Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes_11-11-1980 (2)MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, November 11, 1980 - 7:70 Y.M. Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, John Bondhus, Dick Martie, Ed Schaffer, Loren Klein (ex -officio) Members Absent: Bill Burke 1. Approval of Minutes - October 14, 1980 meeting . Motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Dick Martie and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the October 14, 1980 %,seting as presented. 2. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use for the RivLrcrc HL Christian School. At the time of the advertising fur the conditic.nal use for Ery Radunz and Terry Hick's to build two 18 -unit apartment buildings in Lauring Hillside Terrace, it was brought to the City's attention that the Rivercreat Christian School had moved students into the house to the vest of the pre- sent Assembly of Cod Church. This information was brought to the City office's attention by one of the people receiving a conditional use hearing notice. What had happened, was that the adminiettntion of the Rivercreat Chriutian School, knowing they needed more room to expand their educational classrooms, chose to expand into the house to the vent of the Assembly of Cod Church facility, which they already owned. They did not, apparently, know that the School 's expansion would require a conditional use, as provided by Monticello Ordinance, in order that they might expand into that house. At the Planning Commission's meeting on Tuesday night, there wen• repre- sentatives of the neighborhood and also the Hiverert•st Christian School to ask and answer questions. Those people commenting were as follows: William Everett., Adtuintstrator of the Rivetcrest Christ ian Sihoul, preuonted a petition with some 100 signatures on it requruli,ig thr consideration of the cmtdit ional use in order that they might continue to have clauses Within that dwell ing. Included with that petition wer, the uignatnres of uuv.•rul of the neiolbor-a who supported the request that the conditional use be p,rant.d. (it might be intereuting to note that those neighburu who ouppolted the tcquent for consideration of the conditional use cuntainod only one nember of the Ass cmbly of Cod Church). Planning Commission Ninutes - 11/11/80 Jerry Brooks was opposed to the expansion of the School because he felt that the kids trespassed on his property and also lie said that he objects to kids leaving the school area during the day.(Mr. Everett, Administrator of the Rivercrest Christian School, countered the second objection, because he said that the kids were not allowed to leave the school and drive in their vehicles during the day.) Gene Putnam, who spoke as a representative for Iledtkes, expressed an objec- tion to the expansion of the School. lie stated that he was aware that the Hedtkes and the Klatts had sent letters of objection to the school; he was also aware that Rasmussen's had sent a letter in favor of the school. Duane Rajnnen indicated that he was in favor of the school, that his property directly abuts the school, and he had no objection. Our Building Official met with Mr. Gahart Decker, a representative of the Rivercrest Christian School, and toured the dwelling in which the classes were held. There would be some Building Code requirements to upgrade por- tions of the dwelling, and should permission be granted to continue the educational use within that residential facility, Mr. Decker stated they would be willing to make those improvements. Mr. Decker also stated (list presently, they are in the planning stage fur a new Church/School facility, but that at this time, no tentative plans have been completed and they are unable to reveal any plans a.