Planning Commission Agenda Packet 06-14-1988Members:
1e, ]:30 p.m.
32 p.m.
7:34 p.m.
7:54 p.m.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 14, 1988 - 7:30 p.m.
Richard Carlson, Joyce Dowling, Richard Martie, Cindy Lemm,
Daniel McConnon.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held May 10,
1988.
3. Planning Commission applicant interviews.
4.
8:14 p.m. 5.
L'',J
.4,.J
A tabled conditional use request to allow construction of
more than one apartment building on an unplanted lot, a
tabled conditional use request to allow construction of two
apartment buildings in access of the maximum number of units
allowed, a tabled conditional use request to allow
construction of -five apartmeni buildings in two phases.
Applicant, David Hornig. D ,t 3f•ff ,to De.+e%P a!'•%� y
fec aJd•ers.-.g
Public Hearing - A variance request to a11oJ construction of
a house addition within the front yard set back requirement.
Applicant, Patricia Jensen.
8:29 p.m. F" 6.
Public Hearing - A preliminary Platt request for a mobile
home park extension. Applicant, Don Heiken.- QI_'.ata Go 6
6:49 p.m. 1A 7.
A tabled preliminary platt request, a tabled proposed
expansion of East Kjellberg Mobile Home Park, and tabled
conaideration to the amendments to the Monticello Zoning Map.
Applicant, Rent Kjellberg.
9:14 p.m. 8.
Publics Hearing - A variance request to allow construction of
a garage addition within the aide yard setback requirements.
Applicant, Rick Volfateller.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
9:24 p.m. 1.
Discuss the possibility of a meeting between the Monticello
Planning Commission members, Monticello City Council members,
Monticello Industrial Developement Committee members, and the
Monticello Housing and Radevelopement Authority members.
9:34 p.m. 2.
A conditional use request of a construction of more than one
apartment building in an unplatted lot, a conditional use
request to allow construction of two apartment buildings in
access of the maximum number of units allowed, a conditional
use request to allow construction of five apartment buildings
in two phases. No council action needed as it did not come
before them.
9:36 p.m. 3.
A variance request to allow construction of an attached
garage within the front yard setback requirement. Applicant,
Todd Theisen. Council action. Approved variance request
with conditions.
AGENDA - M3 MCELLO PLANNING COlMIISION PAGE 2
9:38 p.m. 4. Preliminary request, a proposed el:pantion of East Kjellberg
Mobile Home park, and consideration of amendments to the City
of Monticello Zoning Map. Applicant Kent Kjellberg. Council
action. No action needed as the request did not come before
them.
9:40 p.m. 5. Set the next date for the Monticello Planning Commission for
July 12, 1988, 7:30 p.m.
9:42 p.m. 6. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGOLAR MEETING - MWMCELW PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 10, 1988 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Joyce Dowling, Richard Martie, Cindy Lemm,
and Dan McConnon
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Carlson at
7:41 p.m.
2. Motion by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Dan McConnon, to approve the minutes of
the regular meeting held April 12, 1988. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Public Hearing - A conditional use rest to allow construction of more
than one apartment buildin? on an unpiatted lot; a conditional use
request to allow construction or two apartment buildings in excess of the
maximum number of units allowed; a conditional use request to allow
construction of five apartment buildings in two phases. Applicant, David
Hornig.
Mr. David Hornig, developer of this proposed project, was present to
i propose an amendment to his previously approved conditional use request.
Mr. Hornig was proposing under his current plan in Phase I to be allowed
to construct a 36 -unit elderly subsidized building and a 12 -unit family
subsidized unit: and Phase II would have consisted of two 12 -unit
apartment buildings. At the request of Mr. Hornig's lender, Farmers Home
Administration, Mr. Hornig proposed to amend his project in phase I only
to have Phase I consist of three family subsidized buildings of which two
would be 16 -unit family subsidized buildings and one would be of the
townhouse garden apartment type building.
Mr. Hornig reiterated the only reason he is back before the Planning
Commission members is that Parmere Home suggested he amend hie plan to
accommodate family subsidized buildings only, as the lender felt that
another proposed project on currently owned City property, that being the
Metcalf and Larson elderly project, would be better suited for the
elderly project if he could redesign his proposed project to accommodate
family subsidized buildings only.
Chairperson Richard Carlson opened the public hearing for input from any
of the Planning Conaaiseion members. The Planning Commission comments
were as follows. Mr. Dan McConnon Questioned the story height on the
buildings on the left hand side and also the story height for the two
apartment buildings. Mr. Hornig responded with the building on the left
consisted of 12 townhouse type garden apartments very similar to what
currently exists in the Hillside Terrace subsidized apartment complex in
�. - that the variety would be of two story on slab type of construction.
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/10/88
The two other buildings, which would be of 16 -unit size consisting of
approximately 12 2 -bedroom unit apartments and four bedroom apartment
units per building, would be of the two story on slab construction type
also. Mr. MCConnon also questioned what is West 7th Street as proposed
on the project. In the existing map that was submitted with his agenda
supplement, it indicated that West 7th Street would run directly into the
center of this proposed project. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated
to Mr. McConnon that an extension of West 7th Street is proposed to
extend southwesterly to accommodate a realignment of this road in
relationship to a point up on Minnesota Street. Chairperson Richard
Carlson questioned when Phase II would happen and if it would occur with
the extension of the West 7th Street project. toning Administrator
Anderson indicated to Mr. Carlson that in all likelihood, unless
development would occur in the very near future, and when and if the
certificate of need is shown by Mr. Hornig, if these were on the same
time table they could conceivably happen at the same time. But
realistically, in all likelihood, the extension of West 7th Street would
be in the future years to come anywhere from one to five or even five to
ten years down the road, depending on the development of the major
adjoining property owner to the south and west of the existing Monticello
Mall.
Cindy Letmm questioned what the green area between the garages would
consist of. Mr. Hornig indicated that there is a large green area which
would exist between the two proposed detached garages. Depending on the
t needs which the caretaker of this project site would see with the tenants
which would rent apartments in these different complexes, more than
likely the type of activity which would occur would be of a picnic area,
maybe even a emall basketball court set-up and other areas for activities
for the older children and also for the adults which may live in these
apartments.
Assistant City Administrator, Jeff O'Neill, commented on the relationship
of this project in regards to our overall Comprehensive Plan in
comparison of the number of multiple family units we have in relationship
to the number of existing buildable and built on single family lots. In
the handout which Mr. O'Neill provided, it did indicate with these
proposed projects on line the five total buildings within this project
and the proposed 28 -unit elderly project would bring us up to 44 percent
multiple family units in comparison to 56 percent single family unite.
Under the Comprehensive Plan, we had set a percentage level not to exceed
49 percent.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened it up for any input from the
public. Mr. Jack Beattie, representing J.B. Properties, managing company
for several of the existing market rent apartment buildings in - •
Monticello, was present to express his opinion on what Is happening with
the apartment buildings his firm manages in relationship to the high
number of vacancies which are occuring within these apartment building
wits. Mr. Beattie indicated vacancies when he submitted his first
letter in regards to the first public hearing which was hold on
a
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/10/88
-16 Mr. Hornig's request. The vacancies were running anywhere from 5 to
12-1/2 percent. With the first quarter completed, the vacancies are now
showing in some cases up to a 25 percent vacancy in some of the
buildings. Mr. Beattie then indicated the vacancies which are currently
running in the apartment building units which they manage for the
different investors which they represent. They are as follows: The
Lincoln Estates, 24 percent vacancy; The Jefferson Apartments, 13 percent
vacancy; The Washington Square Apartments, 12 percent vacancy; The
Lauring Lane Apartments, 22 percent vacancy; Monticello Manor, 22 percent
vacancy; and the Terrace Six Apartments, 13 percent vacancy.
E�
Mr. Beattie indicated that he wasn't in total opposition of the proposed
project in that the developer is proposing a need which cannot be filled
in the apartment building units which he manages in that they do not have
three bedroom apartments within am of their apartment buildings which
they manage. However, he did feel that the market is currently saturated
and that depending on what happens with the interest rates and other
factors in here, hopefully by late this summer and into the fall that
these building vacancies will be declining back to an acceptable level.
Be suggested that the Planning Commission and/or the City Council
consider a moratorium an any type of additional apartment building units
to be constructed. He further indicated that the latest apartment
projects that were completed, the 24 and the 30 -unit apartment buildings,
are also showing vacancies. And the owner of those two buildings, Mr.
Gus LaPromboise, had wished he wouldn't have constructed them so soon in
that the market is now oversaturated with the availability of apartment
units.
