Planning Commission Agenda Packet 06-05-1990AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MOWICELL.O PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 5, 1990 - 7:00 p.m.
Members: Dan McConnon, Richard Martie, Richard Carlson, Cindy
Lemm, Mori Malone
7:00 PM 1. Call to order.
7:02 PM 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held
May 1, 1990.
7:04 PM 3. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held
May 14, 1990.
7:06 PM 4. Public Hearing --A variance request to allow
construction of a garage addition within the side
yard setback requirement. Applicant, Ruth A.
Anderson.
7:21 PN 5. Public Hearing --A variance request to allow a curb
cut access within 40 feet from the intersection of
two (2) street right-of-ways. Applicant, JRMV
Partnership and 21st Century Builders.
7:36 PM 6. New Planning Commission member interviews.
8:06 PH 7. Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of
ordinance amendment to off-street parking
requirements. Applicant, City of Monticello.
Additional Information Items
8:36 PM 1. A variance request to allow construction of a porch
addition within the front yard setback requirement.
Applicant, Ronald Reinking. Council actions No
action necessary, as the request did not come
before them.
8:38 PM 2. A conditional use request to allow a day care (head
start program) in an R-2 (single and two family
residential) zone. Applicant, First Baptlet
Church/Wright County Community Action Head Start
Program. Council action: Approved as per Planning
Commission recommendation.
8:40 PM 3. Consideration of approval of preliminary plat
entitled Kirkman Addition. Applicant, The Lincoln
Companies. Council action: Approved as per
Planning Commiesion recommendation.
Planning Commission Agenda
June 5, 1990
Page 2
8:42 PH 4. Consideration of a rezoning request of land south
of the realigned 7th Street right-of-way from PEN
(performance zoned mixed) to B-3 (highway business)
zoning. Applicant, The Lincoln Companies. Council
action: Approved as per Planning Commission
recommendation.
8:44 PN 5. Consideration of a conditional use permit which
would allow retail commercial activity in a PEN
zone. Applicant, JKNV Partnership/21st Century
Builders. Council action: No action required, as
the request was continued.
8:46 PN 6. Consideration of a variance request which would
allow less than the minimum parking lot setback and
variance or variance request which would allow less
than the minimum number of parking spaces for
commercial use in a PEN zone. Applicant, JKNV
Partnership/21st Century Builders. Council action:
No action required, as the request was continued.
8:48 PH 7. Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment
reducing convenience food parking requirement.
Applicant, Shingobee Builders. Council action:
Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
8:50 PH B. Consideration of adopting an ordinance amendment
which would allow operation of a prototype furnace
using rubber products as a fuel in an I-1 (light
industrial) zone. Applicant, Ray Schmidt. Council
action: No action required, as the request was
continued.
8:52 PN 9. Consideration of conditional use permit which would
allow operation of a prototype furnace using rubber
products as fuel. Applicant, Ray Schmidt. Council
action: No action required, as the request was
tabled.
8:54 PN 10. Variance request to allow no concrete curbing or
curb barrier within 5 feet of a lot line in certain
areas of a parking lot, and a request to allow
additional driveway within 125 feet of an existing
driveway. Applicant, Bean Hoglund/Ken Schwartz.
Council action: No action required, as the request
did not come before them.
Planning Commission Agenda
June 5, 1990
Page 3
8:56 PM 11. A zoning amendment to amend the entire section of
Chapter 18, Flood Plain Management Ordinance.
Applicant, City of Monticello. Council action:
Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
8:58 PM 12. Consideration of ordinance amendment to off-street
parking requirements. Applicant, City of
Monticello. Council action: No action required,
as the request was continued.
9:00 PM 13. A continued conditional use request to allow retail
commercial activities as listed in Chapter 12,
Section 2, B-2 (limited business district) of this
ordinance, in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone.
Applicant, JRMV Partnership/21st Century Builders.
Council action: Approved as per Planning
Commission recommendation.
9:02 PM 14. Continued consideration of adopting an ordinance
amendment which would allow operation of a
prototype furnace using rubber products as a fuel
in an 1-1 (light industrial) zone. Applicant, Ray
�. Schmidt. Council action: Approved as per Planning
Commission recommendation.