� to what the future might be. On a motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded by John Bondhus, it was a unanimous vote to recommend approval until June 1, 1981, to hold the classes in the dwelling facility adjacent to th. Assembly of God Church. If School were going to be held in that dwelling next year, it would be necessary to return to the Planning Conwissiun and Council for a recunr.idelalion lot the following year. 3. Consideration of Extending a Conditional Uue - First Baptist Church of Monticello. At the August 23, 1976 regular meeting of the Monticello City Council, u building permit was granted to build a reuiden,e and use that reuiden'.. as the First Baptist Church of Monticello for four year -t. At that time, tho residence was to become the parsonage for the First Bap:isl Church and a new church facility was going to bo built. Three years later, during 1979, an effort was made to putJcute another Church lacility within the community; however, that plan tell through, and later in the fnll of 1979, the repreuentativeu of the Firut Baptist Church began plans and preparations for a new church facility on the ntte of the existing First Baptist Church. Ilowevcr, -since that time, availabiv mortgage money has evnporated, and it is near to, if not, impouaible fat them to obtain a mortgage which they can uae to build their new church. - 2 - Planning Commission Minutes - 11/11/80 Reverend Jerry Oau, Pastor of the First Baptist Church, was present and presented his request that they be allowed to move two TIBC structures onto their property, to use as classrooms, for a period of not more than two years, and that they be allowed to continue their conditional use for not more than two years, until, hopefully, there would be mortgage money available for them to build a new church facility. (At this point, it was clarified that there is a difference between a UBC structure and a mobile home. Although a UBC structure may be designed and look similar to a mobile home, a UBC structure does meet all the requirements of a building which was built under the building code, and therefore is eligible to be placed within a community within the proper zoning district, provided it bears a UBC seal shoving that it was manufactured under the supervision of a building official in a manufacturing phut. A mobile home, is a structure which does not conform to any particular building code, and there- fore, is most often required to be placed within a mobile home park, With structures of similar kind.) This request is being made because of the lack of space within the present residential/church facility. A motion was made by Dick Martie, seconded by Ed Schaffer to: Recommend approv..l of this request for a two-year extension to continue the present residential building an a ChurCh futility; and Recommend approval of this request to its,- UBC ntru, tures as temporary classrooms facilities for two years, or until such time as a new church facility is built. All voted in favor of this motion. 4. Consideration of Re.oning Lots in Riverwood Estates - Floyd Kruse 6 Kermit Lindberg. At a recent Planning Comiosiun meeting, it was recommended to approve Lite Riverwood Estates for Mr. Floyd Kruse and Mr. Kermit Lindberg. Iluwevcr, at that time., there woo a possible discrepnncy in the zoning line for portions of several Iota, and also Lite Lindberg's, on their portion of tilt property, proposed reznning Lot 1, of Block : Rola R-1 to 11-3. At a sub- sequent meeting, the Planning Coamission recotmtended grant ing rezoning of Lot 1, Block 2, from R-1 to B-3; however, it beC,unt' ncceortary to define the area of B-3 from the area of R-1 nn Block 1, that portion owned by Mr. Floyd Kruse. In order to clarify that rezoning, it would be neces,.ory to rezone. Lots 1, of Block 2, and Loto 1, 2 h 3 or Illuck 1, to B -J and ILaVe the balance of Lite Iota coned no R -l. However, becaune Mr. Kruse wall uanble to be at the planning commission meeting, it walk determined there would be no recommendation tide an to whether or not Lot 4 of Block 1 would be zoned R-1 of B-3, and that decioion would be left to the discretion of Lite Council, based tett Mr. Floyd Kruse's comments, which could be mndv alt,.r the Planning Cottmtissimt meeting or at the Council meeting. A mution by John Bondhua, occonded by Dick Martie with all voting in favor of rezoning Lots 1, Block 2 and Letts 1, 2 6 3, Block 1 to B-3 and Ieavlog Lite baldIlL.' of Lite Iota as R -l. Planning Commission Minutes - 11/11/80 5. Consideration of Ordinance Amendments to Simplify the Permit Process. As a result of the inquiry by John Bondhus at a previous Planning Commission meeting, Cary Wieber did some research on the possibility of simplifying the process for variances. As a result of the information brought back to the Planning Commission by Mr. Wieber, it was determined that a public hearing should be held in the future, at which time a discussion could be held as to the possibility of restructuring the ordinances to allow simplification of variances, par- ticularly those on setbacks. Meet g adjourned. Lor n Klein, Zoning ministrator LDK/ns - 4 - J ORR-RHELEN-MAYERON hMSOCIATM INC. Division of Kidde Consultants, Inc. .,mg Engineers Surveyors January 9, 1981 t:r. Loren D. Klein Wilding official City of Monticello Esu East Broadway flontieallo. MH 54362 Res Review of uecorativo Services Site Plan bear Latent Several weeks ane we received a copy of the Decorative services Site Plan and Iayont from Itichard Reith of Roger Johnson Assoetatea/Architects. that WAS submitted to our office for review. 