of that property into four
lots. If that subdivision request were approved, four now lots would
bo created with a portion of the property being retained by Mr. Soucy
being an outlet.
Mr. Lanners asked that the Planning Cammissionwaive all of the sub-
division requirements such as street development, soil surveys, etc.,
and that only the proposed now lots and lot lines be shown.
No. Jerry Peters was present and wanted to discuss the sire of the
lots in question for this subdivision regarding the width and depth.
Also, Bill Burke, who owns proparty across the street from this proposed
subdiviaion, was present and questioned whether or not those Iota should
be allowed to be 15 inches loco then the 80 foot roquiremant and stated
that he vwld prefer to sea those lots 100 foot in width, oimilar to the
width of his lot.
In the case of the proposed westerly three Iota, the width of the front
yard at rho cot back lino to 15 inches narrower than the 80 foot ordinance
requiroo. The developer, however , has submitted an overlay onto each
of the ttueo Iota showing the size and configuration of the houses which
are proposal for those Iota. (The developer indicated at the meeting
that at least two of the proposed hameo, as shown aro cold, contingent
upon the approval of this aubdivicion request). The reason the dcvelolwr
has shown the overlay of the houses on thane lots is to chow that houcea,
vhichmeot the minimum square footogo requirtmento of the City of Monti-
colloican be !wilt upon theco lata without any variances being required
for either the dwelling or the garago. In this case, the developer to
willing to place a covenant on the property stating that no variances
should be allowed for the dwelling or the garage.
- 1 -
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/14/81
Basically, Lot 1 of the proposal is 20,000 square feet being over
100 feet in width and approximately 180 feet in depth and Lots 3, 4,
and 5, although unusual in configuration, are 1: inches narrower
than ordinance requirements and are approximately 180 feet in depth,
being of 12,400 square feet each. let 2 would be treated as an outlet
with possibilites of further development at same time in the futyre.
A motion was made by nondhus, seconded by Schaffer to r.ecunmend approval
of this subdivision request and to waive the subiivision requirements
with the exception of the lot width and recommend that that lot wi.lth
be accepted with park dedication being in cash. voting in favor was
Bondhus, Schaffer and RiAgeway. opposed: Martie. Abstaining: Burke.
2. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment - Pam Lindberg/United Methodist
Church/City of Monticello.
At the Juno 9, 1981, regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Com-
mission, Pam Lindberg was present to request a conditional use and
rezoning of the property where the Methodist Church is located.
(Specifically, that is; Lots 8, 9, and 10 - Bleck 19, original flat
City of nonticello).
Mrs. Lindberg proposed to open a nursery school (The Pumpkin Patch Nursery
School) in the lower level of the educational unit of the Methodist
Church and in ardor to do so, she must have a conditional use, variance,
or whatever necessary requirement is placed upon that use which is
located in an I-1 zone. As a result of the public hearing of June 1,
the oprlicant and the Planning Commiesion agreed to hold a public hearinq
at the July 14, regular Planning Commission meeting at which time con-
sideration would he given to making a nursery cr-hool a conditional use
within an I-1 zone and placing guidelines upon that conditional use
within the 1-1 tone.
At the July 14, meeting, comments were available from John Ulan, rop-
rosentative from Howard Dahlgren Associates, which reflected upon the
possibility of a day care/nurcory school being allowed an a conditional
use within an I-1 zona.
The Planning Commission,, after much discussion among the mcmbero and witl,
people in attendance at the mooting decided upon a ordinance amendm,mt
which would allow a day care/nuraoy i:chool within an 1-1 zone. A notion
vas made by nill Burke and occondcd by ❑d Schaffer to adolit an ordinanc,2
amendment allowing a day earn/nursery cchoul within an 1-1 zone with th"
followinq items homing concerns directly related to the opccific location
in an industrial zonot
1. 11hnther or not the area would be more appropriately zoned to
residential.
2
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/14/81
2. Do surrounding industrial uses produce or use dangerous
material .
3. What are the general noise levels of the areal would this
noise level interfer with the normal operation of the day
care/nursery center. Are fumes or any other substances toxic
in the air and is this area then appropriate for day care/
nursery center.
4. Consideration of the truck and train traffic to determine
whether or not this is a safe situation in which to locate
a day care/nursery center.
S. Is the fire potential in this particular area high as is usually
the case in an inAustrial area.
6. In special emergency notification available to the day care
center of any accident which might take place with such things
as stored chemicals like liquid propane, etc.
7. A valued judgement must be made concerning whether the child's:
environment versus the industrial intensity can be brought to-
gether in a harmonious way to provide a good situation for a
day care center.
With Ridgeway abstaining, the motion passed four in favor and none
against. As a continuation of the hearing regarding the posoibility
of the Pumpkin Patch nursery being allowed in an I-1 zona as a con-
ditional une, a motion was made by Burke, occonded by nondhuo to approve
the conditional use for the Pumpkin Patch iluruor.y School to be allowed
to be located at the Methodist Church property provided that the play-
ground area be surrounded with a suitablo safety fence. Those vIting
in favor were Martie, Burke, Bondhuo and Schaffer, with Ridgeway
abstaining.
