Planning Commission Agenda Packet 06-14-1981MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLIO PLAl114ING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 9, 1981 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, John Bondhus, Bill Burke, Dick Martie
Wren Klein.
Members Absent: Ed Schaffer.
1-A. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 12, 1981.
A motion was made by Bondhus, seconded by Burke with a unanimous:
vote to accept the minutes of the May 12, 1981 meeting.
1. Public Hearing - Subdivision Request - Mel Wolters.
Mel Wolters presented his subdivision plans as proposed. He stated
that he would lb! willing to alter the lot sizes and configuration in
order to accommodate the city's request for possible further
easements for a frontage road and possible access to property to the
wast of his subdivision.
Mr. Wolters also stated that he would be willing to deed the low
land area of his parcel of property to the city for drainage purposes,
however, ho would like to see a covenant placed on that property
which would not. allow future development of that property to buildable
lots. That is; he was concerned that the property not be filled and
throby the wild life lose Its home.
Mr. Wolters was requesting that his subdivision be allowed to 1„•
developed without sewer and water improvements. He would like the
subdivision to be able to provide its own wells and wptic tanks:,
thereby, possibly creating property that would le lens expenotve for
developmont and attract those buninensea which could not afford
posr.ihly to purehaue land where all the improveme_nta wore installed.
The Planning Commission chose to take Mr. Wolters comments and t) it
comments to the planner for hia consideration and reccemendatiou to
he returned on July 14, 1n81'n meeting.
2. Public Hearing - Rezoninq and Conditional Uso Permit request -
Mnth,xlint C9ntrch/Lin,lherq.
Pam Lindberg presented her request for a conditional ute and r,zontng
of the property whom the united Methodist Church is located. Specifi-
cally, that ist lata B, n, and 10, of Block 19, of the original p1dt,
City of Monticello.
- 1 -
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/9/81
Mrs. Lindberg is proposing to open the Pumpkin Patch Nursery school
in the lower level of the educational unit of the Methodist Church,
and in order to do so must have a conditional use after the property
is rezoned. Also, there would be the possibility of amending the
ordinance to allow a nursery school as a conditional use in an 1-1
zone. If a nursery school were allowed in an 1-1 zone as a condi-
tional use, possibly some strict consideration should be placed on
granting that nursery school as a conditional use in that sone.
Mr. Jim Ridgeway, owner of wrightco, stated his objection to the
possibility of a nursery school being located so close to his plant.
He was concerned that small children might wander away from the
general area of the school and possibly become injured by the
machinery and big trucks at the Wrightco Plant. :dr. Ridgeway aluu
felt that the zoning change request was not compatible to the gen-
eral zoning of the area.
Rev. Douglas Nicholas, pastor of the Methodist Church, was prevent
and expressed the church's views that they have a commitment to thn
use of the church facility for the canmunity. ilu also stated that
the church is not interested in a permanent situation with the
Pumpkin Patch, but rather in interested in only a two to five year
intern project with Pumpkin Patch until they can find a more per-
manent facility.
An a result of the conversation between the applicant and the
Planning Communion, it was decided to hold a public hcarinq at
the July 14, 1081 meeting, at which time consideration will be givr,n to
making a nursery ach,,ol allowed ii, a conditional use within an 1-1
zone, and placing guidelines ulxrn that use an a conditional use
within an 1-1 zoic.
3. Public Menring - Sideyard Set (tack Variance - Fred r'uln.
Fred Culp, who owns Int 11, Plock 3, hndern Wilhelm Frt.iten, wa
prnrunt to mak..v an application for a aiduyard variance of four foot
to allow a six foot nideyard net back in an R-1 zone, where a tin
foot aideyard net tack In required. itis requent for a ntdeyard r;ot
back of leas than ten feet in similar to many athero made in the
Anders Wilhelm uubdiviuion which ar,- rolat,.d to the prop,rty 1 tnrn
not being ata right angle to the street, thuu, the houren take norr
of the property than would noreally he uood Ixrcnuqu they are hunt
parallel to the street rather' than lvisig parallel to Ili, !,idry.,.nl
property 11n, n.