1 have provlously crinversed with Kichard Srith regarding this property booed an ny letter to you seaetimo ado. 1 only raceived ase copy of the plan. so I'll try to .leetribe aa boot as pose- Ible the ruoamnt• we n.ede ro"rdinit this plan. 1. In checking the City amp and also the tax records. there is an overlap ut property In the southwest corner of this property* laaevevot, in checal.ng the deed of Dave Raskin, the property to shown on the sit a plan seems to be cor- v4ct. Therefore, we ascertain that there is an error in the City map as well as in the tax recordse as the overlap doom not exist it tho deeds aro rheekeA. 2. The drainage provlded for the location of the bulldlna in the southerly onp-half of this property as"s to be well deelpn@4 anA should drain properly no that the excess dralaage from the ponding area would croup over tno on - trance road and than tura and flow anstorly down Choloea itaad in tho event of heavy precipitation. 7. 'the culvert at the entrance of the driveway should be changuJ cu JJ', as I'm sure o 10' culvert is not manufacturad. A. N 1 stated previously, the connection Into the sanitary sower on Chelsea Road is quits deep. t believe it la approxioatley 20e doap, sa ttwt Ju - watering and possibly shietlaq will be needed. otherwise, s lAfCO openinn would be required in the Street. It may be advisable. and if Jann binola my think necenmory, that a manhole be constructed over the sanitary sever so tnat the connection of the b' service from the Decorative Services duildInj can be run into a manhole Inseted of directly Into the 10' sanitary saver at this location. NO East Hennepin Avenue - Suito 238 • Minneapolis Atinnos©ta 55413 • 6121331- 8660 0 City of Montleallo January 9. 1981 Passe -2- Other thio the co4=onte above. I would recommend approval of 'the alto plan as submitted. I? you leve nny qu.intinnn in this regard, please vivo me a call. Yours very trvly, 0RR-SCMELV,:!AY?8OP b ASSnCII.T`.SS, INC. oTin F. i4 AliehAV City tn,^,ineer JPB/Itmp cc: Kr. kichard h. SLlitb, Rugure Johncnn A*nuclatoo/Architecta Cary OYebar. City Mministrnror i/ a To whom i r my concerns I the undersigned have had the proposed addition to Don 6 Maxine Luidquists home explained to me and find no reasoi; that a riecessarti viriance required to bui Id the addition to their home be denied. game addre ss Signature date ..1ohn Otterson j$& 15ib Miss Dr. Wally Jenson 233 Miss Dr , :w-+ Bauer Dr �y�j jam. Ir// .• � n Chaplin AV.9 Miss Dr c. t is Grieinaar �'j i/ Miss Dr , u.. labor + 152'3 Miss Dr ,.r_S /a 41 St Hilaire 221 Miss Dr .ry Weber .r Miss Dr 1,101 232 Miss Dr �� r i. lea Vallard 240 Miss DL / lu 1f c,/� hwiano Brion 237 Misa Dr •' x x Ab-� A, inks , U ----------------- J 1 I , l Monticellco Ford , Inc MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 55362 PHONES, Monticello - 295.2456 T -1n Coin � 421-0595 Wholesale Disnibuton of Tees, Ba-teties, and Auto Supplict In the land of takes, get yon, Ford of Flake's" May 12, 11,161 City of Fonticello 250 — Fant Broadvay Monticello, Minnesota 553h2 Mr. Gary disbar City Administrator Dear Gary, Per my conversation yesterday with Arve Grimlsino i fish to hnve you schedule Monticello Ford for titne with the coku.cil so that we might obtain it variance for hardsurfacing for the display area for vehicles. The purpose of this request _3 because the area is not for parking but, display area only, do have not and do not use the area for custoner or employee parking but unly for the purpose of enhancinL; thy, Inoks of t).o trucks that we have displayed. Many r-rehiteets aro now putting grass areas gn t2 vir plans for z diplay so al, to give a better look to the product. This area is for salon only and would not have tl 3 traffic ro parkins; are3o do. Yours very truly) MON! (;�;L O FORD, 11:10. Lartv�ronce V. Flake Y Presidt:nt LVF- %I1, ;� 3 SAMUEL PROPERTIES B CONSTRUCTION, INC. Comme, tial Buildings & Custom Homes MONTICELLO, MN 55762 SAMUEL J. PERARO, 1R. OFFICE: 5335577 President 338 8051 HOME: 795.5600 September 2, 1981 Mr. Loren D. Klein Zoning Administrator City of Monticello Yonticello, Minnesota 55362 Dear Loren: The following are my thoughts regarding Mr. Larry Felke'n request for varioncen to bo covered at the September 8, 1981, hearing. Eeing a general contractor I have always had to check with you, office to find out the current city requirements and then to meet taosc requirements on my projocte. 