Planning Commission Agenda Packet 07-05-1990AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELL) PLANNING COMMISSION
Thursday, July 5, 1990 - 7:00 p.m.
Members: Dan McConnon, Richard Martie, Richard Carlson, Cindy Lein
7:00 PH 1. Call to order.
7:02 PH 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held
June 5, 1990.
7:04 PM 3. Public Hearing --A variance request to allow
construction of a detached garage within the side
yard and rear yard setback requirements.
Applicant, Cheryl Steinmetz.
7:09 PH 4. Public Hearing --A preliminary plat request for a
commercial subdivision plat. Applicant, Stuart
Hoglund.
7:39 PH 5. Public Hearing --A variance request to allow
construction of a parking lot within the 5 -toot
curb barrier to lot line setback requirement.
Applicant, Wright County State Bank.
7:59 PH 6. Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of an
ordinance amendment to hard surfacing and curbing
requirement. Applicant, City of Monticello.
8:19 PH 1. New Planning Commission member interview.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
8:29 PH 1. Public Hearing --A variance request to allow
construction of a garage addition within the side
yard setback requirement. Applicant, Ruth A.
Anderson. Council action: No action required, as
the request did not come before them.
8:31 PH 2. Public Hearing --A variance request to allow a curb
cut access within 40 feet from the intersection of
two street right-of-ways. Applicant, JRMV
Partnership and 21st Century Builders. Council
action: No action required, as the request did not
come before them.
8:33 PH 3. New Planning Commission member interviews. Council
action: Council voted in a tie to set a special
meeting with the two Planning Commission members at
an upcoming regular Council meeting.
Planning Commission Agenda
July 5, 1990
Page 2
8:35 PH 4. Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of
ordinance amendment to off-street parking
requirements. Applicant, City of !Monticello.
Council action: No action required, as the request
did not come before them.
8:37 PH 5. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello
Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, August 7,
1990, at 7:00 p.m.
8:39 PH 6. Adjournment.
14IN[Ti'ES
REGULAR MEETING - NONPfICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 5, 1990 - 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Dan McConnon, Mori Malone, Richard Martie,
Cindy Lemur, Richard Carlson
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Dan McConnon at
7:04 p.m.
2. Motion was made by Mori Malone, seconded by Richard Carlson,
to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held May 1,
1990. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Martie and
Cindy Lemm absent.
3. Motion was made by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Moti Malone, to
approve the minutes of the special meeting held May 14, 1990.
Motion carried unanimously with Richard Martie absent.
4. Public Hearing --A variance request to allow construction of a
garage addition within the side vard setback requirement.
Applicant, Ruth A. Anderson.
Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members and the public Mrs. Anderson's variance
request to allow the placement of an existing detached garage
with a new attached garage being within two feet of the side
property line.
With no further input, Chairperson Dan McConnon then turned
the meeting to input from the public. Mrs. Anderson was
ropresented by Mr. Mike eregenzer of Mike's Construction. He
explained to Planning Commission members that the front site
plan that was submitted with their agenda supplement has now
been changed. The new proposed attached garage would be
placed in the same place as the existing detached garage.
They would not move the proposed new attached garage any
farther forward, as there is a big oak tree in the way, and
they would not want to remove this tree. Mrs. Lee Trunnel,
adjoining property owner to the east of Mrs. Anderson's
property, explained to Planning Commission members she and her
husband have no objections to Mrs. Anderson's variance request
if the attached garage is placed where the existing detached
garage currently exists.
Page 1
6)
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/5/90
There being no further input from the public, Chairperson Dan
McConnon closed the public hearing. A discussion was then
held amongst Planning Commission members. The discussion
centered around the closeness of the existing detached garage
to the property line; and with this being a non -conforming
building, should it be allowed to remain that close to the
property line.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission
members, a motion was made by Mori Malone, seconded by Richard
Martie, to approve the variance request to allow construction
of a garage addition within the side yard setback requirement.