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/9/61
There were no objections from the abutting property owners to this
variance request.
A motion was made by Martie, seconded by Bondhus and unanimously
approved.
The appeal process to a variance was explained to Mr. Culp.
4. Public Hearing - A Variance for a Sign - Dave Jameson.
Dave Jameson was present to request a variance from the Monticello
Sign Ordinance which allows an identification sign in an R-3 zone
which does not exceed two square feet in area. I -.r. Jameson requested
a sign of approximately eight square feet, which w„old he approximately
nine feet in height. Thin sign would be approximately four times the
size of an identification sign allowed in an R -:I zone.
This request was based on the desire to make the property that tilt
Jamesons have more visiLle to visitors who might be coming to s,•e
their restored homes, etc.
The sign would not actually be located on the Jameson property, but
would be located on a parcel of land owned by the school district.
Thr Jamesons were able to negotiate approval from the school district
to place than sign on their property with a contingency that the school
be held harmleae in case of damage to any individual lx cause of the
sign or any damage to the sign.
A motion was made by Wtrtie and seconded by Bondhus to grant thin
variance request contingent upon no other signs being requestt,l in
thu future and that the agreement be made betwo ,tt thy school dirtrict
anti the Jame�ons as requested by the dir,trict. All Vottd ii, favor.
The appeal procedure was explained to Mr. Jam._nnn.
5. PIIIaIic Ilr,atinq - Set Rack Variance - John PraugLt.
Rec— fitly, John Praught was granted a variiree to hutld a ntrund
garage on his property within five feet of th, rear itupoity lin—
Ho—ver, during th,• construction of Mr. Naught'n gazaw, !u w,a:.
mitutaken in the laropa,rty corners of los prup,;iti and utaaiv,•rtently,
built his new building five f, -et over the piolx rty lint unto tht
County Bighway 75 right-of-way. (The prol••rty in I1ri 29, block
Ritze Manor and in zoned R-1).
- 3 -
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/9/81
After discovering that his building was five feet across the property
line into the right-of-way of County Highway 75, rather than five
feet onto his property, Mr. Praught contacted Mr. Larry Koening of v
the Wright County Engineer's office. Mr. Keening indicated that if
the city were willing to go along with a variance allowing him to
build to the property line, that they would be willing to allow the
five foot over build onto the right-of-way provided that if in the
future, it were necessary to move that garage building or to do work
along that right-of-way, that it would be the owners responsibility
for removal of the building or damages which might occur to it. That
responsibility would have to be by a signed agreement which would be
contingent upon the property and all subsequent property owners.
There were two letters Presented at the Planning Commission Meeting
from those who received notice of the public hearing, stating that
they objected to this variance being granted. A motion was made by
Burke and seconded by Bondhus to grant this variance request, con-
tingent upon John Praught providing the county and the city with a
document which would be contingent upon the property and all sub-
sequent property owners providing that if,and in the future, if it
were necessary to remove that garage building or to do work along
that right-of-way, that it would be the owners responsibility for
the removal of the building or damages which may be caused to it,
and that the city and the county be held hnrmlesr: in any accident
or problems which might occur because of the building heing over
the property line onto the right-of-way.
The appeal procedure was explained to Mr. Prauqht.
6. Public Hearinq - SideyarM Set Back Variance - Pon Schluender.
Ron Schluender who owns Lot 1, Block 1 of Andern will—n Estates,
made a request to allow him to build a 24 foot garage upon his
property. Thin garage would come within five feet of the sideyard
of his lot.
An waa the cavo in item 03, alr. Schluender needrn the variance he-
eoune of the configuration of the lot and oloo because of the extra
ten foot oidoyard sot back on the corner aide of his lot.
A motion was made by Martie and aeconded by Burke to grant this
variance with all voting in favor.
The appeal procedurn wao explained.
- 4 -
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/9/81
7. Public Hearin - A Variance Set Back - Bondhus Tool Company.
John Bondhus of the Bondhus Tool Company made an application for a
variance to build a building within an I-1 zone using a 22 foot set
back rather than the 40 feet which is required by ordinance. This
property is located east of the existing Bondhus Tool Company building
and lies between County Road 75 and the railroad.