1 hr,70 found thosu requirements to be fair not only for my own projocto, but for any others undertaaing any building projocto. If Mr. Flokols requont• for vorianco3 in regsra to ouphalt pavin,; and curbing is based mainly on the additional. coot. of meeting these roquiromonto, I guess I count state that I fool itlo no different from paying the electrician or corpcnter - tih000 cert:, aro simply figured into the coat of tho project. About two wooko ago, Augliot 11 or so, I came into your offico J th a potential client to review n proposed project With you. Al. thut time you mode it quite clear that there were net-Lncks, land- scaping, Landlcep perking, adequate parking s;,nco, curbinv and asphalt paving roqulremonts to be mot, which I fool are runoonablc roquirements. Should tho comrainoton approve Mr. Plakeca rotpioot for- verianccn, I can see other eontractoro (rayself included) in the future a.kiug for those on.no variancoo when they build in tao City of tlr.uticnllo. Therefore, I ask that when you consider the npproval or rajuction of this request, that you do not soc it no jun: a one -Limo requol., but one t„at will he for-roachin3. Sincerely, ” '�y9muel J. ororo, Jr✓ November 7, 1977 to approve the building permit request of Monticello Ford contingent upon final review and approval by the building inopictor and city engi.rieer. 4. Public Hearing - Variance Request- Two Pyloi,. Signs. Monticello Ordinance Section 10-3-9 allows only 2 wall signs or one .all sign and one pylon sign. Monticello Ford, tic. requested one wall and Liv pylon sign:i (one for new cars andone for used cars). Mr. Flake indicated that the necessity of two pylon signs comes abcut because of Ford Motor ('n. requirements established for new car dealership buillLncs with both new r:i used car sales. D. Blonigen entered a motion, seconded by P. White and mnanimusly carric tc grant a variance to Manticell o Ford to allow two pylon sigis ii. addi!.lo:. to one waU. cion. 5. Publi c Hadrinp• - Variance Request - Siem Heirht Regldr• -rents. Monticello Ordinance Section 10-3-9 limits the height of a pylon sign t 32' 1f a business is "on or with -h SWI of a frcewayll. Ford DAtor Co. has indicated to Mr, Flake that '4onticullo Ford can qual i f y for a 42' tAM based on criteria established by the corporation for new •lcalc: ships a,d as a result Mr. Flake requested that a tarlance be grant ai for the new car dealership sign allowing a height of t,- ,, A motion was made by G. Walters, seconded by U. Dlonll; ,n mid unanimously carried Go deny the variance requested and rcqulru all pylon sifpo to rt"i the 32' height limit. 6. Public Hearing - Variance Request- Curb Barri or. Monti collo Ordinance Section 10-3-j.-(0) requlrei n ciu•b barrier along t•h' perimeter of the off-street parking area. Mont -collo Furd, Inc., 1s ro- quouting a variance to provide a curb barrier only aloren- the enntny4ay ti, 0 site but not the entire parking area since future cxpanolan night nea•o:.li ,r• tonring up portions of the curb 'barrier. A motion was made by P. White, soconded by A. Grimcmo furl unanimuu:nly carried to approve the variance requested prot-ld•_d a rtu•b barrier Is e,t, %v on both aides of the entrabnco drive on the no, thcrly I,%.Y,Acn of th • p-rki area and building frontage, with the balance rf the Furl, barrier ru•�uml t•n parkirM area perimeter congnletod within two y,.nro of urcwpruncy. Motion to adjourn was made by P. ftto, cccon;:ou by A. Grlmnvco and unsin _ �3i. carried. Hick Wolt'atollor, Adm. Aaat. RWmjc3 C fl Lo-' 4 MEMO To: Planning Commission Members - Bill Burke, John Bondhus. Dick Martie, Jim Ridgeway, and Ed Schaffer. FROM: Loren Klein DATE: September 29, 1961 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Monticello City Hall Council Chambers This is a reminder of our Planning Commission meeting on September 29, at 7:30 P.M.