Mr. Tom Brennan, partner in Star City Realty, explained to Planning
Commission members that through the phone calla that come into his
office, there is definitely need for family rental units in this
community. His office receives at the bare minimum at least one call per
day with somebody inquiring as to the availability of unite for families
to rent. With no single family houses available in the market, people
have had to look to apartments as an alternative for finding lodging
facilities for their families. However, with some of the larger family
units that have contacted their office, they have found that there are no
three bedroom unite available for rent within the city. Commission
members did question Mr. Brennan as to where these phone calla were
coming from. Were they from people within the city of Monticello, or an
outlying area of the city of Monticello, or are they definitely from out
of the area. Mr. Brennan responded that he did not know, nor did hin
office question the inquirer as to where they are residing.
Jeff O'Neill questioned Mr. Hornig in his survey of which he had supplied
the City a copy, wan there definitely a need for this type of housing
within the city of Monticello. His study incorporated a bigger area,
including the cities of Big Lake and Buffalo, and also the outlying area
around the city of Monticello and not just the city of Monticello in
proper itself. Be questioned Mr. Hornig, is this really a relocation of _.
�' "' dislocated people from the metro area or out of the Monticello area
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/10/88
itself. Mr. Hornig could only respond that the survey that was done by a
professional company, which he paid a sizeable amount of money to have
the survey done, and did incorporate the areas definitely around the city
of Monticello and the co manities of Big Lake and Buffalo. He could not
answer which percentage of the people were from the city of Monticello or
the immediate outlying area around the city or was the majority of the
response from the areas in and near the communities of Big Lake and
Buffalo. Mr. Hornig indicated that the market study which was performed
which he submitted along with his application to Farmers Home was
carefully reviewed over the process of a whole day or additional time to
review the information that submitted from this certificate to definitely
show whether or not the market study will indicate a need for this type
of housing within the area that was chosen. Cindy Lem questioned the
rationale of the study, if these people are actually contacted by phone
or are they physically contacted in a door-to-door type survey.
Mr. Hornig reiterated again that the lender carefully checks the studies
which are submittd to hims in fact, his original study was done in
October, and as his application came in,,there was another study which
Farmers Home had which is showed a study completed as recently as March.
Be indicated the lender, as indicated in the study, still shows a
definite need for this type of housing within the Monticello area.
Mr. Anderson questioned Mr. Hornig if he could indicate to Planning
Commission members what the typical minimum rent might be for an
apartment within his buildings. Mr. Hornig indicated that the ezample
i' was with a $25,000 adjusted gross income, a person may be paying a
minimum of $225 to $275 for a one bedroom apartments 8275 to 5325 minimum
for a two-bedroom apartments and $375 to $400 for a three-bedroom
apartment. He did also indicate that there is a definite minimum. If
their adjusted gross income divided by the 12 months of the year did
relate to an amount less than what the minimum rent would be, the
applicant would still have to pay the minimum rent, or it could not be
rented to them.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing portion of
this request and asked for any further input from the staff or from any
of the planning Commission members. Chairperson Richard Carlson
questioned if the staff could have an independent study done. Mr. Jeff
O'Neill indicated to Planning Commission members that as part of the
upcoming budget, the staff was preparing a survey type questionnaire to
be sent out to all the city residents to see what type of needs may be
needed within the community, not necessarily just apartments, but parks
and other things which the City could provide. Mr. Carlson also
questioned the current units of multiple family housing stock in the
community over the last five years. Building Official, Cary Anderson,
indicated to the Planning Commission members that the number of market
rent apartment buildings built since 1983 are fivo 12 -snit buildings, one
18 -unit building, four 24 -unit buildings, and one 30 -unit building. Thq
number of subsidized housing buildings built since 1983 would be one
4 -unit building, one 6 -unit building, one 26 -unit building, and one
31 -unit building. Dan McConnon questioned if in the Comprehensive Plan
there is a different between the subsidized housing and the market rent
s
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/10/88
housing in relationship to the total number of single family units
available. Mr. O'Neill indicated that there is no difference indicated
in the ComprehensV!e Plan. The Comprehensive Plan only refers to
multiple family m.-cs, whether they are subsidized or market rent
apartment buildings.
Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Richard Martie, to table the
conditional use request to allow construction of more than one apartment
building on an unplatted lot; table the conditional use request to allow
construction of an apartment building in excess of the maximum number of
units allowed; table the conditional use request to allow construction of
five apartment buildings in two phases. Motion carried unanimously.
Reason for tabling of the request: Planning Commission would like to
review additional information to be provided by the City staff in regards
to a city wide survey to be conducted by the City staff. Said survey
format to be submitted to City Council for their consideration at their
next regularly scheduled meeting and possible distribution of the survey
with the tabulation of the survey to be completed in approximately six to
eight weeks. The possibility of this agenda item coming back to Planning
Commission members may be within the meeting in July.
4. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow construction of an attached
garacde within the front yard setback requirement. Applicant, Todd
Theisen.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members
Mr. Theisen's request to be allowed to construct an attached garage
within the front yard setback requirement. The existing house on the
east side, the Dahlheimer residence, is approximately 113 feet from the
front property line, and the existing house on the west side of the
Theisen residence is the Hud and Fran Fair residence, which is
approximately 127 feet from the front property line. The average setback
of these two properties would be 120 feet. The 120 foot average setback
subtracted from the minimum front yard setback of 30 feet would equal
90 feet. One can have 66 percent of that difference, which would amount
to 59.4 feet in addition to the minimum front yard setback of 30 feet,
which would give us a minimum front yard setback of 89.40 feet. The
applicant is proposing to be within 85 feet of the front property line,
therefore requiring a 4.4 foot variance. The proposed garage would also
fall within the sideyard setback, and the applicant is proposing to come
within 5 feet of the side lot line to the property immediately west, the
Bud and Fran Fair residence, to accommodate sufficient turning radii in
front of the garage to allow a vehicle to enter and exit out of this
proposed garage and do it within their own property.
With no further input from the applicant, Chairperson Richard Carlson
then turned it over to any input ft= the Planning Commission members.
The following statements are from the Planning Commission members.
_ Mr. Richard Mattie felt very unoomforteble about any garages to be :.
constructed within the front yard setback, especially in this particular
area of town. Toning Administrator Anderson indicated to mr. Martie that
the garages are allowed to be oonatructsd within the front yard setback
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/10/88
5. Consensus of the Planning Commission members present to Set the next
tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting for
June 14, 1988, 7:30 p.m.
6. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 11:43 p.m.
Respectfully
mib'mitted,
Carp Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Planning Commission - 6/14/88
3. Planning Commiission Memeber Applicant Interviews. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGP4=:
Enclosed you will find copies of the member applicant's resumes. Again, there
is very little interest an the part of Monticello city residents in that we
have applicants from outside in the township area interested in serving on the
Monticello Planning Commission.
Enclosed you'll find a tabulation sheet of the Planning Commission applicants.
We suggest that you make no recommendation for a Planning Commission mrmber
applicant until you submit the enclosed form in the self-addressed stamped
envelope. We would like to have yuur selections returned to us by no later
than 12:00 noon, June 17, 1988.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Select one of the Planning Commission applicants.
2. Select none of the Planning Commission applicants.
3. Make no decision on a Planning Commission member applicant at the
Planning Commission meeting. Submit the attached applicant tab sheet
by 12:00 now, June 17, 1988.
C. STAFF RE0394ENDATION:
A Planning Commission member can select a Planning Commission member applicant
at their Tuesday, June 11, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. However, the
suggestion of the city staff is that you use the enclosed Planning Commission
member tab sheet, make your selection on this sheet and return the
self-addressed stamped envelope on our before 12:00 noon, June 17, 1988.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the resumes of each of the Planning Commission mNemI r applicants. Copy
of a Planning Commission member applicant tabulation sheet. With a
self-addressed stamped envelope.
GENERAL
r' - BUBJECTE OF 6PET:I t7Ttl0Y OR RESEARCH Mom
US
y�' yaaa�easNmts uam
RANK kA MEMBERSHISRM
U NTINUED ON OTHER Bi0F3 tRtleY1YY
APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT
- wea-ampLamonoutmorumm imalu"oppaniummaePtoym
PERSONAL INFOAMATIGN
���
, DATE
NAME NN'�1.�.
lfi-nl I�,w�•i►�cw�kt�C-�Z.�� M1I4"II-i�G-•�•'2=
^,'
PRESENT ADDRESS m;4 —; � ill 7�'IVIV- F=�f rrG llllU. T�I
LI.