3. Public Hearinq - Conditional Una - Jack Kornovich.
for. Jack Kornovich hao applied for a conditional uoe for a Planned
Unit novolopment within an R-3 sone. The R-3 zone ul� n which he
propoord the Planned Unit Development io located between County
Road 3g and the railroad tracks on the parcel of land which lien
betwccn Kanlu T'atatoo and the Northern States Puwcr Company'o mafn-
tcnance building.
17 3 -
r
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/14/61
The public hearing being hold is the general concept stage for the
Planned Unit Development, the first of three (3) public hearings
and serves so that the proposal can be heard publicly and considered
at an early stage before the developer incurs substantial expense in
the preparations ofplans, surveys, and other data. At the time of
the submission of the general concept stage, the developer filed a
preliminary development stage plan which shows basically what his
intentions aro for the property if the Planned fait Development is
approved as a conditional use. However, at a later date he will
have to come back to the development stage hearing for the Planned
Unit Development with his final proposed plan. Da3ically, at this
regular meeting of the Planning Commission the only action that was
necessary would be for the.. Planning Commission to letermine whether
or not to recommend approval or denial of this general concept plan.
Mr. Kornovich has determined that one apartment buLlding and the
ground it sets upon and one enclosed garage unit, that is, six park-
ing stalls and the ground upon which that garage sets will be own,.d
by any one individual or group of indivlduals� and that all the yard
and open areas including the roads and parking lots would be owned
in common by the townhouse association which would make the dt:ternin-
ation of maintenance and decor of the buildings on the exterior and
the upkeep of the grounds.
Basically, the Planned Unit Development propos& would contain four
14 unit apartment buildings with each apartment building Wing accom-
panicd by one nix stall garago cash and 72 uncovered harking olia-u.
All of the parking requirements as suggested by Monticello Ordinancoc
would bc, not.
Mario Schanon, property owner in the Kampa r•.stateo, which lieo drr,_cLly
wort of this proposed development site, was prolene and felt that rhv
traffic from this devolopment should not exit unto Kampa Circlo, I ,t
rather that the development should have its own exit unto County
Road 39. It was pointed out to Mrs. Sclwnen that it would Ix- a I- Ltrr
oituation to have the traffic flow from this prcpoual 4uv,;lopm.•nL flrnr.
empty onto Kampa Circlo,then onto County Road 39, since County h_id 39
LL; a collector romti anti the loss access points onto tKat collector read,
the safer the traffic situation would most likely be.
A mot Ion by rd Schaffer, necondcd by Dick Martif and unanimously al l rov,,i
to recommend this Planned Unit Development for aprroval contin:7enf. ul.on
rho hark dedication fee being made in cash.
ting t-ljourned:
Lrr6ri D. Rlcdn
Zoning Adniniotrator
- 4 -
Planning Commission - 8/11/81
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
1. Public Hearin - Ordinance Amendment - City of Monticello and Public
Hearin - Conditional Use for a Horse Arena - Little Mountain Riders.
Although this agenda item contains two public hearing items, they go
hand in hand because the ordinance amendment which is being consideree
was prompted by tkie conditional use application by the Little Mountain
Riders of Honticello.
Since the area in which the Little Mountain Riders of Monticello are
proposing to build the horse arena is located in an R-3 sone, it is
necessary to consider an ordinance amendment that would allow a horse
arena in an R-3 zone as a conditional use or to rezone the property in
question from R-3 to A-0 (Agricultural - Open Space), where a horse
arena is allowed as a conditional use.
In an A-0 district, a horse arena is allowed as a conditional use pro-
vided that,
1. Animal holding, holding, grazing, and exercise areas are located
a minimum of 1,000 feet from any residential, comorcial, or
industrial use district.
2. The lard area of the property containing such use or activity
mento the minimum established for that district.
3. The Planning Commission shall consider possible adverse effect n
of the proposod amendment or conditional use. Ito judgement
ohall be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors a
A. Ito relationship to the municipal cemprehanaive plan.
B. The geographical area involved.
C. Nhother ouch uoo will tend to or actually depreciate the
area in which it is prop000d.
D. The character of the ourrounding area.
E. The demonstrated nood for the propocod uoo.
d. All applicable requirements of the State Pollution Oontrol Ag( --=y
aro complied with.
The following io a quote from John Ulan of Howard Dahlgron i Acoociatoo
regarding this cubject. "I have reviewed the Monticello Ordinancoo with
thio particular uoo in mind and have found that in no way io thio use
opolled out so an appropriate use in any rocidential tone. Thio use
would have to be viowod so an incompatible temporary uoo and may be taan-
dled in a variety of wayo with the understanding that any infringemant
upon curroernding vaos or future ucoo would have to be conoidorod and
mitigated.
-1-
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/11/81
Thus, one avenue is to amend the ordinance to make horse arenas a
conditional use within the residential district, and in this case an
R-3 district. Since the horse arena can be considered incompatible
with R-3 zoning, the question of whether or not the arena would de-
preciate the area is a question that would be handled through a con-
ditional use permit if this were amended into the toning ordinance.
The conditional use permit would assign conditions to the use with
special problems in mind and could also eliminate the continued use
at a time in the future when such a use was deemed inappropriate.
The only area of the ordinance that deals with a use similar to the
riding club was that of commercial riding stables within the A-0 zon-
ing. The zoning is agricultural and has a different kind of character
than any other residential sones. The conditional use permit for cam-
ercial riding stables has the explicit condition of locating those
facilities 1,000 feet from any residential, commercial, or industrial
district. This constraint even within the agricultural zone is a
heavy burden for such a small piece of land. The land in question
appears not to be able to accomodate those kinds of set backs.