Because of the pie shape of the lot and the narrow amount of land;
that is, 86 feet between the railroad right-of-w•ay and highway right-
of-way, it is necessary to make this variance request for a 22 foot
set back on both sides rather than 40 foot set back. It is because
of the I-1 zoning that a 40 foot set back is required. If the 40
foot set hack requirement were adhered to strictly, in the case of
this property, it would only allow for the construction of a 6 foot
wide building to be erected on the 86 foot wide parcel of land.
Without a variance of this type, this parcel of land could easily be
considered as unbuildable and worthless. A motion was made by Martic
and seconded by Burke, with all voting in favor of granting this
variance.
The appeal process was explained
B. Unfinished Business from the Reqular Meeting of ttr,y 12, 1981.
Further discussion was held regarding the proposal, an proposed by th,:
City Council, to consider amending the ordinanceb to require that
buildings of three or more stories within the community Lm,- allowed
only as a conditional use, thus, giving the city some control ov�•r the
fire safety within those taller buildings. There wab concern that if
a three story building were allowed, at random, without ::ome council
control, it might become a rcquiremenL that. the city purchane a h�Kk
and ladder truck in the future in order that insurance tat,•c might not
be affected.
A motion was made by Martio, oeconded by Burke and given unanimous
consent provided that the ordinance be amended only if the. council
felt that by not amending the ordinance, it would require the need
for a new hook and ladder t nick posnibly, or that it would pon!,ibly
cauno a rate incroace for the insurance premiumo within the City.
M of ng Adjour ed.
en D. Kle n
Zoning Adminintrator
- 5 -
Planning Commission — 6/14/81
AGENDA SUPPLENEIrr
1. Public Hearing - Subdivision of Property - ouintin Lanners/Charles
Soucy.
Quintin Lanners has purchased the north portion of the Wayside pro-
perty from Mr. Charles Soucy and is proposing to subdivide that por-
tion of property which he purchased into four buildable lots. Lot 1
would be 20,000 square feet and Lots 3, 4, and 5 would be 12,400
square feet. Only Lots 1 , 3, 4, and 5 would be owned by Nr. Lanners
and Lot 2 would be owned by Mr. Soucy with the exception being held
at this time by another individual and that parcel not being included
in this subdivision proposal.
M You may want to note that Lot 1 is 20,000 square feet and in all
�y aspects exceeds the minimum lot size requirements as laid out in our
RR ordinances. You may also want to note that Lots 3, 4, and 5, although
they meet the minimum lot width requirements at the front of the lot
V and also exceed the minimum square footage of 12,00 square feet as
required by the ordinances, they do not quite meet the lot width at
J�' the set back line on the front of the property of 80 feet. That di-
). mension is somewhere between 785 feet and 80 feet, being possibly
1� feet short of the required 80 feet. However, you may also want to
�1 note that the developer has shown the proposed location of the houses
and garages that he would commit to build on those parcels of land and
�yt / in doing so,can show that he would not require any set back require-
ments for those, proposed c3wallingn. (This plan has been scaled on one
individual plan and has been shown that all of the huildingsahown an
proposed do, in fact, act within the act back requirements on all four
sides of each of Lots 3, 4 and 5) . The developer has raid that he
would commit himself to building the dwellings an proposed and shown
on thin sketch plan which is before you now.
The developer will be at the regular meeting of the Planning Commission
on ruanday evening and possibly at that time will have received further
information from the land surveyor who has done thin sketch plan regarding
the width of the property at the front yard act back line and will have
determined whether it in 78.5 feet in width or 80 foot in width or a
figure in between.
APPLICANT, Charlon Soucy and Quintin Lannero.
CONSIDERATION: Consider recommending approval or denial of thin oub-
division roqueot.
RP.FERPNCES, An enclosed okotch plan and also a map depicting the area
of thin proposod oubdivinion.
- 1 -
Planning Commission - 6/14/81
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
2. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment.