.1 .
srAn d
�J U74 y� Rk- A r.1
PERMANENT ADDRESS -( 1. 1 `i'"r__ YT/ r�4s N - �iC �T�� V��. _ si�Z/
/J�� ""QT'-'kair.• J
PHONE NO. �=-71^AREYOUteYEA
C; RSOROLOS Ymrr Nno
SPECIAL QUESTIONS
DO NDr ANSWER AAV OF THE QUESTIONS IN THIS FRAMED AREA UNLESS THE EMPLOYER HAS CHECKED A
BOA PRECROM A QUESTION. THEREBY INDICATING THAT THE INFORMATION IS REQUIRED FOR A BONA ROE
—
rlG
OCCUPATIONAL GUAURCATION, OR DICTATED BY NATIONAL SECURMY LAWS. OR IS NEEDED FOR OTHER LEGALLY
PERMISSIBLE REASONS.
- ft._ 1 mw. ❑ Are you prevenoed f,. WOully becarpnp andoM In tIm LL&?_lbs _No
❑'H"
67—
"aphe
❑ Wei T9 Eta. ❑ om d ebth-
❑ Whet Fore umwmpm do you speak %maw Rmd Wray
❑ Have you been cmum T W d s felony or within ftlm S ysars7" lbs No Describe:
•The Ape Dlaer r m Empbyrrroru Aa d IBB7 praNblta dlacmr4wtb r on the bads d ape with respect to odwaLmls who aro
at least 40 but kus tlrorl 70 pars d ap0.
-)ft w o rot be derdod erroloymem solely becaum d a cmMaOmr rmmd, urdm the therms Is niteted to the kb for which you
have 000w
---
_
_
IMPLOYMENT OESIRED
pp yp� g�pp��,ppgRyy
• POSITION CAgNNpB�TtAARTyy� pompe DE EI
ARE YOU EMP4QYF.A NOW? & YOURYPgEI; NE T Eki V YER9
EVER APPLIED TO TH18 COMPANY SEFCA27 Mmm7 WHEN?
EDUCATION NAMBAND LOCATION OFECHOOL ATT RS G*% Tfi7 SUILI MISTUDID
. GRAMMAR SCHOOL
HIGHSCHOOL (a
1? •^�!•AJ tIJ14/WAIITy �_ L,�
4.Lint. UoJmn- l d�huitV l o►�
� 7 f` � "DIIKAAIRS l�iiruw
�qpp
,COR N E
i
'The Ape Ohvunuwticn N Empbpywa Act of 1957 wdwM dbub"Yrtn+an an balls d 4 wbh resort to i d M&A%who r at an 40
am 70 yew at 40L .. .
but lam
GENERAL
r' - BUBJECTE OF 6PET:I t7Ttl0Y OR RESEARCH Mom
US
y�' yaaa�easNmts uam
RANK kA MEMBERSHISRM
U NTINUED ON OTHER Bi0F3 tRtleY1YY
June 9, 1988
Dear Sires
Here is my application for the City Planning
Commissions Board.
I have wanted to be active in the City of
Monticello for a number of reasons. I want the peoples
{ ` best interest known and heard, along with my own. I am
very concerned about the town and its people, young and
old.
I work for Simonson Lumber Company, which may have
some advantages in the building aspects of Monticello,
8incer• ,
Brian Pantske
Superme Styling
101 Thomas Park 0r.
Monticello. MN 55362
612-2%-3967
Vow Meir • We tare
114 Wright Street
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
(612)295-5376
S.A. 1987 Concordia Callege-Moorhead. Minnesota
Majors Physical Education/Political Science
I have been a resident of Monticello mince Auguat. 1987. My wife is originally
from Monticello, and we will be making this our home while I pursue a juria degree in
the Twin Cities.
With my education in political ,acienoe. I feel I could be an aasett in city
government and feel it is a civic duty to be involved. I also feel my youth would
l•p be a Positive attribute to the preaent commishion.
. a
r . r C-
- ..
wt���a�.rf����..�i11.: �.�:�:.f'.�wi�.,�,�4f� •.•!•i��:r'"..!r.. �Ti�:�•.�:iS.7y.T'.o�,�v��t*i:
s/vlip
t /
A /
A J•J
/ / / r•. / lii. � /ice_
_ .; • • � 21Gs_�:e;Et�
:� tidy.,%n rp:_ , : t,p �.T`.'::�1.. �.�.: •,c.•,, c• ': �.::s�.; Vit''.
^,• .h }� t :.i hww..�i..,~• �� ' •+ «•�R .�.('.�f. .iY .N.1 :�: 3'. M:.'� .` •,'h • 4. tyi}.R' �..
'�'•�.'tw � tf :-'t "tR •". .f.O�r'xr.. fr.,M ^t. R�.r •. 's•.�'� ,":.{a •. J: 'w'..-�,. <!�• .s'p: trio r� -
.�... w-•,la,a"r :�1. .-R[C Y�.".R__-...�+.il'.•1{�r!ad.=�ri4�"3tR31C�x... ... �'~ti f•.:_, .. .. .. _ .....a . r. ...... - :�'•. ._.
A&ZZ'deu.6
APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT `9
Ou18T10NN111RO tAN WUA►OPPORTYN"T IMPLOYvu
DATES
Oma-VAPLOYMHNT
PERtb,JAL INFORAAATIOIY -
MP
PERMANENT 1.00RESS
r ...,.zr
PHONENn !�95 AREYOUtBYEAR110ROLMR Yesc Noo
SPECIAL QUESTIONS
DO NOT ANSWER ANY OF THE QUESTIONS IN THIS FRAMED AREA UNLESS THE EMPLOYER HAS CNECKID A
BOK PASO DING A QUESTION. THEREBY INDICATING THAT THE INFORJATION IS REQUIRED FOR A BONA FIDE
OCCUPATIONAL QUAURCATION. OR DICTATED BY NATIONAL SECURRY LAWS, OR IS NEEDED FOR OTHER
LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE REASONS.
❑ Hemht feet inches ❑ Gtizen of U.B. �ea fNn a
❑ Weight -11M ❑ Date of Birth*l% to is
❑ Whet Foreign Lanpuepea do you Speak fluently? Read Write
-The ao. OhcrWM5tIw M Fmplormant Act a 1087 pid%bW dWm*ni mtfm th tty Ours a e0e wilt, rnp= M M who Are u
Wm aD Lwt m. Mon M rem a spa 1
Ij
EMPLOYMENT DESIRED
` POSITION ICppAN�aT AA yyyy�E/1pp��,Igqee
ARE YOU EMPLOYED NWV4 IFS. OP�YaYPRESMM-0m, Ues
t. V
EVER APPLIED M THIS COWANY BEFORE? WHERE? WHEN?
'Na OF
EDUCATION NAME ANO tACILTIONOFSCHOOL YE
NOD GFIAO %, 19isaarsmu E0
GPAMMA14 c�
HIGH ECHUOL _ /�1 n • � c • �e.Y
CMUGE G( a2 G en.
TQAp tN 90R S/� C) d
•� npa 0n In E ACL d 1 pE7 p,atuelR ebdannuan m ttr I1Aw a ea wKn res m s10MduW who An a LeA� �0 m IMa
than 70 pum of Apo .
'.11_,iMl •1' ' 'Il 1 •y:l. Mi
I
US M WARY OR PAERENT M ISP N
NAVAL SERVICE RANK NATKwft QUARO OR RE6kpV8l1
N�®AaKSApA OIYYN _• tcmrm UEDD1OnQR010Et r {Rlle t/Ce�
at :G:...
Route 1. Box 172A
MONMELLO. MN 55382
Phone (812) 0762836
.7o Whom'It May ConCenn.
1. Graduate o6 Monticello High SChWot .ut 1946.
2. 1laeai.ed, three (3) chitdren.
3. Gaaduate o6 voAiou6 4hoa.t eowuea throughout the years.
4. Went to woak in daiAj ptant in 1946. &aUAmakele and
ptant opera,Lioae managed. bon. 15 yeare.
S. Sales manager bon a 'dairy £abaication and inatzU& on
Company boa seven (7► yeaae.. 1961 -1968 -Sterner Induataiea.
6. General Manager -Vise Freaident o6 aame company boa 12
yeare. -1968-1980-Stvner Indu6tn.i.e6.
7. 1980 - Went to work boa Nino Atomizer Wa a Sat" Service
Mvmgea.
8. 1981 - National Satee Manager boa Nato Atomizer, a world-
( wade company renown in the daiay and Good induatri.ea.