Motion carried unanimously. Reason for approval: The
hardship was created by the placement of this garage on the
property with no other reasonable place for the location of it
on the property.
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, JKMV Partnership and 21st Century
Builders.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to
Planning Commission members and the public the applicant's
variance request to allow placement of a curb cut within
40 feet from the intersection of two street right-of-ways.
The applicants are proposing to construct a curb cut within
10 feet of their property line. Mr. O'Neill explained that a
letter which was submitted to Planning Commission members from
the Public Works Director, John Simola, explained his concerns
with allowing placement of a driveway in this location.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ruse Rosa, architect for the applicants, explained to
Planning Commission members that the intent of this curb cut
access is to facilitate movement of traffic primarily for
shipping and receiving to the rear of these businesses within
the strip center.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and
opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission
members. One of the concerns raised by the Planning
Commission members was the trees as shown within the boulevard
area being too clone to the proposed driveway curb cut. Maybe
those trees could be removed or placed in a different location
to allow for eight distances from this curb cut access. They
felt that maybe it could be allowed if it could be narrowed to
be an exit only at this location.
Page 2
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/5/90
There being no further input from the Planning Commission
members, motion was made by Mori Malone, seconded by Cindy
Lemm, to approve the variance request to allow a curb cut
access within 40 feet from the intersection of two public
right-of-ways provided that: 1) this curb cut would start
22 feet from the property line; 2) the curb cut access would
be limited to 12 feet in width and would be signed accordingly
for an exit only, with people being allowed to turn left or
right once exiting from this area; 3) the trees planted in
the right-of-way near this curb cut access be removed; and
4) in the event that 5th Street is actively used as a public
right-of-way via installation of a city street, or if regular
or weekly train traffic is established, then the variance is
terminated. This statement is to be recorded against the
property. Motion carried unanimously. Reason for approval:
This approval will not impair the intent of the ordinance, as
the curb cut restriction was not intended to apply when one of
the right-of-ways is under used and not scheduled for
development.
6. New Planninq Commission member interviews.
The Planning Commission members interviewed the three
applicants which were present, Marie Lindenfelser, Bruce
Thielen, and Jon Bogart. After conducting the interviews, the
Planning Commission members chose not to make a decision at
this time. They thanked the applicants for applying for the
position and will make their decision at a later date. The
applicants were informed that the City Council would be
considering the Planning Commission recommendation for their
choice as the new Planning Commission member and would make
their decision at the June 11, 1990, City Council meeting.
Continued vublic hearing --Consideration of an ordinance
amendment to off-street Parlkinq requirements. Applicant, City
of Monticello.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, apologized for not
having the agenda item ready for considering possible
ordinance amendments. He is currently working with the City's
consulting engineering firm and the Public Works Department to
make a recommendation for the Planning Commission members to
consider an ordinance amendment to the off-street parking
requirements.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members to
continue the public hearing until the next regularly scheduled
meeting.
Page 3
e
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/5/90
Additional Information Items
I. A variance request to allow construction of a porch addition
within the front yard setback requirement. Applicant, Ronald
Reinking. Council action: No action necessary, as the
request did not come before them.
2. A conditional use request to allow a day care (headstart
program) in an R-2 (single and two family residential) zone.
Applicant, First Baptist Church/aright County Community Action
Headstart Program. Council action: Approved as per Planning
Commission recommendation.
3. Consideration of approval of a preliminary plat entitled
Kirkman Addition. Applicant, The Lincoln Companies. Council
action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
4. Consideration of a rezoning request of land south of the
realigned 7th Street right-of-way from PZM (performance zone
mixed) to B-3 (highway business) zoning. Applicant, The
Lincoln Companies. Council action: Approved as per Planning
Commission recommendation.
5. Consideration of a conditional use permit which would allow
retail/commercial activity in a PZM zone. Applicant, JKMV
Partnership/21st Century Builders. Council action: No action
required, as the request was continued.