A method of allowing a riding arena on this piece of land would be to
zone the land to agricultural from the R-3 zoning it now has and pre-
pare to look at a variance for the 1,000 foot act back. This may not
be advisable because it is contrary to the direction of the city growth
in this particular use."
Some of the concerns which Mr. Uban outlined which should be addressed
when considering a horse arena for any area, whether it is agriculturally
zoned or residentially zoned are:
1. Noise. These arenas tend to be used on weekends for horse shows
which are the very same times when most residential areas arc
filled with people. Theme uses may find themselves incompatible
in that respect.
2. Dust. Dust from arenas, since they aro generally dirt covered,
can be a problem depending upon its proximity to residential
areas.
3. Screening. Appropriate screening should be installed so that all
of the use is completely separated from adjoining residential
areas and/or public traffic areas.
0. Glare from Lights. When the arena is being used at night, glare
from lights needs to be controlled so as not to inflict undue
amounts of light into neighboring properties.
S. Aavoragon. Often times those areas provide entertainment and
the sale of beverages can provide additional nuisances for
neighbors.
6. Parking. Parking for thio typo of facility would be based
roughly on the Ordinance calling for 20 stalls, then one otall
per 200 square foots or one per eight seats if there is arena
coating. This parking should be handled in such a way as to
moot all parking requirements.
- 2 -
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/11/81
7. Hours of Operation. This particular facility can be operated
at almost any time and controls could be placed upon it so
that the operation hours were not incompatible with those uses
surrounding it.
8. Review Period. A review period of approximately one year should
be scheduled so that its performance with all these concerns
can be reevaluated and permission to continue use could be
granted again for one more year and so on and so on.
9. Maintenance. Maintenance would be one of the points so that the
area is kept in a vital aesthetic state.
10. Signs. Signe advertising products and so forth for viewers of
the arena should not be allowed. Minimal signage only for dir-
ection should be placed on a use such as this.
11. Performance Bond. A performance bond could be another element
used to help control and insure the continued compliance of this
particular use. The performance bond would be placed in accord-
ance with the necessary amounts needed to maintain the area for
a yearly period.
Further concerns for this type of use on this particular piece of land
could be made in various directions. Primarily one should view this
piece as being on one of the main entrances into town and should reflect
the image the city would like to promote to incoming visitors.
In the case of parking for this proposal, if parking were based on It® t6,
previously discussed, the required number of parking spaces required would
be 20 stalls, plus one per 200 equiaro foot of arena, thereby 123 parking
spaces would be required. These opaces should be hard surfaced.
At this time, it appeases though the Little Mountain Riders aro proposing
to build the arena which is approoclmtoly 100 foot by 225 feet on the
north westerly portion of the parcel of property now owned by Mr. Maurice
Hoglund, which lies north of County Road 75 and east of County Road 39
from Curt Ia Storage and Salen. It appeare at this time that the Little
Mountain Riders would be aaki,W for a variance from the hard surfaced
parking lot requiremento and a variance from the landscaping requiremento .
No proposals have boon made ac to any typo of oignago which would be
roqueatod.
It appears from thio plan that tho propound arena would be approximately
200 foot from the R-1 toning which lice to the north across County Road 39
and approximately 200 foot from tbo commercial area, that ioi Curt'o Storage
and Sales which is zoned B-4, which lies to the wast of County Road 39 and
that parcel of property. AD to tlhe roquirement that the area of the property
contains such use mooto the minimum cotabliohod standards for that district,
there would be no problem in mooting the minimum lot Oita, which in the coca
of R-3 is 0,000 oquaro foot and in the case of A-0 is 2 acres, and in either
taco of A-0 or R-3, it would appear on though the minimum alto lots would
actually be too ®all and more property would be requirod than the minimum
standards onto in order to facilitate the proposed arena.
- 3 -
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/11/81
Although no written comment has been received by this office as of this
writing, there have been a few calls from the residences in the neigh-
borhood who received public hearing notices, expressing concern about
this proposed development. Those persons expressing concern were ad-
vised that they should appear in person or submit written testimony to
be presented at this hearing.
POSSIBLE ACTION: First, determine whether or not to allow an arena as a
conditional use and if so, in which zone. If an arena is to be allowed
in a R-3 zone, the ordinance must be amended to allow that arena as a
conditional use. If it is determined that an arena should be in an A-0
zone, where it is allowed as a conditional use, it should be determined
whether or not you will. recommend rezoning that parcel of land from R-3
to A-0.
Second, it must be determined whether or not you will recommend denial
or approval of this conditional use request to allow an arena as a con-
ditional use in one of the zones, either an A-0 zone as to where this
property would have to be rezoned to allow it as a conditional use or
to allow it as a conditional use in an R-3 zone, where an ordinance amend-
ment would be required.
REFERENCES: An enclosed letter from John Uban of Howard Dahlgren G Asso-
ciates and a proposed plat as submitted by Little Mountain Riders showing
the approximate location of the arena on the parcel of land for which it
is proposed.