9. July 1984 - retiaed - pwAentty pseeident o6 D.L. Ueke
•'Entaap4.iee6 &Waking aA an outside eonaaMnt .in the Dai)Ly-
Food Indu6tAU.
Clv.Ee ad6a4u overt. Vte yeare art -6 at. 6oltoongI
'.1. QrganAised a JayCee Chapter boa Votga,' South Vakota. • -
t. _Cha.iamai'o6 Wineted Ftanning'Coimsa6ion 6o4.4 years'.
3.' Cha,iaman o6 Wimted Aiapor.t Cowa6aioa boa 12 years.
'4. • President o6 Wineted Public Sdwoe Soard boa 2 years.
S. Faeeident o6 Wiaated Chaahea o6 Conneaee boa 2 di66erent
terve.
-1 have u.tteaded 1 'Da.[o. Carnegie Comue, aev" dairy 6hor.t cowuu t
achoot boa a Bolters Engineer License, and several vaaioue other A"
• COWUCA over the yvana.,_ _
- _
.____....._..���.�___..-.-.-�..�..�---•'yrs-.
4
My Ftea6ona bort becoming a member o6 the MonttceM PLamung Commission ane as 6otloua
1- I now have the time to devote time and energy to tate many pnojeats that such
-a comnisacon is and alwutd be involved .in.
2- The Mon*ticeM area is my home, .this atea has given me much in education, in
community ep444C and nesponee, in the haat that when 1 le6t the town in 1946
The population was 1566 people and Oakwood School, It has now grown to a small
City and has 3 beauti.6ut schools that make prtoud to show v.c6.i torts annound,
Indu6tty has expanded, The oaten city t•imits has neaM grown, 6u•t, right now
Alain Street, the downtowm area needs help, hope6uUy, #ere is a say to help
hitt up the empty stone6rtonts, 1 would tike to be pant od that.
3- Ny background and tnaveta are vani:ed, 4wAe6oAe, my ezpvxtise, such as it may be,
is alao van•Eed in di.66erant 6i.elda, my worth overt the years have included much
tnavelting inctuding Continental North Amerma
ica and ny European Countoti.ee,thenedorte.
I have afivays been interested in how the other guy wa
Lives and how it s accom►mtislud.._
There are some wonden6ut ideas out thewn what other communities do, I have obavLved
many o6 these ideas and deet that some 06 these can be •inconportated into the arty
06 Monticelta.
4- I am a good tisteay..
5- MonLiceLLo is and luc6 been a last gn." comm unity., dec.i.sicns have to be Looked at 0
F( and decided now with the 6Utu4e 06 the CZty in mind- you cannot do something dos
�_• today, but any decision ehoutd be bon 5 to 10 years or longer down the road, in
other wo4d6 , AN EVE ON THE FUTURE.
6- I think, despite the many good things done oven the yecus, the potential bon thio
ci.W has only been acnatched- 1 would Like to be a pant 06 -the 6utute o6 the city ._
-
• • . .' MIK YOU -
'. 'u
'r":•.•- :ate.
A,.•n'+tw ;rr• .c�-t•. •i` -'�.1. ,,,�,; i.1'`�'.^, -
y: . .-;d
... -
f
May 19, 1988
c-andl Thilquist
116 Hedman Lane
Monti,ello. MN 55,"62
Mr. Gary Anderson
Monticello City Hall
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Mr. Anderson,
Per our phone conversion regarding my application for the
Planning and Zoning Committee position that will be available
soon, here Is a brief personal description.
My name Is Candi Thilquist. I currently reside at
116 Hedman Lane, Monticello. -Minnesota.
I have lived and worked in Monticello 18 years. My current
position is with NSP at hte Monticello Training Center as an
Administrative Aid. My duties are to maintain all personnel
records for Monticello Nuclear Plant personnel, order all
supplies, and general secretarial duties.
I have had several diverse positions locally, one of which
was with the City of Monticello as a cashier at Hi -Way Liquors
while under the managamgnt of Mark Irmiter.
I have three high school age daughters currently attending
Monticello Senior High.
' I am interested in the Planning and Zoning Committee position
for at least two reasons, one being personal change.
The second, additional knowledge of perhaps state and certainly
local laws and ordinances. There also seems to be a aeries of
Issues in my neighborhood recently regarding everything from
peto,to domestic arguements. to the care of ona'a home and
property. Hopefully this experience will help all of us to
solve these problems in a civil manner.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this application
and your attention to this matter.
811eerely, (r �
Candl Thllqulst Q
Planning Commission - 6/14/88
4. Consideration AIRroval of Conditional Uses Associated with the Phase 1 of the
v_ Hornig Development: 1J.0.1
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This agenda item is a continuation of Planning Commission consideration of a
conditional use request to allow construction of more than one apartment
building in an unplanted lot; conditional use request to allow construction of
two apartment buildings in excess of the maximum number of units allowed;
condition use request to allow construction of five apartment buildings in two
phases. The applicant for these series of conditional use requests is David
Hornig. As you recall, the Planning Comaoission tabled it's recommendations
regarding the aformentioned conditional use requests pending development of
additional information by staff.
It was the concern of the Planning Commission that the number of multi family
dwellings relative to single family dwellings is increasing to the extent that
careful scrutiny of each multi -family development proposal is appropriate.
The Planning Commmission asked staff to investigate the housing mix in
coaperable communities to see how the mix of housing opportunities in
Monticello compare to other communities. In addition, staff was asked to move
swiftly in developing a citizen survey, which would include questions regarding
the need for multi family housing as proposed by Mr. Hornig. Since the last
meeting of the Planning Commiission,important information has came to light
regarding the interrelationship between the Horning project and the Downtown
Senior project in terms of MHFA funding. The new information may prompt a
decision by the Planning Commision regarding the conditional use requests now
tabled.
HORNIG/DOWWOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Ilfi'ErdUMATIONSHIP
Subsequent to the previous planning commission meeting, staff has been
informed by the Minnesota Parmers Home Administration that denial of the
conditional use requests as submitted by Hornig or any obstruction to his
project will will effectively kill the downtown redevelopment project which is
also funded by MFHA. In addition, if Hornig's present proposal is rejected
then Hornig's original project submitted and approved early this year which
called for 36 elderly and 36 molt -family subsidized housing complex would be
first in line for funding by PMHA.
As I understand the situation, the two projects are interrelated as follows,
You may recall early this year, Mr. Hornig received approval from the Planning
Commission and City Council to develops a 71 unit apartment complex which would
combine bath senior and multi family housing. The plan called for development
of 36 senior unite and 36 multi family units All of which would be
subsidized through the Minnesota Farmers Home Loan Program. Subsequent to
Hornig's loan application, Metcalf i Larson applied to MPHR for funds needed
to develop the downtown senior project. MFHA officials reviewed bath
applications and determined that the total number of units earmarked for
elderly exceeded the need in the community. They then adjusted the housing mix
as originally proposed by requesting that Hornig remove elderly component and
add family housing. The net effect on the total housing units did not
change because of the PMMA adjustments, however the number of senior units was
reduced by 6 and the number of Family units was increased by 8 units.
Planning Co®ission - 6113I88
The Farmers Home Administration informed me that because Hornig's original loan
application predated the loan application of Metcalf s Lason and because
Hornig's first proposal has already received the approvals it needs from city
hall, Hornig's original proposal will be funded before Minnesota Farmers Home
Administration would fund the senior project. Stated another way, if the
Planning Commission denies the conditional use requests submitted by Hornig,
then the Planning Commission effectively kills the downtown project and
reinstates the original project as submitted by Hornig.
POTENTIAL IMPACT OF DENIAL OF HORNIG APPROVALS ON DOWNDOW REDEVELOPMENT
If Hornig's development floes not proceed as now conceived and he then goes
forth to develop 36 senior housing units in conjunction with his original plan,
then any short or medium term opportunity to combine elderly housing with
downtown redevelopment will be lost. In addition, the Monticello HRA has noted
that if for some reason the presently proposed senior project does not proceed
despite the approval of Hornig's present proposal, the need for senior housing
will still exist which provides the continued potention for senior housing as
part of downtown redevelopment. For these reasons, the HRA is recommending to
the Planning Commission that Hornigs present proposal be approved.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Attached for review are two tables that contain information regarding the
Sousing Mix in the Community. The'first table contains information which
pertains to Monticello only. Information contained in this table includes a
housing inventory which includes the addition 91 mobile homes to the community
resulting from the recent annexation of Rjellberg East Mobile Hama Park. It
should be noted that the statistics reveal that 351 of the housing stock in the
Conammity is now something other than single family dwellings and buildable
lots. With the development of the Multi -family housing units as proposed, the
percentage of non -single family housing increases to 379 of the existing
housing stock which exceeds the guidelines as proposed in the comprehensive
plan. However, the impending development of "The Evergreens" subdivision will
act as a counter balance to the proposed multi family developments.