6. Consideration of a variance request which would allow less
than the minimum parking lot setback or variance request which
would allow less than the minimum number of off-street parking
spaces for commercial use in a PZM zone. Applicant, JKMV
Partnership/21st Century Builders. Council action: No action
required, as the request was continued.
7. Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment reducing
convenience food parking requirement. Applicant, Shingobee
Builders. Council action: Approved as per Planning
Commission recommendation.
8. 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.
Page 4
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/5/90
Consideration of a conditional use permit which would allow
operation of a prototype furnace using rubber products as a
fuel. Applicant, Ray Schmidt. Council action: No action
required, as the request was tabled.
10. A variance request to allow no concrete curbing or curb
barrier within five 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, Dean Hoglund/
Ken Schwartz. Council action: No action required, as the
request did not come before them.
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.
12. Consideration of an ordinance amendment to off-street parking
requirements. Applicant, City of Monticello. Council action:
No action required, as the request was continued.
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 (performanco
zone mixed) zone. Applicant, JKMV Partnership/21st Century
Builders. Council action: Approved as per Planning
Commission recommendation.
14. Continued 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: Approved as per
Planning Commission recommendation.
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
action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
16. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members was to
set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for July 5, 1990, 7:00 p.m.
17. Motion was made by Mori Malone, seconded by Richard Martie, to
adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary'Anddrson
Zoning Administrator
Page 5
Z
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/5/90
3. Public Hearinq--A variance request to allow construction of a
detached qaraqe within the side yard and rear yard setback
requirements. Applicant, Cheryl Steinmetz. (G. A.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Ms. Steinmetz is proposing to construct a detached garage
within the side and rear lot setback requirements. In looking
at the enclosed site plan, you will note that the house when
placed on the lot was always intended for a detached garage of
some kind if one was to be built. The existing driveway is
currently right on the east property line. In looking at the
site plan, you'll notice that the new garage is proposed to be
placed 30 feet from the existing house to allow for snow to be
pushed in between the existing deck and the new proposed
garage. The garage is proposed to be built within 4 feet of
the side property line and within 15 feet of the rear property
line.
This becomes a judgment call when you look at the applicant's
proposed placement of the new detached garage on the lot.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow construction of a
detached garage within the side yard and rear yard
setback requirements.
Z. Deny the variance request to allow construction of a
detached garage within the side yard and rear yard
setback requirements.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Planning Commission members consider all
options with the placement of this garage on the lot. There
is an additional place to set the garage directly in back of
tho house which would allow the garage to be faced the other
way, and there would be no variance request needed; however,
with the smaller lots, it's not common to have a garage placed
right in back of the house obstructing the rear yard view from
the house.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the variance request; Copy of the site
plan; Copy of the setback requirements.
A variance request to allow construction of a detached
garage within the side yard and rear yard setback
requirements. Location is Block 25, Lot 3, Lover Monticello
Addition in the City of Monticello.
Applicant; Cheryl Steinmetz
"'alb' ,• •' ,
�� / ^• ' .,. �•1� ..tom
i4 ,
94 a,r
J � I ~ ' � � •o•^,. -- lid
I -OT
1. Clothes line pole and wire.
2. Recreational equipment and vehicles.
3. Construction and Landscaping material currently
being used on tbs 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 tanks, fuel oil tanks, and other
similar residential heating fuel storage
tanks which do not exceed 1,000 gallons
in capacity and shall not be located within
five (5) fact of any property line.
6. wood piles in which wood in stored for
fuel provided that not more than 10 cords
shall be stored on any property. A cord
shall be 41 x 4' x 81. All wood piles
shall be five (5) feet or more from rear
and side yard property Lines and shall
be stored behind the appropriate sat back ,
line in front yards.
7. Solar heating aystems.
3-3: Y*D RSQUIRWENTS:
(A) PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum yard
spaces and areas to be provided for in each
zoning district.