As you may recall at the last regular meeting of the Monticello
Planning Commission on Tuesday, June 9, 1981, Pam Lindberg was
present to request a conditional use and rezoning of the property
where the United Methodist Church is located. Specifically that is:
Lots 8, 9, and 10, of Block 19, of the original plat, City of
Monticello. (Refer to the minutes of the June 9, 1991 regular
Planning Commission meeting).
Mrs. Lindberg is proposing to open a nursery school (Pumpkin Patch
Nursery School) in the lower level of the educational unit of the
Methodist Church and in order to do so, she must have a conditional
use, variance or whatever other requirements are necessary since a
day care or nursery school are not allowed in an I-1 zone.
As a result of the conversation between the applicant and the Plan-
ning Commission at the last meeting, it was decided to hold a
public hearing at the next regular meeting at which time considera-
tion would be given to making a nursery school a conditional use
within an I-1 zone and placing guidelines upon that use as a con-
ditional use within an I-1 zone.
At the time of this writing, the comments from the City Planner on
allowing a nuroery school within an I-1 zone have not been received,
however, should they arrive prior to the meeting on Tuesday night, they
will be hand carried to each of the Planning Commission members for
their review and consideration.
Mr. John Uhan, representative fron [toward -Dahlgren Associates and
the contact person within that company regarding this matter, has
stated that it in becoming more customary to allow nurocy schools
within industrial and commerical zones, since, many times it would
make that nursery school or day care center much more available and
convenient for working parents. However, hopefully Mr. Uban'a com-
ments will be in writing and available to you before or on the
evening of the public hearing at which thin item is being considered.
APPLICANT: Pam Lindberg/United Mothodist Church/City of Monticello.
CONSIDERATION, Consider recommending approval or denial of this
proposed ordinance amendment with whatever guideline items which
the Planning Commission may consider necessary for implementation
of thin proposed amendment.
Rr.FRRPNC" a Refer to item 62 of the minutco of the regular meeting
of the Planning Cormnisnion on June 9, 1981, and also if received at
the City Vall at the time of this supplement being mailed out, possible
comments from John uban from the planning office.
(T%& C .. Ma per ssle, �.►dr..i+� -.r:
-rMc • s
-2-
Planning Commission - 6/14/81
3. Public Hearing - Conditional Use - Jack Kornovich.
Mr. Jack Kornovich has applied for a conditional use for a Planned Unit
Development within an R-3 zone. The R-3 zone upon which he is proposing
the Planned Unit Development is located between County Road 39 and the
railroad tracks on the parcel of land which lies between Yampa Estates
and the Northern States Power Company 's maintenance building.
This public hearing being the general concept stage for the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) is the first of three public hearings and serves so
that the proposal can be heard publicly and considered at an early stage be-
fore the developer incurs substantial expense in the preparation of plans,
surveys and other data.
At the time of the submission of this general concept state, the developer
has filed a preliminary development stage plan which shows basically what
he intends to do with the property if the Planned Unit 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 PUD with his final
proposed plan. Basically, at this meeting the only action necessary will
be for the Planning Commission to determine whether or not to recommend
approval or denial of this general concept plan.
Although this proposed Planned Unit Development plan shows the possibility
of nine lots, Mr. Kornovich has determined after having had discussion
with the city staff on this proposal, that one apartment building and the
ground it sets upon and one enclosed garage unit, that is: nix parking
stalls and the ground upon which it sete, will be owned by any one individual
or group of individuals and that all the yard and open areas including the
roads and parking lots would be owned in common by the Ansociates, which
would make the determination of maintenance and decorationu of the building
and upkeep of the grounds.
In reviewing the proposed Planned Unit Development, it has boon determined
that all of the parking requirements and lot area requirements would be
met as required by ordinance.
Basically, this Planned Unit Development will contain Cour-12 unit apart-
ment buildings with each a)wrtment building being accompanied by one
G stall garage each, and ooventy-two parking spaces.