The second table compares the housing mix witnessed in Monticello, Buffalo and
Glenwood. As you will see when you review the table, it appears that the
percentage of subsidized multi family housing in Monticello when compared to
market rate multi -family housing is comparable to Buffalo and Glenwood.
However the percentage of Mult-family housing as compared to the entire housing
supply in Monticello Is high. Monticello and Buffalo are similar in terms of
proportion of subsidized housing units. 14% of the Monticello housing stock
and 129 of the Buffalo housing stock will be subsidized after completion of
projects now planned for each community. Glencoe has a lower rate of
subsidized housing at 59
A citizen survey plan has been proposed to the City Council for their review
Monday, ,Tune 13, 1988. More information regarding the survey will be available
at the meeting.
Planning Commission - 6/14/88
ALTERNATIVES
ti
The Planning Commission has two alternatives, it can deny the conditional uses
as requested and force Hornig into developing his original proposal. Or, It can
approve the conditional use requests as submitted and pave the way for
development of the 44 unit subsidized molt -family housing.
ALTERNATIVE I
Following are some potential impacts if the conditional use permitsfor the 44
unit mult-family housing project are denied.
The City is gauranteed an even split in terms of elderly versus multi -family
housing at 36 units molt -family and 36 elderly housing.
The opportunity for redeveloping downtown with a senior housing component will
be lost for the short and medium term. Redevelopment of downtown will
considerable more difficult without the potential of senior housing as part of .
a redevelopment project.
ALTERNATIVE II
Following are potential impacts of approving the conditional uses associated
with the 44 unit multi -family project submitted by Mr. Hornig. This
alternative has the recommendation of the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment
Authority.
The senior project is not "a sure thing" at this point and the City could end
up with 44 mull -family units and no additional senior housing units for the
short term. However, the need for senior housing will remain, therefore it is
likely that another senior project will take the place of the downtown project
if the downtown project falls apart.
The housing mi: created with Alternative II would create 8 more multi -family
units and 8 fewer senior unite.
ACTION REQUESTED
Discuss and Oonaider Alternatives I and II. Consider motion to approve the
Conditional use requests submitted by David Hornig associated with the 44 unit
mulit-family housing development.
USING AND BUILDING SITE INVENTORY - JUNE 1988
REPORT INCLUDES EXISTING HOUSING SITES AND KJELLBERG MOBILE HOME PARK EAST
TOTAL BUILDABLE SITES
173
9%
RECTORY
31
1
0%
PARSONAGE
2
0%
SINGLE FAMILY (PLATTED)
848
44$
SINGLE FAMILY (UNPLATTED)
37
2%
0%
TOTAL SINGLE FAMILY
1061
55%
S U
TOTAL
T N
UNITS
C I
T T
R S
DOWNTOWN UNITS
32 1
32
2%1
DILE HOMES
185 1
185
10%1
DUPLEXES
27 2
64
3$1
TRIPLEXES
5 3
15
1$1
FOURPLEXES
13 4
82
3%1
SIX UNIT TCMNHO E
4 6
24
Al
-INVENT
1 8
8
0$1
r .GNT UNIT TOWNKO ME
3 8
24
1$1
EIGHT UNIT APARTMENT
4 B
32
2%1
TWELVE UNIT
I
Lauring Lane
1 12
12
1111
Terrace Six
1 12
12
Al
Mont. Manor
1 12
12
Al
West Cello
4 12
48
3%1
EIGHTEEN UNIT
I
Lincoln Est.
1 18
18
1%1
TWENTYFCUR UNIT
I
Riverview
1 24
24
Al
Washington So
1 24
24
1111
Mary Wood
1 24
24
Al
Other
1 24
24
1%1
Bluffs
1 24
24
1%1
TWENTYSIX UNIT
I
Monte Haven
1 26
28
Al
THIRTY UNIT APARTMENT
I
Bluffs
1 30
30
2%1
THIRIYONE UNIT
I
River Park View
1 31
31
2%1
THIRTYSIX UNIT
I
Cedar Crest
1 38
38
2%1
Hillside Terrace
1 36
36
2%1
FORTYEIGNT UNIT
I
Ridgsnont
1 49
48
3♦1
I
I
MARKET SUBS M>RKET SUBS
RATE FAMILY RATE SENIOR
FAMILY UNITS SENIOR UNITS
UNITS UNITS
52
32
12
12
12
48
18
24
24
24
24
24
26
30
31
36
36
24
24
Nein
4USING AND BUILDING SITE INVENTORY - JUNE 1988
REPORT INCLUDES EXISTING HOUSING SITES AND KUELLBERG MOBILE HOME PARI( EAST
MIX OF MULTI FAMILY TO SINGE FAMILY HOUSING 1
I
I
SINGLE FAM HOMES 888 46%1
SINGLE FAM HOMES & BLOBLE SITES 1061 55%1
I
TOTAL NODI -SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING STOCK 85S 45%1
1
TOTAL HOUSING STOCK & BLOBLE SITES 1916 100$1
I
MULTI FAMILY HOUSING STOCK SUWARY - INCLUDES FCtJM D( UNITS AND ABOVE
TOTAL MULTI FAM HOUSING UNITS*
�--RCENT OF TOTAL HOUSING
PERCENT OF TOTAL MULTI FAMILY
MARKET SUBS MARKET SUBS
RATE FAMILY RATE SENIOR
FAMILY UNITS SENIOR UNITS
1 UNITS UNITS
I
I
513 1 336 88 0
I
27% 1 18% 4% 0%
I
1 85% 17% 0%
* MULTI -FAMILY INCLUDES ALL UNITS LOCATED IN STRUCTURES WITH OVER FOUR UNITS
est. hshld site 2.7
estimated pop. 4706
91 1
I
5%1
1
1B&1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXISTING MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING STOCK COMPARISONS
`L -
TOTAL % SUBS AS TOTAL 4 TOTAL
APT AS TOTAL EXI
SUBS SUBS % OF MKT MKT APT
4 OF HOUSING
UNITS UNITS HOUSING RATE RATE UNITS*
HSNG UNITS
GLENCOE 88 43% �$$ 117 S7$ 20S
121s1760BUFF*
C
202 464 234 54% 436
Q
20% 2163MONT"*
177 354 1E 336 654 613
28% 1815
MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING STOCK OOMPARISIONS AS PROPOSED
(Includes proposed elderly and subsidized
units)
TOTAL % SUBS AS TOTAL % TOTAL
SUBS SUBS 4 OF MKT MKT APT
APT AS TOTAL
4 OF HOUSING
�e
UNITS UNITS HOUSING RATE RATE UNITS*
HSNG UNITS
P aged
GLENODE Be 4
117 574 205
124 1760
8UFF*** 263 534
A
234 474 497
224 2224
132%1
MONT*** 249 434
336 S7% 585
1815
TOTAL SUBSIDIZED HOUSING PROPOSED IS EQUAL WITH OR WITHOUT DOWTOMN PR
'
HOWEVER. THE MIX OF ELDERLY TO FAMILY HOUSING VARIES.
SUMMARY - MM113-S ORIGINAL PROPOSAL CALLS FOR 8 FEWER MULT- FAMILY
AND 8 MORE SENIOR UNITS
SUMMARY
Ratio of Milt -family market rete to subsidized housing
appears eanpsreble.
Ratio of Milt -family to other housing appears wamsivs
Planning Commission - 6/14/88
5. Public Hearing -Variance Request to Allow Construction of a House Addition
witnin the Front Yara Set-oa" Requirement. Patricia Jensen: (G.A.)
L �1a.� r' � L. «• n• .�1 i.