2. Public Hearinq - variance RoWeat - Marn Flicker.
Horn Flicker, owner of Flicker's TV 6 Appliance, has made an application
for a variance from Monticello Ordinance 10-3-9, Subsection E, Subsec-
tion 2, Subsection B, Subsection 1, Option A. Under Option A, only wall
signs are allowed. The maximum number of signs on any principal building
shall be six signs (four product identification signs and two promise
signs) with only two walla being allowed for the display of the signs.
Each wall can contain no more than two product identification signs and
one promise identification sign. The total maximum size of wall signs
shall be determined by taking 20 percent of the groso silhouette area of
the front building, up to 300 cquaro foot, which over is loco.
For purposes of determining the grono area of the silhouette of the prin-
cipal Wilding, the silhouette ohall be defined as that area within an
outlined drawing of the principal Wilding as viewed from the front lino
or from the related public street W.
In Mr. Flicker's variance request from this ordinance, he is requesting to
be allowed to have three (3) preniso identification signs on the now addi-
tion to his present Wilding directly to the south of the now existing
appliance store. As you may know, the oast half of that now addition con-
taino approximately 2,000 square fact and is leased to the Fifth Avenue
Waterbeds with the wort half of approximately 2,000 square foot being
available for lease at this time.
-a-
Planning Co mission Agenda - 8/11/81
Mr. Flicker's request is that Fifth Avenue Waterbeds be allowed to place
an identification sign on the west, south, and east sides of that new
building, and that the now vacant space when it becomes occupied be
allowed by its occupant to place a premise identification sign also on
the west, south and east sides of that building.
Presumably, Mr. Flicker's request is based because the occupant of the
west one half of that addition does not have a frontage on Hwy 25, but
only fronts on the parking lot on the south side and fronts also unto
to the parking lot to the west of his building. In the same light, the
Fifth Avenue Waterbeds does not have a frontage on that parking lot to
the west, but only fronts on Hwy 25 and unto the parking lot on the
south side of the building. It is assumed that these businesses hoped
to gain exposure not only to the front of the building on Hwy 25, but
also to the parking lot and oncoming traffic from the south on Hwy 25
and from the parking lot on the south side of the building, and also
from the parking lot to the west of the building.
Although some concerns should be expressed because the future occupant
of the west half of that building does not have exposure directly to
the traffic on Hwy 25 (Pine Street), it is able to gain exposure to the
south and to the west, as well as the east half of the building being
able to gain exposure from Hwy 25 and also the parking lot to the south
of the building.
If consideration is given to recommending this sign variance request for
approval, possibly a consideration should be made to allow only the request -
ted premise identification signs being allowed, and that product identifi-
cation signs not be allowed in light of the extra number of premise ident-
ification signs being allowed.
According to the ordinance, approximately 136 square foot of aignago
would be premittod per frontage. According to the approximate sign plan
submitted, it appears as though the square footage allotment would fall
within that allowed amount.
Ono concern which should be addressed is whether or not a precedent
would be established in deviating from the ordinance by granting a vari-
ance to allow signs on not only the front and rear of that building, but
also on the aide.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS Conoidar recommending approval or denial of this vari-
anco requsnt.
REFERENCES, A drawing enclocod which Showa the west end, south aide, and
east ondn of the building, and the proposed approximate sign locations,
and two photographs of the building showing the different elevations.
APPLICANTt Narn Flicker
- 5 -
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/11/81
3. Public Hearinq - Variance Request - Northern States Power Company.
Ward King, representative of the Northern States Power Company, will be
present at Tuesday night' s Planning Commission Meeting to request a Var-
iance for curbing on a portion of the hard surfaced area of their new
training center development. Specifically, Mr. King's request will in-
volve the curbing between the parking lot and the heliport on the north-
westerly corner of the .property and also curbing along a portion of the
entrance driveway between the road and the service area towards the rear
of the building.
A copy of a portion of the plat of the training center area is included
with this supplement. The areas for which the curbing is proposed to be
eliminated by this variance are hilighted in yellow. Also, NSP is propos-
ing an overflow trailer parking area to be used only in case of an emer-
gency at the Nuclear Power Plant. That area is hilighted in green on the
enclosed reference map.
NSP's request is that they not be required to hard surface that area in
light of the infrequent, or hopefully never having to use that area. This
area would only be used in case of an emergency, and would be designated
as such. In considering the possibility of recommending that variance
request, you may rant to consider granting that request from hard surfacing
contingent upon that area being surfaced with grass as preferred to gravel
or some other material which may not be so effective in controlling dust and
drainage, as well as being less aesthetically pleasing as grass is. In light
of the nature of the training center and of the types and amounts of ongoings
which would be happening during the time of a nuclear power plant crisis, it
is a staff recommendation that the Planning Commission consider recommending
approval of the variance request from the curbing and also the variance
request from the hard surfacing of the emergency parking area, contingent
upon that area being surfaced with grass similar to the root of the lawn
area.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of those two
variance requests.
RF.FFRENCFS: An enclosed map showing a portion of the training center's
property with the proponed curbing to be eliminated hilighted in yellow,
and thn proposed area of emergency parking hilighted in green.
APPLICANT: Northern States Power Company.
- 6 -
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/11/81
4. Public Hearing - Variance Request - Travelers Advertisinq.
Mr. Ray Galarneault, president of the Travelers Advertising Company,
has made a request to be allowed to erect two outdoor advertising
signs (billboards). One to be located on Lot 9 of Thomas Industrial
Park, a lot which he owns, and one to be located on Lot 11 of Thomas
Industrial Park for which he has a lease agreement. This property is
zoned I-1 on Lot 11 and B-3 on Lot 9.