9:04 PM 15. Consideration of a continued conditional use permit
which would allow operation of a prototype rubber
burning furnace incidental to a principal use as a
conditional use in an I-1 (light industrial) zone.
Applicant, Ray Schmidt. Council actions Approved
as per Planning Commission recommendation.
9:06 PM 16. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello
Planning Commission meeting for July 5, 1990,
7:00 p.m.
9:08 PM 17. Adjournment.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - NONTICELL0 PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, Nay 14, 1990 - 5:30 p.m.
Members Present: Dan McConnon, Mori Malone, Richard Martie,
Cindy Lamm, Richard Carlson
Members Absent: None
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Dan McConnon at
5:30 p.m.
1. Continued Public Hearinq - A conditional usa request to allow
retail/commercial activities as listed in Chanter 12,
Section 2, B-2 (limited business district) of this ordinance
in a PZM zone (eerformance zone mixed). Applicant, JKMV
Partnership/21st Century Builders.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members and the public JM Partnership/ 2lot
Century Builders conditional use request to allow
retail/commercial activities in a PEN (performance zone mixed)
zone. He outlinod the six proposed conditions that would be
attached to this conditional use permit if It was approved.
�- Chairperson, Dan McConnon, then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Russ Rosa, consulting engineer for JRNV Partnership,
explained to Planning Commission members that the entrance or
exit to the complex on the south side of their property could
be re -aligned to be in alignment with East 6th Street.
Mr. Rosa also explained that the northerly entrance/exit could
also be redesigned to be within 40 feet of a public right-of-
way. Mr. Rosa said he would discuss Lt with the JRNV
Partnership and get back to them if they would like to proceed
with the variance process.
Ms. Tina Reinert, Admired Properties, expressed the following
concerns as a property manager for the Hillside I and the
Hillside II apartment complexes:
1. The south entrance to the property should be lined
up so it is in line with the East 6th Street
intersection.
2. She expressed concerns regarding the landscaping,
especially the retaining wall, end how it was to be
treated on the north side of her property, which
would be the south aide of the developer's
property.
Page 1
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 5/14/90
3. She questioned the type of fencing that was
proposed to be put in on the south side of their
property, which would be on the north side of her
property.
There being no further input from the public, Chairperson Dan
McConnon then closed the hearing.
With no further comments from the Planning Commission members,
a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Cindy Lemm
to approve the conditional use request to allow retail/
commercial activities as listed in Chapter 12, Section 2, B-2
(limited business district) of this ordinance in a PZM
(performance zone mixed) zone with the following six
conditions:
1. Development of the final landscaping and berming
plan must create an effective transition between
commercial and residential properties as determined
by the City Planner. A bond in the amount of 1001
of the cost to install berming and landscaping
shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of
a building permit.
2. Development of a retaining wall shall be
accompanied by installation of a safety fence for
the purpose of eliminating access to the edge of
the retaining wall. The fence shall be made of
weather resistant material and shall be at least
six feet high.
3. Prior to issuance of the building permit, drainage
and retaining wall contruction plans shall be
approved by the City Engineer.
4. The southerly most access onto Cedar Street shall
be aligned with West 6th Street.
5. The northerly most access onto Cedar Street shall
be moved 40 feet to the south or eliminated.
6. A document identifying the approximate location of
the demolition or unknown material on the 5th
Street right-of-way and designating the property
owner as the party responsible for removal of
debris and restoration shall be recorded against
the property. This will require someone in the
future to be responsible when and if problems
develop.
Page 2
0
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 5/14/90
Concerning condition i5, the Planning Commission stated that
if they would like to be within 40 feet of this intersection,
they would look at a possible variance request on this. The
variance request shall go through the proper public hearing
channels for its due process. The motion carried unanimously.
3. Consideration of adopting an ordinance amendment which would
allow operation of a prototype furnace usinq rubber products
as fuel in an I-1 (liqht industrial) zone. Applicant, Ray
Schmidt.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members and the public Mr. Schmidt's request for an
ordinance amendment which would allow operation of a prototype
furnace using rubber products as fuel in an I-1 (light
industrial) zone.
Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the hearing for input from tho
public. Mr. Ray Schmidt, Universal Equipment Manufacturing
Company, explained his proposed use of the former Larson
Manufacturing building for the manufacturing of equipment that
would remove tires from their rims and cut them into
proportionate pieces and even cut them down into sizes of
approximately one inch in diameter. He also explained that he
would like to be allowed to test his prototype furnace, which
he has had in testing for approximately the last three years.
Mr. Schmidt explained that the process burns at approximately
3,000+ degrees, with the start of the furnace unit for 30
seconds every 30 minutes. Basically, the residue which is
left once the rubber is burned off Is the melted fibers of the
steel lining on the radial tires. There being no further
input from the public, Chairperson Dan McConnon closed the
public hearing.
Planning Commission members voiced some concerns about the
emissions of the smoke into the atmosphere and about how that
would affect the surrounding properties and the city as a
whole.
With no further input from the Planning Commission, a motion
was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Lemm, to approve
the ordinance amendment which would allow operation of a
prototype furnace using rubber products as a fuel in an I-1
(light industrial) zone. Voting in favors Dan McConnon,
Richard Martie, Richard Carlson, Cindy Lemm. Opposedi Mori
Malone.
Page 3
O
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 5/14/90
The Planning Commission members felt that the seven conditions
should not be added to the proposed ordinance amendment but
that they should be added to the conditional use for this
item.
Consideration of a conditional use permit which would allow
operation of a prototype rubber burning furnace incidental to
a principal use in an I-1 (light industrial) zone. ADDlicant,
Ray Schmidt.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members and to the public Mr. Schmidt's conditional
use request to allow operation of a prototype rubber burning
furnace incidental to a principal use in an I-1 (light
industrial) zone. Jeff O'Neill explained the proposed
conditions that would be attached to the conditional use
permit.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the hearing for comments
from the public. Mr. Ray Schmidt explained that he was
opposed to the September 1, 1990, completion of emissions
testing undor condition 03. Mr. Schmidt indicated that with
the moving of his business to Monticello, it would take some
time and he probably would be unable to meet that date. He
�- asked for some consideration to work with City staff on the
completion of condition i3. He also explained to Planning
Commission members that he was concerned with condition !7
determining the ash or the waste material from his furnace a
hazardous waste. The remaining ash or substance that is left
is all melted metal which can be sold to be recycled into new
metal.
There was no further comment from the public, Chairperson Dan
McConnon opened the meeting for input from the Planning
Commission members.
With no further input from the Planning Commission members, a
motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Richard
Carlson, to approve the conditional use permit to allow
operation of a prototype rubber burning furnace incidental to
a principal use as a conditional use in an I-1 (light
industrial) zone with the following conditions:
1. The furnace must meet all existing or future air
emission standards as established by the Federal or
State Pollution Control Agencies.
Page 4
0
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 5/14/90
2. Stack height must be high enough to eliminate
potential of stack gases being trapped at ground
level by the effect of wind flow around buildings.
3. Before 9/1/90, furnace owner shall complete all
emission testing of non -prototype furnace and will
apply for an air emissions permit from the PCA even
if exempt from PCA regulations. Furnace design
must meet or exceed proportional requirements for a
one million BTU furnace as required by the PCA.
Failure of emission test during prototype
development or failure to obtain permission to sell
this product in Minnesota shall terminate
conditional use permit. Timing and testing should
be worked out with the City staff and a time
recommended for completion by the City staff.
4. Regular use of the furnace shall not be limited to
the heating season. Non -heating season use of the
system shall be limited to testing and
demonstration. Furnace shall not be operated for
the solo purpose of reducing waste tires.
5. A 6 -foot, 901 opaque fence shall be used to screen
waste tire storage areas. No waste tires shall be
in plain view. The site shall not contain more
than 75 unprocessed tires at any one time. The
site may not be used as a tire transfer station.
6. Complaints made by area property owners about the
furnace emissions may be sufficient cause for the
City to withdraw the conditional use permit and
therefore all furnace operation.
7. Waste ash and particulate recovered shall be
treated as waste and shall be disposed in a manner
approved by the City of Monticello and the
Pollution Control Agency.