Patricia Jensen is proposing to be allowed construction of an addition onto her
existing house within the front yard set -back requirement. A difficulty with
explaning of her request, as noted in the enclosed site plan is that the
Buckendahl's house immmediately west of her place, is 11 feet from the front
property line and the Jameson house to the east of her house is 70 feet from
the front property line. For the minimum front yard set -back, we can go
two-thirds of the distance between the minimum 30 feet front yard set -back and
the average set -back distance between the two structures. The average of the
two set -back, 11 feet on the Buckendahl house and 70 feet on the Jameson house
is 40.50 feet. If we interpret the ordinance as we have interpreted it before,
the difference between the minimum front yard set -back which is 30 feet and the
average of the two set -backs of the adjoining houses which is 40.50 feet would
give us 10.50 feet times two-thirds of that, equals 6.93 feet. We would add
the 6.93 feet onto the minimum front yard set -back which is 30 feet we would
have 36.93 feet. Mrs. Jensen is proposing to be 36 feet from the front
property line which she is requesting for a variance of .93 feet. If we look
for the average set -back between the minimum which is 11 feet of Buckendahl
house and the 70 feet set -back of the Jameson house, the average of that
set -back would be 29.50 feet. Mrs. Jensen is proposing to be 36 feet from the
front property line which she is requesting a variance of 6.50 feet.
i
On the back of the enclosed sight plan for the variance request is a copy of
the computations to come up with the lineal footages as listed in the above
referenced paragraph.
This is a unique request, in that she is asking for approximately 6.5 feet
further set -back then the minimum set -back which is required by city ordinance
set -back.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow the construction of a house
addition within the front yard setback requirements.
2. To deny the variance request to allow the construction of a house
addition within the front yard set -back requirement.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
Whig ever way you look at it, with the moat recent ordinance amendment
allowing houses to be placed further back then the minimum front yard set -back
of 30 feet, Mrs. Jensen will. a variance from the minimum requirement
irregardlese.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
7 Copy of the site plan proposed. Copy of the location for the proposed variance
request. Copy of the site plan for the variance request with the footage
notations on the back of this site plan. Copy of the ordinance which deals
with the minimum set -back requirements.
r ••_ `�� `-`� �
1! C+en4-p-r
8 I ; � � I •i�°`� I � I
� .,lQ mn .AbDt
7-3: Yq(tD AtgUlarJ4.OTsi .... ... ... .r:;.
_ :.
(a] puRPOS87 This auction Identified arinimum Yard
•:'
spaces &".areas to be provided for In each + r'
, ^'
zoning district.
• �'•. : r'
(Al no lot, Yard or other open space shall be reduced
In arae or dimension so an to make sxh lot,
' • ^';�
Yazd or cpm space less then the minimus required
,
by this Oretw--••-, and if the existing yard
. :�.�..
or other open space an existing is less than
the Mint— required It shell not be further
reduced. A requlred open space provided
any building or stracturs shau be included
', .•7�
as a pest of any open space required for another
.
(CI All setback distances, as listed In the table
i
below, -hall be measured from the appropriate
�•1
' lot line, and shall be required minirom distances.
Yrant Yard Gids yard Ross Yard
A-0 50 20 SO
., . i i •
Rto .110
P riol In 30
•'
A-1 ' SQ 20 20 ....
.. ,
.
• A -a 10 10 10
•�'`
' pi -t flee chapter 10 for specific regulations.
' ' ,(,
PICA dee Chapter t0 Los specific regulations.
C- e-1 10 • ' 1920
'
i�
front Yard fide Yard near Yard .
0-2 )0t0 20
e -e o 0 o
2-1 t0 10 40
1-0 10 10 50
1. jp 1-1, g; j, 8-1 and 0-2 CILAULota, XUD
edlseen! at=ata:e�:cludir,o acc--
M..11einae ri Lw1 h k AAre front
i>•rd ae aka etrrwrant fres Lhasa r■euired
MO. trent recd ■tnimtug eetbaek ahal he
the aw[age o! Le an 1■cant �trpOturu
It these is only one (11 adjacent structure,
the front yard &int-- setback alull be
the average of the required setback and
the ee=11; of the adjacent otsuctur•.
In eo ase ahali the minimum front yard
eetback exceed thirty
(20) Cost, except
as provided In Onbsactlon (VI below.
2. in A-1. 1-2, 0-1 and 0-2 districts, It
lot is a corner lot, the efdayard setback
shall be not less than twenty (20) Leet
from the lot Lim abottiag the street right-of-way
Ilse.
(f] Irk reaidant••i daL fail. where the ■ Lemt
atcoet��e■ ■.•rv�ed Cha .inlan " ■•t_�••►.
established (' iVba•ntion )CI abgv_ tda
mini eua as Waek shelf be SAlriy 1201 !eel
yliu aro-l�Ieemt2"1n.. sift rest j „
between MUty C301 feel•'nd the setback
V veragg fltbaell_ef p4lacena stsocturam_
within the mems h10Oy•-
Planning Commission - 6/14/88
Item 04
MEW
DATE: June 13, 1988
TO: Monticello Planning Commission -
FROM: 011ie Raropchak,
BILA Director
SUBJECT: Hornig's Development, 44 Subsudized Multi -Family Unit
The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Members strongly encourage the
Planning C I ssion to consider the approval of Hornig's Development, a 44
subsudized multi -family unit, thereby allowing the Metcalf 6 Larson subsudized
elderly project on West Broadway to continue.
1. The ERA has earmarked the redevelopment of the southwesterly Block Sl
as one of the 1988 goals.
2. The HRA acquired the Ford property with the intension to redevelop
the area.
3. The BRA's redevelopment plan eliminatesilight in the downtown area.
4. The HRA has option agreements for purchase and demolition of the
properties currently owned by Jones, O'Connor, and Stelton's, these to be
renewed June 30, 1988.
9. The BRA has an option agreement with Metcalf and Larson.
S. The Metcalf and Larson project must be the sole elderly project
submitted to the Farmers Home Administration for 1988 funding.
7. Without Farmers Home Administration funding, the Metcalf and Larson
project is dead.
B. The BRA has worked long and hard on this project and does not deny
that the project cost is high.
9. The ERA project would enhance the Streetscape Project.
10. The SRA project could help encourage the property owners of Block 51
to improve the alley.
11. The HRA project would increase pedestrian traffic to the downtown
area.
Thank you for considering the BRA concerns.
Planning Commission - 6/14/88
6. Public Hearing - Preliminary Platt Request for a Mobile Home Park Extension.
Applicant, Don Helkes: (J.O.)
Don Heiken proposes to develop 4 mobile home sites as part of phase II of the
the development of the West Side Mobile Home Park. The plan before you has been
modified a number of times as a result of input from staff and comes close to
complete compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Planning Commission is asked to
study the following staff review and supporting documentation submitted by
Mr. Heikes and consider granting preliminary approval to the proposed expansion
of the west -Side Mobile Some Park. Planning Commission is also asked to
consider approval of a variance associated with the site plan also attached is
a map showing the locattA of the site (Map I), a map showing both phase I 6
phase II coned (Map II).
Staff urges you to visit the site prior to the meeting if at all possible. you
will note that Heikes has already done some significant excavation work prior
to gaining preliminary approval. Although this was a risky move by the
developer, he did not violate any laws with the excavation work that has
already been completed.
B. SITE PLAN REVIEW:
Following is a review of the preliminary plat proposal.
Review of Plan in Terms of the Zoning Ordinance
Attached for your review is a copy of the section of the Zoning Ordinance
pertaining to Mobile Home Court development. Staff has reviewed the site plan
in terms of its compliance to the Zoning Ordinance and determined that the
preliminary plat application complies with the ordinance with one exception.
Heikes plane on developing hie driveway without a curb system which is at
variance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Heikes plans on
channeling water down the middle of the concrete drive he is proposing.
Heikes will need a variance in order for this to be pssible. This item will be
discussed in detail later in this memo.
Heikes plans to develop four mobile home sites per the attached site plan. As
stated earlier, this proposal represents an expansion to phase I of the West
Side Park which was successfully developed recently. The subject property is
"landlocked", and has no direct access to a public street. The only access to
the property is by way of the first phase of the hest Side Mobile Homo
Park.
Ixpact on Surrounding Lend One
The subject area is coned for the development of mobile homes. Directly to the
south of the expansion area is the Riverside Cemetery. Heikes plans 'on
installing a six foot fence, as indicated on his plan along the cemetery lot
line. This fence will buffer the impact of the conflicting land uses and
brings the plan in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. To the East and
North of the plat is the Mississippi River. DNR officials have informed City
Staff that the proposal does not violate any restrictions pertaining to river
area development. To the North and West of the development area is the River
Terrace Mobile Hams Park. Sines both land uses are the same, there is no
conflict of land use to the North and Hest of the plat area.
Planning Commission - 6/10/88
Park Development
Proposed with this development is a river park consisting of an area larger
than the minimum requirment as called for by ordinance. The park will include
four picnic benches and outdoor cooking facilities. A three foot gravel
walkway is planned for access to the park.