To give you some background, a copy of a letter from Mr. Del Blocher,
president of Blocher Outdoor Advertising, is included with the refer-
ences with this supplement. That letter states that Mr. Blocher's
company who has signs on Lot 9 and Lot 11 wished to relinquish their
grandfather rights to he permitted to have those signs on that property,
and indicated that he would he removing those signs within a period of
time.
At this time it appears as though Mr. Galarneault and his Traveler's
Advertising Company are now requesting that they be allowed to replace
those signs which Blocher Outdoor Advertising relinquished their grand-
father rights to with new signs of steel construction.
Mr. Galarneault has indicated that he would be willing to accept the
termination language of the City of Monticello Ordinances as is now
written. He also indicated that there would be no change in size,
lighting, or spacing of the sign units.
Possibly, if the Planning Commission determines to allow for the
erection of these two now signs, it should be contingent upon those
signs 1,eing of a type consistent in size and design. Por example,
possibly those signs should he a single polo, steel structure, similar
to the sign which was recently erected by Blocher Outdoor Advertising
in the Lauring Hillside Terrace area with appropriate landscaping
surrounding it. Also, consideration should be given to a uniform sign
size.
POSSInLF ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this sign
variance.
REPFRBNCES: An enclosed map depicting the location of the proposed now
signs and a copy of the Travelers Advertising Company's statement of
policy.
APPLIr_ANT, Travelers Advertising Company of St. Cloud.
- 7 -
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/11/81
5. Public Hearing - Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development - rAarvin
George.
As you may recall at a previous Planning Commission meeting and subse-
quently at a City Council meeting, the general concept stage of Marvin
?y George's Planned Unit Development for the Outlot A of Country Club rlanor
1 was approved.
r Q At this tine Mr. George has opted to place the development and final
J, d lan stage hearings into one hearing, as is provided by in the ordin-
v ances, and hring them to the Planning Commission and Council for their
recommendation and hopefully, their approval.
At the time of this writing, we are awaiting for comments from the city's
'A engineer on the proposed streets to be placed within this development.
Although the city will not own and maintain these streets, the developer
has asked that the city engineer review and comment on the street design
so that if at some time in the future the city were to desire to take over
the streets, that those streets would be built to the city's specifications.
Also, the city attorney has indicated that there is some minor detail in
the association agreement contract yet to he worked out, but he has indi-
cated that possibly if the Planning Commission chose to recommend approval
of this project, that that approval could be given contingent upon those
final details being worked out.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this develop-
ment and final plan stage.
REPERENCCS, An enclosed detail plan of the Planned Unit Development and
a copy or the minutes of the Planning Comminnion meeting At which the
general concept stage for this project was diccusoed and alao a copy of
the minutes of the City Council meeting at which the proposal for the
general concept stage for this Planned Unit Development was discussed.
APPLICANT. Karvin Goorqe
•6. Public 11�arincl - Set Back Variance - Rondhun Corporation.
Aa you may recall, at a recent Planning Commisoion meeting a variance
was granted to the Bondhus Corporation to build a warehouse 22 feet
from the front yard property line.
rlowever, conotruction of the building hao been started and it wan recently
discovered that the net tack for that building is somewhat loss than the
22 feet for which it wan required to be twilt. In fact, it is only 5 or
6 feet back from the front property line.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/11/81
It is Mr. Bondhus's request that you consider granting him a variance
to allow this building within 5 feet of the front yard set back.
At the time of this writing, there have been no comments pro or con to
this proposal for a 5 foot set back.
You might want to consider that because of the configuration of this lot
and the entire property of the Bondhus Corporation, that it is unlikely
that development will ever occur to the east of this proposed build-
ing and and that any development to the west of this proposed building
would be on the Bondhus Corporation's property. You might also want to
consider that the width of the highway at this location is quite wide
and therefore, the building would most likely not distort the aesthetics
of the surrounding buildings by being closer to the front yard set back
than is required by ordinance.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recanmending approval or denial of this vari-
ance request.
REFERENCES: An enclosed plat map showing the location of the building as
approved at the last public hearing and the location of the building as it
is now being constructed.
APPLICANT: Bondhus Corporation.
7. Public Hearinq - Conditional Use for a PUD - Jack Kornovich.
At the time that this agenda supplement was being prepared, due to a cir-
cumotanco beyond his control, Mr. Kornovich has requested that we delay
any action on this item until the next regular Planning Commission meeting
so that he might be in attendance while this item is being discuosed.
- 9 -
HOWARD DAHLOREN ASSOCIATES
7 n,.04.
C O N S U L T I N G P L A N N E ns
ONC +.ov .No ICf„i.o CC
NINiI[�nG�i'., +NNCSUr• t.Sa OJ
13 May 1981
Loren D. Klein, Zoning Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
RE: Prober Rezoning for Horns Arena in R -t Zone
on Land Owned by Morris Hogland
and Being Proposed by the Little Mountain Riders of Monticello
Dear Loren:
After receiving your letter of 6 Nay 1981 1 have reviewed thrj
Monticello Ordinances with this particular use in mini and have found
that in no way is this use apolled-out as being an appropriate tine in
any residential zone. This use would have to be viewed as an
incompatible temporary use and may be handled in a variety of ways
with the understanding that any infringement upon s.Irrourding uses or
future uses would have to be considered and mitigated.