(S) No lot, yard or other open apace shall be reduced
in area or dimension ao as to make such lot,
yard or open space lass than the minimum requirW
by this Ordinance, and if the existing yard
or other open space as existing in less than
the minimum required it shall not be further
reduced. tb required open apace 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 minimum dimtances,
Front Yard Side yard Rear Yard
A-0 50 3n So
f R-1 10 IQ ]Q)
R-2 30 10 30
R-3 30 20 30
R-4 30 30 30
p2 -)t gee Chapter 10 for spec Lfic regulations.
Bee Chapter 1 O for specific regulations.
8-1 20 O
e-1 30 1s 20 3
E-2 30 10 20
10-8 (N)
10-5 (D) 11
(N) STANDARDS: Except as specifically provided
he -rain, there shall be no fixed standards
for conditional uses within the Mixed Performance
Zoning District. In their review the City
shall take into account standards that are
contained in other sections of this Ordinance
that most closely resemble those that would
apply to a similar use if it were proposed
in a district other than the Performance Zone.
(0) PROTECT REVIEW PROCESS: The following are
guidelines for reviewing projects within the
PZ -Mixed Zoning District. Procedures for
the review of such proposals shall be as outlined
in the PUD section of the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance. The City Staff and Planning Commission
shell review the project and give recommendations
so as to permit the City Council to make informed
findings of fact as outlined above. Variance
from these guidelines may be permitted when
site specific conditions and specific proposal
elements show that a strict interpretation
of the guidelines will either place undue
hardship on the developer or will be detrimental
to adjacent proportion. In no case shall standards
be reduced so that the findings of fact outlined
above cannot be achieved AND in no cans shall
the guidelines prevent the City from requiring
greater standards when specific conditions
oulined in above must be satisfied.
Setback Guidelines
Setback requirements shall be based
upon the zoning requiremento of the'
District for which the project would
be zoned if conventional coning was
applied, as described in Chapter 3,
8action 3 of this Ordinance.
(b) Site specific conditions such as
topography, existing and proposed
vagotation, and visibility from other
properties may warrant increasing
these standards. Setbacks should
not be reduced below those not forth
in the applicable coning district.
(o) The front yard guidelines shall be
as described in Chapter 3, Section 3
of the ordinance.
(d) The rear yard setback shall be es
described in Chapter I, Section 3
of this ordinance unless natural topography shall
dictate a greater setback. The applicant
shall preserve vegetation and minimize
erati
grading to the extant that consideration Is
given to these features.
10-8 1011(a)
10-8 [o) 2(
(e) When projects propose to construct
more than one principal structure
on the same lot the above guidelines
shall apply to the perimeter of the
site. Internal setbacks shall give
due regard to such consideration
as fire protection and public safety,
traffic visibility at circulation
intersections. Reduction of internal
standards shall be permitted if the
applicant can demonstrate that external
setbacks are adequate and that the
reduction is used to enhance the
layout or shall preserve significant
natural features.
2. Density Requirements
(a) Density calculations shall be based
on the zoning requirements of the
district the project would be zoned
for if conventional zoning ware applied.
(b) In applying those standards credits
for innovative construction methods ,
or provision of amenities above normal
construction may be permitted. The
following is a list of density credits.
L. Underground Parking -400 sq. ft. per space
provided under the
structure.
il. Preservation of
Natural Features - Whan the project will
preserve significant
natural features the
area preserved may be
deducted from the required
lot area. This deduction
shell not include required
setbacks.
111. Additional
Landscaping - When the project provides
for landscaping above and
beyond the normal rsquirom,
a density allowance shall
be permitted. The extsntc
thecredlt shall be determin-
by evaluating the visiblli
of the project from adjaco,
j parcels and similar projec
r within the City.
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/5/90
4. Public Hearinq--A preliminary plat request for a commercial
subdivision plat, "Minnie Point" subdivision. Applicant,
Stuart Hoglund. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission and Council are asked to consider granting
approval of the preliminary plat of the proposed Minnie Point
subdivison. Following is a review of the plat and staff
recommendation.