Building Site Construction/Foundations
Staff was concerned that the building sites proposed might not be stable due
to close proximity to the steep bank and due to site placement on or near
recently excavated material. Heikes has overcome these concerns with the
submittal of plans for reinforced foundations for the structures. Gary
Anderson is satisfied that that the plan submitted will provide sufficient
support for the proposed structures.
C. VARIANCE REQUEST - REQUEST TO DEVEfAP DRIVE W/O CURB AND GUTTER
Mr. Heikes requests that the City grant a variance which would allow him to
develop a curbless drive. Heikes proposes design the drive so that water runs
to the middle of the road and downhill to the eastern extereme of the
driveway. Water will then be diverted to the river.
Planning Commission should be aware that Heikes was allowed to develop the
first phase of his project without curb construction. This was allowed because
curbing was not needed to control storm water run-off, and because of the
potential damage to curbing that can occur when moving mobile homes on and off
building sites. In addition, the roadway was allowed to be developed without a
curb because the driving surface created is little more than a driveway and it
was felt that this requirement did not apply to "minor" drives. Planning
Commission is asked to review the rationale stated above and determine if it is
sufficient justification for approval of said variance.
If the Planning Commission agrees that a variance is justified, then a motion
must be made to that affect with an articulation of the reasons for the
variance. A clear statement outlining the reasons for the variance will lessen
the significance of the precedent being set.
Finally, there is some concern that the amount of water draining from the
length of the roadway will be significant and may cause erosion as it finds its
way to the river. The plans do not clearly indicate how this potential problem
will be handled. This issue should be resolved prior to final approval.
D. ACTION REQUESTED
Consider approval of Preliminary Plat Application submitted by Don Heikes for
expansion of the Westside Mobile Home Park and Consider Granting of Variance
allowing development of a mobile home court drive without curb.
mPr =-
9-1 9-2 (A71(b)
CHAPTER 9
`L "R-4" MOBILE HONE PARK DISTRICT
SECTION:
9-1: Purpose
9-2: Permitted Uses
9-3: Permitted Accessory Uses
9-4: Conditional Uses
9-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the "R-4" Mobile Home Park
District is to provide for mobile home users and directly
related uses.
9-2: PEPNITTED USES: The following are permitted uses
in an "R-4" Districts:
(A) Mobile Home Park (independent or dependent)
1. General Provisions:
d NA (a) No mobile home for residential purposes
shall be permitted on any site within
the City of Monticello unless said
site is part of an approved mobile
home court or unless it is located
on land purchased by the mobile home
owner served by utilities as required
by state law, and such land has been,
prior to passage of this Ordinance,
specially developed and formally platted
for the placement of mobile homes.
9� Np (b) Mobile homes shall not be used for
residential purposes in the City if they:
I. Do not conform to the requirements of
the Vehicle Cods of the State of Minnesota.
Li. Ars in an unsanitary condition or have
an exterior in bad repair.
iii. Are structurally unsound and do
not protect the inhabitants against
all elements.
iv. Do not have adequate sewage facilities
as required by the City Council
In accordance with Pollution Control
Agency regulations.
9-2 (Alt(c)
(c) All lands areas shall be:
r.
e 1
L. Adequately drained
11. Landscaped to control dust
iii. Clean and free from refuse, garbage,
rubbish or debris
Ls��,fS(d) No tents shall be used for other than
recreational purposes in a mobile home
park.
�Q�[S(a) There shall be no outdoor camping anywhere
Ge l in a mobile home park.
Coefl;(S (f) Access to mobile home parks shall be
as approved by the City.
Lje tS(g) All structures (fences, sidewalks, roads,
storage, cabana, or other) shall require
a building permit from the Monticello
SS Building Inspector.
lie 1h) The area beneath a mobile home coach
shall be enclosed except that such enclosure
(-� must have access for inspection.
Le~�lie3(i) Laundry and Clothing shall be hung out
to dry only on lines located in council
approved areas established and maintained
exclusively for that purpose.
N p (J) Where the mobile home court is dependant,
it shall have an adequate central community
building with the following fostures:
L. Laundry drying areas and machines
Li. Laundry washing machines
111. Shovers
iv. public toilets and lavatories
Such buildings shall have central heating and
be maintained in a safe, clean• and sanitary
condition.
2. Site plan acquirements:
f C.0t696(s) Legal description am size in acres
of the proposed mobile home court.
9-2 (A)2(a)
9-2 (A)2(b)
9-2 CA13(a)
(b) Location and size of all mobile home
sites, dead storage areas, recreation
r' areas, laundry drying areas, roadways, alt
parking sites, and all setback dimensions
1 (parking spaces, exact mobile home
sites, etc.).
i
� (.• (e) Detailed landscaping plane and specifications.
Location and width of sidewalks.
11 (e) Plans for sanitary sewage disposal,
Got�'t! surface drainage, water systems, electrical
service, and
S gas service.
G rP� f) Location and size of all streets abutting
the mobile home park and all driveways
from such streets to the mobile home park.
tool I;eq) Road construction plans and specifications.
`o,,. Neil) Plans for any and all structures.
(1) Such o0er information as required
� Orgl;tS or implied by these mobile home court
s standards or requested by public officials.
f,l L0,11;' fj) Name and address of developer or developers.
C�y/i/f(k) Description of the method of disposing
1ss of garbage and refuse.
)'f(1) Detailed description of maintenance
procedures and grounds supervision.
Gs�lo(S
m) Details as to whether all of area
will be developed at ones or whether
it will be developed a portion at
a time.
3. Design standards:
(a) site:
L. Each mobile home site shall contain
t,s, at least four thousand (4,000)
square feet of land area for the
"elusive use of the occupant.
Ge►�xf5 width: So less than forty (401 feet.
Depths No less than one hundred (100) feet.
11. Eaeh mobilo home site shall have
y' ( herontage on an approved roadway
e and the corner of eschmobile hems
L"Js„If� •lte shall be marked and each
►�
it: shall be numbered.
9-2 (A13(b)
(b) Setbacks:
i. No unit shall be parked closer
than five (S) fast to its side
tic', lot lines not closer than twenty (20)
feet to its front lot line, or
within tan (10) feet of its rear
lot line.
ii. No unit, off-street parking space,
l,t}or building shall be located within
/ � thirty (30) feet of the exterior
L1' boundary of any mobile home court.
(c) Parking:
Each mobile hems site shall have
J pl�t5off-street parking spats for two (2)
C� automobiles.
U. Each mobile home shall maintain
a hard surfaced off-street parking
lot for guests of occupants in
the amount of one (1) apace for
each five (3) coach sites.
iii. Access drives off road$ to all
{ *%C5 parking spaces and coach sites
y / pMQ shall be hard surfaced.
(d) t Utilities:
i. Ali mobile homes shall De connactsd
+,l5 to a public water and sanitary
Coll
saver syetam or a private water
and saver system approved by the
State Cepartmeat of Health.
Li. All installations for disposal
of surface storm water must be
r approved by the City -
LLL. All utility connections shall
tt be as approved by the City.
iv. The source of fuel for cooking.
heating, or other purposes at
Is each mobile hese site shall be
as approved by the City-
, v. All utilities shall be underground,
'r A46 there shall be no overhead vires
LA
at supporting poles accept thoss
f t. essential tar street or other
lighting pusposas.
9-2 (A13(d)
9-2 (A13(d)
9-2
vi. No obstruction shall be permitted
'ythat impedes the inspection of
r / ``a plumbing, electrical facilities.
CP and related mobile home equipment.
vii. 8:e method of garbage, waste and
Gtjtrash disposal must be approved
OM by the city.
viii.,Yowner shall pay any required cover
U`JD��tttfPt and connection fees to the City.
(e) Internal Roads and Streets:
LOt�Q�iRoads shall be hard surfaces as
{ 11 approved tr the City.
01
O
cc ii. Ali roads shall have a hard surfaced
�oMr"1 (mountable, roll type)curb and
I i gutter.
iii. All streets shall be developed
A`1f with a roadbed of not lees than
twenty-four (26) fact in width.
If'parking is permitted on the
street than the roadbed shall
be at least thirty-six (36) feet
in width.
(f) Recreation: All mobile home courts
shall have at least tan (10) percent
1�fS of the land areas developed for recreational
use (tennis courts. children's play
V equipment, swimming pool, golf green,
etc.) developed and maintained at
the ower/operator-s expense.
(g) Landscaping:
'Jiti. Each site shall be properly landscaped
with tress, hedges, grass, fences,
�O windbreaks, and the like.