Approval was based on the finding that the operation of
the furnace is A) consistent with the geography and
character of an 1-1 and I-2 zone; B) the operation of
the furnace will not tend to depreciate the land values
in the area; and C) the need for such use has been
sufficiently demonstrated. Voting in favors Dan
McConnon, Richard Martie, Richard Carlson, Cindy Lemm.
Oppoaingi Mori Malone.
Page 5
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 4/14/90
4. Motion was made by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Mori Malone, to
adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 6:47 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Andbrson
Zoning Administrator
IN
Page 6
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/5/90
4. Public Rearing --A variance request to allow construction of a
garage addition within the side vard setback requirement.
AApDlicant. Ruth A. Anderson. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Ruth Anderson purchased the former Marie Peterson residence at
1119 West River Street. Ms. Anderson is proposing to remove
the existing detached garage, which is currently 2.2 feet and
2.1 feet from the side property line. She would like to
attach the garage onto the house in conjunction with an
addition onto the rear of her house. With the proposed garage
attached to the house, it would still be within 2.2 feet and
2.1 feet from the side property line. As you will note on the
certificate of survey, there is ample room for the placement
of an attached or detached garage to the west of this
residence. It's rather unfortunate that when the house and
garage were built, they were built so close to the property
line, as there was sufficient room to the west of this house
to accommodate a house and garage and be placed nicely on the
lot. As of the writing of this supplement, Lee and Marvel
Trunnel have not given their permission approving a variance
to allow placement of an attached garage within 2 feet of
their property line.
In this case, approval of the variance by both neighbors is
Important, as the public hearing notice did not include a
proper description of the site of the variance. Anyone taking
legal action against the approval of the variance request
based on an irregularity in the notice would have a good
chance of winning. It is recommended that if approvals from
both neighbors are not obtained, this variance should not be
approved without first conducting a proper public hearing.
Furthermore, the variance request applies not only to setback
requirements but also to rules regarding treatment of
nonconforming structures. The existing structure at a
2.2 -toot setback Is nonconforming; and as such, it is not
allowed by ordinance to be removed and replaced with a new
equally nonconforming structure. Please see the attached
sections of the ordinance pertaining to nonconforming
structures.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve tho variance request to allow a garage to be
placed within the side yard setback requirement.
2. Deny the variance request to allow a garage to be placed
within the side yard setback requirement.
C. STAFF RECOM ENDATION:
It is unfortunate that the garage was placed so close to the
property line when it was built. But there is sufficient land
to accommodate a garage placed west of this existing
residence= however, this would mean removal of an existing
driveway which serves the existing garage and accommodate a
new driveway to the west of the house to serve a new garage.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the certificate of survey= Copy of the front elevation
for the proposed attached garage= Copy of ordinance excerpt
pertaining to nonconforming structures.
a
�N/
/ $ y qa
s
c�
IW-
7
Rp SURF
TAYLOR �G pf 1.5061
!l4
Sr 8 SOM e?•
'r -19,a Joe Oreo.
J
_ FzFAr. CL-LvAnoA
14t.6E Vat -Ace
J
CHAPTER 3
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION:
3-1: Non -Conforming Buildings, Structures and Uses
3-2: General Buildings and Performance Requirements
3-3: Yard Requirements
3-4: Area and Building Size Regulations
3-5: Off -Street Parking Requirements
3-6: Off -Street Loading
3-7: Land Reclamation
3-8: Mining
3-9: Signs
3-1: NON -CONFORMING BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND USES:
(A) PURPOSE: It is the Purpose of this Section
to provide for the regulation of non -conforming
buildingo, structures and uses and to specify
those requirements, circumstances and conditions
under which non -conforming buildings, structures
and uses will bo operated and maintained. The
Zoning Ordinance establishea separate districts,
each of which is an appropriate area for the
location of uses which aro permitted in that
Idiatrict.rt is nocesaary and consistent with
the eotabl hment of those diatricta that non -conforming
buildings, structures, and uses not be permitted
to continua without roatriction. Furthermore,
it io the intent of thio Section that all non -conforming
uoes shall be eventually brought into conformity%
(e) Any structure or use lawfully existing upon
the effective data of this Ordinance ohall not
be enlarged, but may be continued at the size
and in the manner of operation existing upon
ouch date except as hereinafter apocified or,
subsequently amended.