For any use not provided for in the Zoning Districts to Permitt.,ri or
Conditional cues, that use ohould be considered prohlbitol, The
Planning Coumisnion or City Council or a petitioner mty roluent Lhat.
a study be done to dotermino the acceptability of thi I new use for
any part,cular sJnu and an application for the amondm.mt of. .I Zonlmi
Ordinance- could be made. Thus, one avenue is to annus] the Ordinalleu
to make lorse acetas a Conditiorutl Use within the residential district,
in thiu cant-, an H-3 District. Since the horse arena can he
conoider(-d incumpatible with R-3 Zuniml tho question of whether or not
the armta would depreciate the area is a question that could be
handled through a Conditional Use Permit if this were amcrtdod into
the Zoning ordinance. The Conditioruil Uoo Permit would assign
condition❑ to the urI, with special p^roblItmo in mind and could also
eliminate the continued use at a time in the future when such une was
deemed isalpropriate.
The only arta of the Ordinance that dealt with a use similar to the
riding cluh wan that of camnorcial riding stables within the A-0
Zoning. T)v zoning iC, agricultural and has a different klml of
uharactr r than any of the other rooldcntial ¢odea. T;no CondiLiunal
Use Porm!t for vurmnercial riding stables had the "Illicit condi Lion
!j
Loren Klein, Zoning Administrator 13 May 1981
City of Monticello page 2
J
of locating thoso facilities 1,000 feet from any residential,
commercial, or industrial district. This constraint even within the
agricultural zone is a heavy burden for a small piece of land. The
land in question appears not to be able to accommodate those kinds of
setbacks.
A method of allowing a riding arena on this piece of land would be to
zone the land to agricultural from the R-3 Zoning it now has and
prepare to look at a variance for the 1,000 foot setback. This may
not be advisable because it is contrary to the direction of City growth
in this particular area.
Some of the concerns listed below will be those which should be
addressed when considering a horse arena for any area whether it is
agriculturally zoned or residentially zoned.
1. Moire. These arenas tend to be used on weekends for horse
:zhows which aro the very same times when most residential
areas are filled with people. Thene uses may find
themselvon incosipatiblo in that respect.
2. Dust. Duet from arenas, since they are generally dirt
coveral,can be a problem depending upon its proximity to
residential areas.
3. Screening. Appropriate screening should bein;talled nn that
all of the une in completely separated from adjoining
roaidential areas and/or public traffic arca.
0. Clare from l.isyhts. When the arena in beinq uned at night.
glare from lights needs to be controlled so as not to
inflict undue amounts of light into neighboring proportion.
5. niaeraclao. often times) these areae provide entertainvaent
anal the salty of beverages can provide additional nuirancen
for neighbors.
G. Parkin. Parking for thin typo of facility wauld be Waal
roughly on the Ordinance calling for 20 Ctal13, then one
c.tall liar 200 rquaro foots or one per eight noata if there
In arena nesting. Thin parking nhould be h_inllcd in cueb
., way a:i to meet all parking requiromenta.
7. mourn of q oration. Thin particular facility can be
operated at almost any time and eontrola eculd he placed
ulwn it co that the operation hours were not lncampsntlblo
with thoru ucnon curroutding it.
(0 J
Laren Klein, Zoning Administration 13 May 1581
City of Monticello Page 3
8. Review Period. A review period of appropriately one year
should be scheduled so that its performanco with all
these concerns can be reevaluated and permission to
continuo use could be granted again for one more year
and so on and so on.
9. Maintenanco. Maintenance would be one of the points so
that the area is kept in a vital aesthetic state.
10. Signs. Signs advertising products and so forth for
viewers of the arena should not be allowed. Minimal
signage only for direction should be placed on a use such
as this.
11. Performance Bond. A performance bond could be anther
element used to help control and insure the conti ncd
compliance of this particular use. The performance bond
would be placed in accordance with the necessary amounts
needed to maintain the area for s yearly period.
Further concerns for this type of use on this particular piece of land
could be made in various directions. Primarily one should view this
piece as being on one of the main ontrames into town and vhould reflect.
the imagu the City would like to promote to incoming visitors.
Loren, I hole this has given you a few Ideas on how to approach thin
problem. It does not seas to be an easy use to incorporate into the
existing City limits of Monticello. if you have any questions,
ploaso tali me. In addition, I have enclosed two letters dated 3076
concerning dovelopmont of iolardo in the Mississippi for park pm:p000a.
Sincerely,
'bov-,
C. John Oban
Landscaye Architoct
enolosur. !n
N
�ro�ase� e relict -Por L; M6 Mountain -k,,
cies
�6ed4io n s Fa s t o P Mani: cello, Sv"A S Je op
�roPerfy ecdned by Yni %loylutd
`alio
n
o i
c
a
N
s
p
eeu`ni3 9 east _
lb
d
Dwiydvd
4ev
�1T
C.. 4.4-P
l
i y
s.