Since Planning Commisson and City Council meetings regarding
this matter are only two working days apart, this staff memo
is addressed to both the City Council and to the Planning
Commission. Planning Commission recommendation to City
Council will, therefore, be reported verbally at the Council
meeting scheduled for July 9, 1990.
in the mid 1980'x, the Comfort Inn was constructed on this
parcel. At the time the Comfort Inn was developed, no
subdivision of land occurred. Since that date, Stuart Hoglund
has sold the Comfort Inn and now must subdivide the property
in order to properly complete the sale.
ZONING DESIGNATION
The proposed plat consists of 3.5 acres of land located in the
B-3 (highway business) zone. The four (4) lots created are
adequately sized to accommodate small commercial developments.
EASEMENT ISSUES
Public Easements on the Plat
The plat shows all of the public easements required by
ordinance, which includes 6' utility easements along side
yards and 12' easements along rear and front yards.
Public Easement--Adjoininq Property
Most of the water from the Minnie Point area currently drains
onto the Hoglund Transportation Company property on its way to
the freeway ditch, then into the Walnut Street storm sewer
system. This has not been a problem in the past, as the
Minnie Point area and Hoglund Transportation property have
been under common ownership. Now that the land Is being
subdivided with the intent to sell, it is wise to formally
identify a drainage and utilities easement across the Hoglund
property. This is especially true when one realizes that when
fully developed, the Minnie Point land area will create almost
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/5/90
three times the current amount of water run-off. A path for
this water and City acquisition of easements should be
established prior to approval of the plat.
There appear to be two possible drainage alignments. Option
one includes the path that the water currently takes and would
require no significant grading of the Minnie Point plat. This
option is the simplest; however, it may have long term
implications for the use of the Hoglund Transportation
property. Option two would Include directing storm water
along the old Cedar Street right-of-way. This option would
require placement of fill and grading of the Minnie Point area
and, therefore, may be more costly in the short run. However,
the long term potential of the land may be improved with this
option. If this plan is selected, a grading plan must be
prepared in conjunction with the plat. It is the view of
staff that the decision as to which option is best is up to
the Hoglund family.
STORM SEWER CULVERTS
According to the City Engineer and John Simola, a portion of
the water produced by this site does drain to the County
Road 117 ditch. The purpose of this ditch is convey water
westward. Unfortunately, the ditch does not serve much of a
purpose, as there are culverts along the ditch line that are
absent or are too small to properly convey the amount of water
that will be produced by the site. In addition, a nominal
amount of ditch grading might be needed.
Platting and development of this site should be accompanied by
installation of four culverts, two of which are replacement
culverts under the Comfort Inn access drives (culverts 1 and
2) . A new culvert needs to be established under the drive
that serves both the Hoglund Transportation office and a
residence (culvert 3). Finally, a culvert should be installed
under the drive serving the Amoco service station and the rear
of the Hoglund Transportation property (culvert 4). Without
a culvert at this location, ditch water is diverted directly
to the freeway ditch along the west edge of the Hoglund
property.
CULVERTS 1 AND 2
According to John Simola, culverts 1 and 2 are 12 -inch
culverts and are smaller than called for by City standards.
Simola noted that culverts of this size are difficult to keep
open. If kept open, the existing culverts are of sufficient
size to accommodate drainage of only a small portion of the
front portion of the Minnie Point area.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/5/90
CULVERT 3
This culvert is mandatory if water is to be conveyed along the
ditch line.
CULVERT 4
This culvert is needed in order to maintain drainage along the
right-of-way. Without this culvert, drainage flows along the
west side of the Hoglund property until it finds the freeway
ditch. Typically, it is not a good practice to allow water
from a public right-of-way to flow onto private property.
Installation of a culvert at this location would cause water
to be properly channeled along public easements.
SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SERVICE
Sanitary sewer and water service are immediately available to
lots 1, 2, and 4. In order to serve lot 3, a manhole must be
Installed in the boulevard in front of lot 2 along with a
service stub extended laterally to a position in front of
lot 3.