(C) Nothing in this Ordinance shall prevent the
placing of a structure in safe condition when
said structure is declared unsafe by the Building
Inspector, providing the necessary repairs shall
not constitute more than fifty (50) percent
of estimated market value of such structure.
Said value shall be determined by the City or
County Assessor.
6
3-1 [D)
[D) No non -conforming building, structure or use
shall be moved to another lot or to any other
part of the parcel of land upon which the same
was constructed or was conducted at the time
of this Ordinance adoption unless such movement
shall bring the non-conformance into compliance
with the requirements of this ordinance.
[E) When any lawful non -conforming use of any structure
or land in any district has been changed to
a conforming use, it shall not thereafter be
changed to any non -conforming use.
[F) A lawful non -conforming use of a structure or
parcel of land may be changed to lessen. the
µe nonconformity of use. Once a non -conforming
atructure or parcel of land has been changed,
it shall not thereafter be so altered to increase
the non -conformity.
�(GI If at any time a non -conforming building, structure
/ or use shall be destroyed to the extent of more
than fifty (50) ' percent of its estimated market
valve, said value to be determined by the City
or County Assessor, then without further action
by the Council, the building and the land on
which such building was located or maintained
shall, from and after the date of said destruction,
be subject to all the regulations specified
by these zoning regulations for the district
In which such land and buildings are located.
Any building which is damaged to an extent of
less than fifty (50) percent of its value may
be restored to its former extent. Estimate
of the extent of damage or dootruction shall
be made by the Building Inspector.
[B) Whenever a lawful non -conforming use of a structure
or land is discontinued for a period of six (6)
months, any future use of said structure or
land shell be made to conform with the provieiono
of this Ordinance.
[I) Normal maintenance of a building or other structure
containing or related to a lawful non -conforming
use is permitted, including necessary non-otructural
repairs and incidental alteration which do not
physically extend or intensify the non -conforming
use.
3-1 [I)
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/5/90
5. Public Hearin --Consideration of variance request which would
allow a curb cut access within 40 feet of the intersection of
two (Z) street right -of -wave. Ai»licant. JKMV properties.
(J. O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall, the Planning Commission recommended approval of
a related conditional use permit request subject to later
approval of a variance request described above. The City
Council basically agreed with the Planning Commission's
recommendation regarding the conditional use permit request.
Subsequent to the decision by Council, the developers have
elected to seek the variance. Planning Commission is asked to
conduct a public hearing regarding this request and make its
recommendation to the City Council.
As you can see on the attached site plan, the developers
desire to install a curb cut at a location 10 feet from the
5th Street/Burlington Northern right-of-way. The present
ordinance requires that the curb cut be located no closer than
40 feet from the 5th Street right-of-way. Traffic exiting
the site and making a right-hand turn onto Cedar Street will
encounter the railroad stop sign as the exiting vehicle
completes the turning motion. Thus it appears that the stop
sign will be visible by exiting car traffic from a proper
angle; however, larger vehicles making a wider turn may not be
able to turn quick enough to see the stop sign at a square
angle. It should be noted that a railroad crossing sign is
located some distance to the south on Cedar Street
(approximately 60 feet from the 5th Street right-of-way).
It is possible that semi -trailer trucks may use the proposed
access drive as maneuvering area when backing into the food
store loading berths, as the current method of using Cedar
Street may be a more difficult maneuver. It may be that
trucks will enter the proposed drive area and then back
directly across Cedar Street straight into the Maus Foods
loading berth area. At present, trucks backing into the food
store loading berth from Cedar Street must make a turning and
backing maneuver. Utilizing Cedar Street for maneuvering
space is not a good situation; however, it is not expected
that use of the access drive for maneuvering space will make
the problem worse.