Also, an can he seen by the plan there in no tree coverage on this property
and at thin point no proposal for landscaping Ian been subnitted, nor in it
required at this ntage, but would be requirod at a later hearing at which time
the preliminary development stage plan io filed. It appears that no vari-
ances would bo required from what would be normal ordinance requirements
and that this Planned Unit Development would comply with the general ordin-
ance requirements of the City of Monticello.
- 3 .
Planning Commission - 6/14/01
APPLICANT: Jack Kornovich
CONSIDERATION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this gen-
eral concept stage for a proposed Planned Unit Development.
REFERENCES: An enclosed map depicting the area upon which this
proposed Planned Unit Development is being considered.
- 4-
�Y9ia8d a 1Otg•
�,` \� ��Lvi�Ye taus biliib°
\ and cYcY
ChpY109
ti%;rty.w1i•t��'i•{A_I•tt.t r•/'0 `�('+."��::f i. �'«•:
"^`\ � .!x 10:11 � 1•V� + 1' • � �7 ��1" ' �,
�„� •:`tom
_•�*' _s_:. Vublie Hearing - Rezoning arni Conditional
sllethodist Church/Liralberq.
''rt�IN Pam Lindberg presented her request for a conditional use and rezoning
' of the property where the United Methodist Cburch is located. Specifi-
Bally, that is; Lots 8, 9, and 10, of�Block 19, of the original plat,
City of Monticello.
- 1 -
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/9/81
Mrs. Lindberg is proposing to open the Pumpkin Patch Nursery School
in the lower level of the educational unit of the Methodist Church,
and in order to do co must have a conditional use after the property
is rezoned. Also, there would be the possibility of amending the
ordinance to allow a nursery school as a conditional use in an 1-1
sono. If a nursery school were allowed in an I-1 zone as a condi-
tional use, possibly some strict consideration should be placed an
granting that nursery school as a conditional use in that sone.
1t[. Jim Ridgeway, owner of Mrighteo, stated his objection to the
Mnoibility of a nursery school being located co close to his plant.
He was concerned that small children might wander away from the
general area of the school and possibly become Injured by the
machinery and big trucks at the Wrightco Plant. Yr. Ridgeway also
felt that the coning change request was not compatible to the gen-
oral zoning of the area.
Rev. Douglas Nicholas, pastor of the Methodist Church, wao present
and exrrenned thu church's views that they have a commitment to the
use of the church facility for the community. He also stated that
the church is not interested in a permanent situation with the
Pumpkin Patch, but rather Is interested in only a two to five year
Intern project with Pumpkin Patch until they can find a more per-
manent facility.
As a result of the conversation between the applicant and the,
Planninq Corninnion, it was decided to hold a public hearing at
the July 14, 1901 meet ing,at which time consideratinn will Igo gi.v,n to
making a nursery school allowed as a conditional use within an t-1
sone, and placing guidelines upon that use ao a rorditional uoo
within an 1-1 zone.
1,
Public lioarinp - 9idoyard Snt Back Varianco - Frocl Culp.
PtaA who owr t 11, Block 1, Anders Wilhelm Ectatc3, was
proses o make •ation for a oidoyard variance of •ur fe,t
to % 'Ay fc rA cnt hack in an R-1 conn, wh,. a t, n
toot ,.r.uyarA not h.rek re requirod. rrfs requert for a oi4(,yard r -t
u
�lj� `, Co�Scio us+it 8�}6 oF�,re
HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES
C
CON!, U Lr,NG PLAN N r P ri
ONS �:wOvf_I.ND fCww��=
rniN •iC�p Ori i,N C�Ofw „��O'J
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 8 July 1981
TO: Loren Klein, City of Monticello
FROM: C. John Uban
RE: Proposed Daycare Center in an Industrial Zone
Daycare centers are usually located in an area convenient
for working mothers and fathers. The area needs good access
for the dropping off and picking up of children and must be
close to points of work and neighborhood. Daycare centers
are either built as new structures or adapted into existing
structures such as churches, shopping centers, or other
commercial buildings. Daycares can be found in almost any
land use from industrial to commercial, and of course,
residential.
The following are some general considerations for a
Conditional Use Permit fur a daycare center:
1. What are the surrounding land uses? To identify
these uses is important so as to determine the
compatibility of the daycare center with adjacent
uses or neighborhoods.