LL. A compact hedge, redwood fence, or
landscaped area shall be installed
w a11f5 around each mobile home park and
L100i be maintained in first class
condition at all time as approved.
iii. All areas shall be landscaped
y in accordance with landscaping
LOO� plan approved by the City.
9-2 (A)3(h)
(h) Lighting:
L. Artificial light shall be maintained
during all hours of darkneae
�a ji/,i5 in a71 buildings containing public
toilets, laundry equipment, and
the like.
GDMp
L. The mobile home park ground shall
1 be lighted as approved by the
City from sunset to sunrise.
9-3: D:'RMITTED ACCESSORY USES:
(A) Reereational vehicles and equipment.
9-4
(B) Swimming pools, tennis courts and other recreational
facilities which are operated for the enjoyment
and conveniance of the residents of the principal
use and their guests.
9-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are Conditional
sees in as "R-4" District:
(AI Name.
LS, DE MOBILE HOME PARK
A
1323 West River St..
MONTICELLO, MN 55362 I
295-4802
June 9, 1988
.lo
55362
CONERN:
In reference to the addition
of Westside Mobile Home Park
MING -All lots to be fully sodded except
rays and driveways. i
AREA to be planted as recommended by the f
.ty of Minnesota Urban Laboratories. A deep -
short growth seed from Northrup King -#37 to
osion and requires non -cutting and chokes out
•o wt h.
JO's WALE ditch for water run-off to be sodded
.ak&: by a landscaper.
will be all-weather wood, six feet in height.
.DDITION to be developed is approximately 1.78
s of which 12,000 sq. feet for a park along the
bank, to include picnic benches, horseshoe pit,
fishing access.
ZE LIGHTS to be installed as per plan.
CTRIC, phone and cable to be underground.
'URAL GAS to be available.
JlYremoval, grounds and street maintenance, water and
wer maintenance to be performed by the owners of the -
srk. ,
RAILERS to be on concrete slabs as per drawings.
STORM SHELTER is provided in the lower level of the
duplex which is maintained by the Park caretaker
living on the upper floor. Storm shelter is equipped
with a bathroom, water, lights and heat. Shelter shall
have a sign placed above the door and all new tenants
are informed of this emergoncy shelter.
Donald W. Heikes (owner)
" I'(C4 &-AFvTE FOUNPAT1 ON
-rop ViFEw
1 . *5 Rebar inconwrcte,
SIAL VIE W
Planning Commiasion - 6/14/88
7. Update s Evergreens Preliminary Plat Application.
Just a note to inform you that as of 6/10/88 the engineering data you
requested from the developer regarding "The Evergreens" is not available
at City Hall. Kjellberg reported to me that his engineer has submitted
the required data to the City Engineer. City Engineer, John Hadalich is
not available for comment until Monday, therefore I have no idea at this
time if the information is adequate. I hope to provide you with a
complete update on this matter by Monday Evening.
Planning Commission - 6/16/88
'1 e• A Variance RecLueat to Allow Construction of a Garage Addition within the Side
Yard set -Baca Requirement. Applicant, RICK Wolrsteiler: (G.A.)
A. REFERANCE AND BACBGROM:
Mr. Wolfateller is proposing to remodel hie exsisting garage into additional
living area and be allowed to construct a garage addition onto his existing
garage. The southwest portion of the proposed garage addition to be within six
feet of the aide property line. With the placement of the proposed garage
addition, the southwest portion of the garage addition would be right up to the
six foot drainage and utility easment on the side of Mr. Wolfsteller's property
and the placement of this corner of the garage would be approximately 51 feet
to the nearest structure to the south, which would be the Gordon Yager
residence, the rear most portion of their house.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
1. To approve the variance request to allow construction of a garage
addition within the side yard set -back requirements.
2. Deny the variance request to allow construction of a garage addition
within the aide yard set -back requirement.
C. STAFF RECOPPUMATION:
Placement with the proposed garage addition is within the minimum 10 feet side
yard set -back requirement. Placement also with this proposed garage addition
is up to the maximum 6 feet drainage and utility easement line. It is also,
with the nearest separation between structures being approxiately 51 feet.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request. Copy of the site plan of
the variance request. Copy of the ordinance section dealing with set -back
requirements.
1 �`I
A variance request to allow
\\ construction o1 a garage
addition within the sideyard
setback requirement.
Rick Nolisteller
------------
i \
b. . /--------------- r \\
c v* LjLl
T I\\
s I i r l G feel.--=_�
I
1 .
1 An�•�' 1
I
1 r
4
fl
I t�
1 I
� I !
1 i
LFII#�,
I
' A. rr
IEN
1. Clothes line pole and wire.
2. Recreational equipment and vehicles.
3. Construction and landscaping material currently
being used an the premises.
4. Off-street parking of passenger vehicles
and trucks not exceeding a gross capacity
of nine thousand (9,000) pounds in residential
areas.
5. propane tants, fuel oil tanks, and other
similar residential heating fuel storage
Lanka which do not exceed 1,000 gallons
in capacity and shall not be located within
five (5) feet of any property line.
6. Wood piles in which wood is stored for
fuel provided that not more than 10 cords
shall be stored on any property. A cord
shall be 4' x 41 x 86. All wood piles
shall be five (5) feet or more from rear
and side yard property lines and shall
be stored pehind the appropriate set back
line in front yards.
7. Solar heating systems.
d _ 3-3: }ARD REOUZRDU=S:
(A) PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum yard
spaces and areas to be provided for in each
Zoning district.
(B) No lot, yard or other open space shall be reduced
in area or dimension so as to make such lot,
yard or open space lass than the minimum required
by this Ordinance, and if the existing yard
or other open space as existing is less than
the minimum required it shall not be further
reduced. Jb required open space provided around
any building or structure shall be included
as a part of any open space required for another
structure.
(C) All setback distances, as listed in the table
below, shall be measured from the appropriate
lot line, and shall be required minim= diatances.
front Yard Side yard Rear Yard
A-0 5050
gl,..--- 30 fi p )
\ R-2 30 10 30
( R-3 30 20 30
1-4 30 30 30
PZ -R Sao Chapter 10 for specific regulations.
Pa -p Sea Chapter 10 for specific regulations.
3-1 30 15 20
e-2 , 30 •10 20
-44Cf
-AA �
•! ...I ar y,. T•.•--.�,:,.i'cc:� tee:•.. ..« A r
,.tl '. `' . �„r ;� „f i•,• c.s�:.: 'a•:..r I ♦w .'d ��.;, bl *�••' M" � ��
I.
41
i !; +'t� �, >! p u• cam--!•- 2�,t.t2--- I 11t S
i •� ; ; I •�cd -fi �..r n , t o
. u L � I '..�:�• : ' . it � i � t i'Lt
j� _ ,,. .� ,o - _` ._ .. . ��-'iT1•—.""•-"T'„�."` i+_ ItA :.t�..'� _ .«-4'1 i«—jj10 —.'„ n��
IN
.. r
O i3 30 60 9O
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
O OENOTES IRON MONUMENT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
All of Lot 5 in Block 6 and all of the W1 of Lot 4 in Block 6 except
that tract conveyed to Nary L. (lager March 17, 1875 by the townsite
authorities described in the deed recorded in Book 62 of Deeds.
page 310, which was filed for record in the office of the Register of
Deeds on December 9, 1909; also a strip of land 20 feet wide off the
East side of the alley between Block "A" and Block 6 in the townsite
of Lower Monticello, and extending from Front Street to the Iltasissippi
River, said alley appearing on the plot of said Tuwnsite on file in the
office of the Register of Deeds in said county, but some having been
vacated pursuant to Chapter 381, Laws of 1909, State of Ilinncsota, all
of the foregoing lots being in the townsite of Lower Nouticello or Mor-
it:ious according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the
office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County.
We hereby certify that this is a true
and correct representation of a survey
of the boundaries of the land des-
cribed above and of the location of
all buildings thereon, and all visi-
ble encroachments, if any, from or
onsaid_land. As urvQyed by me
this�_day of�1�r1L_. 19ea-
BY
Minnesota Registration No. 7439
�ti + MEYER-ROHLIN,WC a[v:s:oles
< 0CAWNr•uwa ewewroas --
i'i : unoftAask awnw,rr u,u
oatc
'f1-1E'�'�l'.• a 1 .ORAWN ar too:140 $Hier I OF ALC No.
,I
? .. 'y' •t�L I• - NfAtod:JG. I ►ao[.SG , I �L_smccT[ I 7-