Obviously, this appears to be a unique situation, as the 5th
Street right-of-way is not utilized in a typical manner. An
argument could be made that the 5th Street right-of-way is
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/5/90
undeveloped as a roadway and will not likely be developed as
such in the near future; therefore, the intent of the
ordinance will not be impaired by granting the variance. On
the other hand, an argument could be made that despite the low
volume of train traffic, the presence of a driveway access at
the proposed proximity to the railway could create a potential
hazard. In addition, the 5th Street right-of-way may someday
be actively used for pedestrian, bike, or vehicular traffic
and, therefore, the variance should not be denied in order to
avoid a future conflict.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to approve said variance based on the finding that
the variance does not impair the intent of the ordinance,
as the 5th Street right-of-way is not actively used as a
street right-of-way; therefore, the 40 -foot setback
requirement does not apply.
The fact that this is a unique situation will help
diminish an unwanted precedent. It may also be
determined that the distance between the curb cut and the
railroad track is ample, and no significant public safety
hazard is created by allowing the variance. Planning
Commission may wish to add a contingency to the variance
which requires that the access point be closed or moved
in the event the 5th Street right-of-way is ever actively
used as a public thoroughfare. This requirement could be
recorded against the parcel.
If the right-hand turn is sti 11 a concern, Planning
Commission could require lneta .1lation of a "NO RIGHT
TURN" sign at the exit.
2. Motion to deny Said variance request based on the finding
that no hardship has been demonstrated and the variance
is in conflict with the intent of the ordinance.
Planning Commission could make the determination that the
40 -foot curb cut setback requirement from intersecting
right-of-ways was intended to apply to all right-of-ways
regardless of the present level of actual traffic on
either one of the intersecting right-of-ways. An
argument could be made that approval of this variance
request creates potential for traffic conflicts in the
future.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/5/90
STAFF RECONNENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative #1 with the suggestion that the
variance be terminated in the event the 5th Street right-of-
way is developed and more actively used as a street,
pedestrian, or railroad right-of-way. If the variance is
terminated, the access can be relocated or the development
could operate with only two access points.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of site plan.
MOAT ,MU04D•
1M
f".0
Step s;��
/ 3.4
k jdki _.AIDC �11UIlls� —hld,�L
I FOODS
0
s
w
o
t
S
6
o�d
ioo
& stalls
8 sulb
e�
n
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/5/90
6. New Planning Commission member interviews. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Enclosed for your review are copies of the three applications
we received for the opening on the Planning Commission.
To: Monticello Planning Commission Members
ret Monticello Planning Commission Open Position
To Whom It May Concern3
My name is Marie Lindenfelser. I have been a resident
of Monticello for over five years. I have two Elementary -age
children. I am an Elementary School Speech -Language Clinician
in Rockford. I have held this position for ten years.
Obtaining a position on the Monticello Planning Commission
would enable me to become more involved in the community.
I can be contacted evenings at 295-4710, I will look
forward to hearing from you.
Thank you.
Sincerely.
Marie Lindenfelser
hk3y 17, 1990
"r. Jeff O'^laill
Assistant City AdadnisUutor
City of t1ant cello
250 East Broadway
. unticello, Minnesota 5.5362
Dear Mr. O'Neill:
I am interested in serving an the City of Mxmiaello Planning G3missio^. T
have lived in Mstrcello knee 19M1i and have kept myself infamed mWding
City matters.
'y aerent work experience as FhftAd+dnistrptor for Wright Ounty has given
re oppmvffddm to work closely with various levels of govenment. I feel I have
a good ability to express concepts, theories and Ideas pmtainina to lard use and
cammity develop:aat lasnnes. I have hod nmelacs opportunities in my ❑aTe nt position
to interpret legal descriptions and domue= relating to 1md us°. My ednrartianal
badground and worm ex err= have give, re knowledge in interpreting topographical
ceps, aerial {hotos. agineerirng and architecmnal drmdrgs, soil aaveys. and
Construction practices and mntract principles.
I have a sincere interest in City planning and the principles, practicer ani methods
of lad use. I would very mach like to broaden my experience with the City of
vIanticello.
I lode forward to hmriM from you.