2. What is the use and condition of the propf-rty in
yucution? Is thu building proposed t.o he a new
building or a conversion? Isere we need to look
at building code compliance and gen--ral condition
of property as to upkeep, maintenance, things
that might offer dangerous situations for toddlers
playing or poor site distances for ,idjacf•nt auto
traffic.
3. Traffic and access problems should ho looked at.
Children usually arrive by automobile and muni
be able to have good access to the property. A
facility located directly on a hirlhly traveled
road may have problems with ease of acccon unlef,r
thf, road is built in such a manner is to accommodato
additional traffic movements.
MEMORANDUM
RF: Proposed Daycare in Industrial Zone Page 2
If children are to arrive on foot, pedestrian
access is to be looked at also.
4. The outside play facility should be large enough
to accommodate the number of children proposed.
It should be well built with a safety fence and
provide for a variety of activities. Included in
the outside facilities should be ample screening
from adjacent properties. Another roncern here
is having good air circulation, and ample natural
light in the play area.
5. Pedestrian safety should also be addr,�ssed.
Sidewalks should to of such quality as to permit
safe access by pedestrians to the site.
Pedestrian crossings for streets should also be
identified.
6. Adequate parking and drop-off facilities should
be incorporated into the site plan. There should
be enough parking for the employees and a propor-
tion of the parents somewhere in the range of
one stall per fivo pupils. There should also he
a turn -around and drop-off area on the Site to
facilitate the ease of parents bringing their
children to the daycare center.
7. The Site should receive adequate buffering and
a safety fence depending upon what Lind of
neighborhood the proposed daycare crnter is
located in. handicap ramps will also be needed
for this type or facility.
8. There should be lighting on the exterior of the
building for early morning drop-off and evening
pick-ups. This is especially important during
the winter montl,s.
9. The facility should comply with state or county
standards and be appropriately licensed.
10. For general information, the trips generated by
Such a facility would be in the range of four
automobile trips per pupil. If the facility han,
for example, 50 children you can expect 200
automobile trips to be generated by the daycare
center.
MEMORANDUM
RE: Proposed Daycare in Industrial Zone Page 3
The following items are concerns directed specifically at a
location in an industrially zoned area:
1. A question should be asked whether or not the
area would be more appropriately zoned to
residential. Are there residential areas
adjacent to the site and would the zoning be
more reflective of the existing neighborhoods?
2. Do surrounding industrial uses produce or use
dangerous materials? Here a survey of actual
operations needs to be made and a judgement of
appropriateness must be made.
3. What are the general noise levels of the area?
For instance, heavy industrial, trains, and so
forth. Would this noise level interfere with the
normal operation of the daycare center? Also,
are fumes or any other substances toxic in the
air and is this area then appropriate for daycare
centers?
4. In an industrial area one must look at the truck
and train traffic to determine whether or not
this is a safe situation in which to Locate a
daycare center. For example, what kinds of
materials are hauled and is it relatively safe,
i.o., derailed hydrous ammonia tank, or the
possibility of leakage from radioactive
material can be quite dan(lerous.
5. A fire potential usually is higher in an
industrial area and this situation should be
looked at carefully.
6. Special emergency notification to the daycare
center of any accident muut be arranged for.
For instance, stored chemicals like liquid
propane can be very dangerous and onergency
operations need to be spelled out quite
Specifically.
7. A value judgement must be made concorninq
whether the child's environment versus the
industrial intensity can be brought together
in a harmonious way to provide a gond situation
for a dayearo center.
MEMORANDUM
RE: Proposed Daycare in Industrial Zone Page 4
8. As I understand the specific proposal before
the City, there are some positive aspects in
that the proposal is in an existing church
across the street from a residential area. Most
of the traffic would approach through the
residential area keeping the characte: in tune
with the residential atmosphere of the daycare
center. The great concerns then are whether
or not these activities can happen appropriately
in an area and on property that is zoned
industrial.
Loren, if you have any questions or need more specific
answers, please give us a call and we will be happy to
provide additional information.
r