Q�
31
�
I
'O
F
1, °•,
1
� Y'
Ar
I
JIM
1,4
m. Ile
WIN
FirrLIKIL i Olr f3l,.i,_DIN�j Til 'l
r--' �r � 1 __ t ♦ r
•:GLV y1r .l � • " �a
NEW BUILDING GrR�.lce -. 41
f j i
I
"1'�A�.� •� rc MER►• : ,, .t . I � i
AKI41 N✓ TN i.L-
Fr'r 1A,nr< ,
MI S•I L UN r.
/
/
/
1
a �
•
•
•
/
/
/
r, r. w
r r' An m&
&...
co F-
A
Art
,, ,. n
r�(J yr•.OG
+...
trRAG
THOMAS
PARK
—T
sr. a
,Z'� •-•11-+J� mow- "I-�_r r-J��•%
I•/ � � f�Or�f � ,
O,A R:N009
an In !I -- * - '- =-.W— - -�-
---M09'49'44•W 04301 --` \ j
• 1NDI:l+RIAL l-
c A R. K
'.S. F� 'fit„ ��t •' 1 .. _. .. i , .�•�:4r, ��•�••
1 •til tL�` ., � 1 \'�\��
J
r ,t ' - •_ VARIANCI. APP%TCATIOW
N r 2 Off P[MLN Adverl�islna Signa
Trayslars Advertising Conpany
TRAVELERS vdvortistno company
ees 32 • IplbHw (e12) 2s36000 • R owes. nwnrsota UMI
OUR CMIPAIN STATFB-04T OF POLICY July 1, 19EC
1.) Our company is In the business of outdoor advertising. We build adver-
Using signs and rent them to customers on a contraut basis. We believe
that our customers have a legitimate right to use outdoor advertising
and that we have a legitimate right to build signs to display their ad-
vertising In commercial or industrial zones, subject. to reasonable laws.
2.) We will not build an advertising sign on any land until we have a sicned
land lease agreement with the owner of the land or nis agent.
3•) Advertising signs are not the "highest and test" uSu+ of commercial or in-
dustrial real estate. '4e know that many of our sleris will eventually to
removed to make way for new bisinesa development. 4h,3n thio; happens, we
w111 remove our sign(s) and attempt to relocate then in another commercial
or Industrial zone on a legal location with a new Lind lease agreement.
4.) We will never build an advertising sign In a residential or ac�rlcu:ltura'_
zone, or within 500 foot of a church or school.
5.) We recognize the need for local honing and buildinr codes, and we wall
never build an advertising sign until we have secured ana ;raid for a
building permit or license from the local governlnf body.
6.) We recognize t",innesota Statute #173 which regulaten citdoor advertising
on federally -aided highways In Minnesota. When that Statuto requires, we
will not begin building an advertising sign until we have made application
for a State Permit and submitted the fee money. If we are denied :he
State Permit and we differ with the Highway Department on the interpre-
tation of the law, we will follow the legal protean to determine 1f the
denial was In order and/or If the "....permit systems of legitimate local
zoning authorl•les take precedence". In any event, we believe that the
local building nermlt or license is the most important and we will not
erect a sign structure without a permit or license :Yom the local authority.
7.) Once built, we will keep our advertising signs in ,00d repair at all tinea
so that they can effectively carry their message to the public, and no
that they will not degrade the goneral appearance cf the area near the sign.
P.) We will r,lwnya carry adequate liability Insurance un our advertlolne ai,Tns.
We will renew and pay for all licenser, and permits Then they cone due.
9.) We boll,�vo that we provide a legitimate service to those buainesnen who
need to adverting their food, aeeomodntiono, goods and cervices to the
public wr.ile they am traveling in their vehicle.
10.) We do not ariliclt binineao Prom industries ouch an boor, liquor or tobacco
that are commonly available in many stores and offoctivoly use othor n.KPla.
We prefer to offer our few legal locations to travel-oriontod buoinenoes.
11.) We do not believe that "billboard allays" should tl) created, ref-ardleu..
of existing re ala tions. :e will attempt to maintain 1,CCO feet apache,
between cigns whenever poonlhlo and we will never erect a now o;gn within
500 feet of an existing sign on the same aide of the otrect.
12.) We will not display advertising for hininoaaea of one city within the 11�Sta
of another city unlenn It reads ' he traveling public as they leave the
city for the next cP'v. K1W
BLOCHER Outdoor Advertising Company, Inc.
r
April 7, 1981
Mr. Loren Klein
Building Inspector
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Mr. Klein:
Blocher Outdoor Advertising lost their 1(,a:.e hold on
the Mar carlund Property, legal description being
Lots 1 through 11, Block 1, Thomas Park, Wright County,
MN. The signs are on Lots a9 and 911.
Blocher was granted a grandfather permit al these twu
locations. I would like to relinquish my Irundfatheiod
sign-. since our two sign locations are h. iug removed by
April 10, 1981 or in that time span.
Therefore, as of April 30, 1981, I reline.u,sh my
gran6father rights to permit on the Marcorlund
Property.
Sind rely yours,
,Z)„ f
DcL hLocher
Pres dent
It
2625Ck:arwaler Rmad/Box 965/SI .�I x Soln 56,01/612-253-301'JO
NOTEt THE DETAILED MAP OF THIS PROPOSED PUD WILL BE PRESENTED TO
YOU AT TUESDAY NIGHT'S MEETING.