Simrely, -%%-
SAgar. i
Bruce M. Ihielen
m
BRUCE M. THI ELF.N
1020 Meadow 03c Drive
Monticello, Mtrnesote 55362
Telephone: (612) 2955-5433
EDUCATION MrlmtoState University, Mankato, Minvresots
March 1978 —August 1979
B.S. Degree --pads Administrar;on with enp alis in Resource Managenart
Minor: Business Administration
Lhiveitty of Hinnesota, Crookston, Mirmesota
Septerber 1976 - February 1978
A.A.S. DWee-Parks and Recreation AreaManagaant
SudQhen He mepin County Technical Center. Proddyn Park. Minnesota
August 1975 - August 1976
Certificate in Landscape Design and Gonstnr ion
John F. KTpedy High School, B1oanigtm, Mi.rmevta
Graduate 1974
WORK
EXPERIENCE County ofLJr1#.Buffalo, Minnesota
2/86 9mloper: Wright County Board of Gmmisaiorers
to Position: Parts Administrator
Present Resportsibilides: Supervision in the develop root, aquisition and omgpmnt of parts and
preserve lard. kbnogmmt and public pannotion of the parks and park prog m . 'equest
and caordin= the use of Federal, State, Gxmty grant pub8pm% and Laml 6mds in support
of petits develop wit. Serve as a lialaon betuem the Park Advisory Board and the County
Board of Camdmioners. Preparation and umnegamant of the annual budget as well as the
supervision of 6 full -tine and up to 18 sessional employees.
2/85 Lhiversity of North Dat ota, Gm*yl Forks, North 1hkota
to Hyloyer: Na Clark. Assistanrf Director of Planet Services
2/86 Position: Imdscape and Grounds Sngerinte Tient
Rmpansibilides: Supervise crew responsible for plant" mid maintenance of trees,
chaos, flowers, turf, and other related furredorns on a 435 acre cute. Directly
s upeMm 2431 serisonal orployees ord 3 full -tine arrployen. develop work projects err
supervise in their installation. Direct north supervise in spmyigg of dranicals. as well
no consult on an as creed basis for o 9 -role golf cause.
12/82 City of 43nimto, Mbnntato, Minnesota
to 131 5-i: Floyd Roberts. Superintadert of ponos mrd Forestry
2/85 Position: Bunts Maintenance Mm 11
Respmsibilttiev: lmdsmpe dmlp and flwerbed design. Develop, direct and participate
in the installation of rnjor mid minor landsrrope and flower projects. Supero ecrews
imlyed in the rmintename of landmpes (old and rrcw) and flower plartiW (enraal and
pemrial). Other duties included diagnosis of disease and pests, spraying of various
dradmis, som oaring, mo nmmintmance, ice rink perpamtion and rnirrcmce. sm
rmoval, and equipnent mintenarrce for municipal parrs.
9/79 City of Mou to, hankato, Minnesota
to Amloyrr: Floyd Paohmu, Superintendent of Porta arid Forestry
12/82 Position: Thee Trl^.t-r 11
Rgamdbilitl-i: Tree rawv l and uaintemmm, planting new trees and inspectim of
dlaaased trots.
MEM 9 E R S H I P S Minnesota Recreation Parka llssotindon, Mlmremta Phrk Supervisors Assn dation, and
National Reavation and Rtrim Association O
May 24, 1990
Mr. Jeff O'Neil
Assistant Administrator
City of Monticello
250 E. Broadway
P.O. Box 834
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Position on the Planning Commission
Dear Mr. O'Neil
I am writing to express interest in being appointed to serve on the City of Monticello's
Planning Commission.
In order to grow and thrive, a municipality needs to encourage orderly development. As a
Civil Engineer who has been heavily involved in residential and commercial development
in the past, l have a firm grasp of how city requirements and developers needs have to mesh
in order for the city to grow.
I currently work as a Civil Engineer on a broad range of projects, anywhere from dam
design, to environmental assessments, to utility and drainage design, to flood studies and
wetland mitigation projects. As a member of the Planning Commission I could draw upon
my experience in development issues to better serve our community. I would certainly
appreciate the chance to do so. I have not done any development work in the Monticello
area so 1 do not believe I would present any potential conflict of interest in being a member
of the planning commission.
I have included a copy of my resume for your review. If there are any questions about my
background, please feel free to give me a call.
Sit�cerelN
Jo m Bogart, ME.. R.LS.