2. Public Ilearinq - Conditional Ilse and Rezoning - rarvin rN•orgv.
Marvin George was present at this meeting and prca,mted hin prolo.w]
for r --zoning Outlut A of the Country Club Manor Irnm B-3 to R-3, ,kn•l
contirntent upon that possible rezoning, he prese,tr:d his application
for a vottditional une for a planned unit develorrnrrnt for
on thi.i r'+me Parcel. Thin proposal, in it's gen,ral concept 5tmlo,
was similiar to the proposal in item Ills that ir; it waa boinq hv1.1
at a lublic hnarinq at its preliminary level no that the davolop•�r
- 1 -
Planning Ctt:visaion Ilinut.w, - VQ/,1
could .:btain quidance as to the general ouitcability of hin proir,r.,l
for the arca for which it wan proposed bnforo inuuting nuhnt.aml.,i
exponr..n, and the preparation of plans, aurvoya and other Oit, ..
Tim Gcnuny wan eotworned about rezoning. He Quot'.icncd w1wth,r ,
not rc�oning was le(jal. Ile also requnatod that i•. .•o on rtoord II.,�
he wao q,pnacd to this rezoning and conditional L.e, otatinq th,tt :.
felt Lhore was onough low income houroo in this cnnnunity. 17dr. r 1,
eatimatod that thu approximate coot of these hou!im., unito In,uld e -,n
somewh,re hotweon 6220,000 per four unit developr. -ni arul 030U,OtHI I••t
four uuitr Icvclupment, or Wtwcon $55,000 and $7'.010 t,tr unit.)
Phyllis, Cuff, rcpret entiny Rutr Auto part,), Was I o.Cctt ttt , tate L, r
oppo,ut to any .tovoluinent in that area. She ctctlel thut Ih. ui
afraid thin sutura buyero may Want tho calvngo yo 'd removed tL
proju.;t i+,xaon more densly porulated.
A mots .1 w , ma -to by John Per&uu, crconCtd Ly St' I'll ret ant.1.1�
approv, 1 t o t rr:cr on 1 rez(ning frock 0-3 to R-3, o 0 a r. t t 111. 1.y :: a
and cc -im1t J I:y Burke and unanimously orl,rwed to rr,corcn l t I ��
dition.11 .r.., t.f nilow a t.lanned unit davel:)rarnt ;n Out l,t A I
Countr'. Ci+nb ".mm .
•,j Alnanril AM* ulront fl-trirti,t
- I'
Council Minutes - 5/26/81
is not well suited for commercial development ai)d requests that
this property be rezoned to multiple family denuity property which
he felt would be a good development for the area adjacent to the
freeway and abutting single family residential 1•copert7. This 1
madinm dennity zoning would provide a buffer bet -dean the freeway
and the present Country Club Manor single family homes.
The Planning Comnisoion recommended that this property ho rezoned
to multiple family zoning although two abutting property owners,
Phyllis Ruff and Tim C,enung felt that there were enough multiple
famil^ homes in Monticello and also Kra. Ruff f,lt that with more
residences' in the area, there may he more preseare on the salvage
yard to be removed once the area in densely populated.
Ration was made I.y Fair, seconded by Maus to recons Outlot A of
Country Club flanor from B-3 (commercial) to R-3 (n.ultiple family
residential) for the development of the 16 acrd- int- a planned
unit development consisting of 26 four unit dwellings. Voting in
favor was: Fair, Maus, Grimmmo, and White. Oppo'icd: flan Blonigen.
(See Ordinance Amendment 5/26/81 099).
3. ConsOeration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential
Unit niWelopmont - Marvin George Builders.
In reference to item 02, Marvin George Buildero requested a con-
ditional une permit for a planned unit developm.nt consisting of
26 four unit townhouses. The preliminary plan for the townhounen
indicate that there would be nix cul-de-sacs leading to the develop-
ment and it wan the conconnue of the City Council net to favor atc.•p+-
ing those cul-de-sacs as dedicated roads but rather thu roeponulbilitea
of the development. The development plan also 1•ropos,!s that tre.0 will
be planted either along the freeway nn a buffer or in a circular ix ttern
arouni each nix unit development area no a buffer.
Some concorna were exprenoed by the council relative ro whethvr th(,re
is already plonty of R-3 land available for duvrlcpmant in the city
and concorna whethor thin additional R-3 zoning for multiple unen-
houcoo in neeosa.iry under the current economic varslitiono.
The conditional uce permit requent would only b.•for the gen,ral
concept otagu and tho City Council would have t. -give approval on
a ntri) by step hanio before any actual devolorm, at would occur und.•r
this plan.
Mr. Tim (,enung and Phyllin Ruff both exprcnccd -ploait:lon at thu
Planninq C.mtminninn icroting to the conditional sac permit for the
towihuq::v OcVet.pment with their concerns being oimillor to that
of the t. .t.+nJng irquo^t provioacly made.
florion wan rumio by Fair, oeccnded by leauo to opprevo a con+litional
ono h.vcit fir -i rouidoutial planmii unit develnpcent for ()ttVt A
of C.)rntr;' t'luh Manor an proEoned. Voting in f„vtrr Fnir, Rrir,Jv-,,
Whit.- and t:atio. Oppocedl Blonigen.
d
................... ... . .
' V Ypr
/� � � �,/ V �•� "IIT/ ,_;r � ° .r ♦� � v�W,`A �' - 1 �1
FA
4