JB/rel
Enclosure
1108 Sandy Lane
Monticello, MIN 55M
2953860
FII: University of Minnesota, Masters of Civil Engineering Candidate, 1990
University of Minnesota, Bachelor of Civil Eagineering, 1981
EWstration: Professional Engineer, Miinnesota
Registered land Surveyor, Indiana
Proflesslonal Associations:
Member of American Society of Civil Engineers
Member of Society of American Military Engineers
Mr. Bogart has extensive experience in the areas of civil engineering and surveying
throughout the states of Minnesota and Indiana As a project engineer or a project
manager, Mr. Bogart has been involved in the designs for roadways, storm sewers, sanitary
sewers, and lift stations for both private development and municipalities during the past six
years. As a Land Surveyor he has been involved with platting of commercial and residential
subdivisions, boundary surveys, lot surveys, section breakdowns, engineering surveys,
construction surveys for residential subdivisions, commercial subdivisions and industrial
facilities.
The civil engineering projects on which Mr. Bogart has worked as a project engineer or
project manager include:
Site design projects include Watertown Middle school, Normandale community
College, rochester Community College, Forest lake Post Office, Dakota County
Western Services Complex, Color House, Metropolitan Transit Commission in
Minnesota
Design of roads, grading storm sewers, sewers and lift stations for numerous
subdivisions in Indiana
Layout and design of plats in Anoka, Washington. Dakota, and Hennepin
Counties of Minnesota
• Design of Broadway Street. Oreentield, Indiana, and Shafter Road, Fort
Benjamin Harrison, Indiana
• Design of numerous detention area ponds and their outfall structures in Marion,
Hamilton and Hancock Counties, Indiana
9
Civil engineering projects (continued).
Design of numerous storm sewers of subdivisions and commercial sites in
Indiana
A flood plain study for the Minnesota River, Minnesota
The design for the rerouting of hoover Run Creek in Marion County, Indiana
Review of plans and specifications for various facility designs and additions for
Fort Benjamin Harrison
In the areas of hydrology and hydraulics, Mr. Bogart has been in responsible charge of the
following representative projects:
Flood Plain (EIEC -2) Analysis of Minnesota River for Scott County Flood
Insurance Study
HEC -2 studies for site design on Plymouth and Bassett Creeks, Minneapolis,
Minnesota
Preliminary Design of Carmel Creek Floodwater Improvements. This design
includes the replacement of an e:dsting bridge, various channel improvements
and levees and an HEC -2 analysis of the creek
Design for Fall Lake Dam Reconstruction, Ely, Minnesota
Responsible for all drainage projects and studies for Fort Benjamin Harrison,
Indian, from June 1985 through September 1997.
The surveying projects Mr. Bogart has worked on include:
Subdivision platting Anoka, Ramsey, Washington, Hennepin and Dakota counties
in Minnesota
Lake shore lot surveys in Pine and Itasca Counties
• Section breakdown and boundary survey on Little Boy lake, Cass County,
Minnesota
Staking of caissons for Metro Airport Parking Ramp
• Numerous lot surveys, boundary surveys, ALTA -surveys, topographic surveys
Boundary survey and construction staking for I.R.R.R.B„ Hibbing, Minnesota
Topographic surveys and construction surveys for the U.S. Forest Service at Fall
Lake near Ely, Minnesota
Construction staling for shopping centers, nursing homes, residential and
commercial sites in Hibbing Anoka and Dakota Counties, Minnesota
Implementation of a Geographic Information System for Fort Benjamin Harrison
0
�- Environmental projects worked on include:
I
- Environmental Assessment for the addition of runway 4.22 in Superior Wisconsin
- Wetland identification, analysis and mitigation projects
- Environmental Assessment for modification of Hwy. 61 near Red Wing, MN
- Environmental Site Assessments for various sites around the twin city area
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/5/90
7. Continued Public Rearing --Consideration of ordinance amendment
to off-street parking requirements. Ai)vlicant. Citv of
Monticello. (J.0.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
No further information regarding this topic is available at
this time, as I have been unable to obtain input from the City
Planner, Engineer, and Public Works Director regarding this
topic. Planning Commission is asked to again continue this
item to the next regular meeting. Thank you for your
patience.