PRIVATE EASEMENTS
Common Drive
The plat shows a common access drive for lot 1 (Comfort Inn)
and lot 4. The City should accept the plat subject to the
actual recording of the private easement agreement allowing
lot 4 access to County Road 117 via the access drive. This
would eliminate the potential for lot 4 becoming landlocked.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve preliminary plat of the !Ginnie Point
subdivision subject to City acquisition of proper
drainage easements from properties impacted by Minnie
Point storm water. Approval also subject to development
of culverts at locations noted and constructed in a
manner consistent with City standards.
Preliminary approval of Minnie Point subdivision, subject
to drainage related easements and culvert installations,
will lessen or eliminate long-term drainage issues that
could occur once the land is under multiple ownership.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/5/90
T. Motion to deny approval of preliminary plat of the Minnie
Point subdivision.
The City may wish to consider denial of approval to plat
the property if the landowners refuse to provide utility
and drainage easements or refuse to install culverts as
required.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to
City acquisition of necessary site drainage easements. It is
also important that the culverts be replaced and installed as
suggested by the Public Works Director. If Council and the
Planning Commission consider the culvert installation as a
minor item, approval of the plat could be provided without a
commitment to install the culverts.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Minnie Point preliminary plat= Map showing general
area.
5
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/5/90
5. Public Hearing --A variance revuest to allow construction of a
parkin lot within the 5 -foot curb barrier to lot line setback
requirement. Applicant, Wriaht County State Hank. (J.O.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall, Wright County State Bank is developing a
parking area in conjunction with the expansion of the
Monticello Theatre. According to ordinance, the parking area
developed should result in development of at least 43 parking
spaces. The plan presented shows a net increase in total
parking area of 46 new parking stalls. In order to achieve 46
parking stalls, a variance to the side yard setback
requirement of 5 feet is necessary. The plan proposed shows a
2.3 foot setback along Highway 25 and a 2 -foot setback along
Broadway.
It should be noted that the City planner prepared a
preliminary site plan which created 44 parking spaces.
Although staff was not aware of the setback problem at the
time it was presented, this plan also would have needed the
same variance.
Since Planning Commission and City Council meetings regarding
this matter are only two working days apart, this staff memo
is addressed to both the City Council and to the Planning
Commission. Planning Commission recommendation to City
Council will, therefore, be reported verbally at the Council
mooting scheduled for July 9, 1990.
SITE PLAN
The proposed parking layout creates 46 parking spaces at the
expense of green space between Highway 25 and the west edge of
the parking area. Parking angle proposed is 60 degrees with
intorlocking stalls through the center of the parking lot.
Traffic circulation is counter clockwise with the Broadway
access designated as entrance only.
The plan calls for setbacks of less than 5 feet along the
Broadway and Highway 25 lot lines. The purpose of the 5 -foot
eotback to to provide area for green space, bumper overhang,
and snow storage area. According to Wright County State Bank
ofticials, it is likely that the 2.3 setback area would be
paved which will eliminate the softening effect of green
space. Bumper overhang will be a slight problem, as a 2.3
curb setback will not keep all bumpers from extending over the
Highway 25 right-of-way. It is likely that snow will be
entirely removed from the site; therefore, the 5 -foot setback
is not as necessary for this purpose.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/5/90
Planning Commission and Council should consider the relative
importance of a green space separation between the parking
area and the Highway 25 right-of-way. It is my view that some
effort should be made to install landscaping of some kind
within the setback area provided. According to the City
planner, there are varieties of plants that can survive in the
harsh environment between the parking area and the Highway 25
sidewalk. The developer might argue that vegetation will not
likely grow in this area; therefore, it should not be
required. The City could argue that the variance creates the
potential for numerous additional parking spaces; in exchange
for this benefit, the developer should be required to make the
extra effort to plant and maintain landscaping in this area.
In addition, a bumper barrier could be installed which would
eliminate bumpers hanging over the Highway 25 right-of-way.
This might also be a reasonable requirement in exchange for
the variance.
The building construction plans show an exit from the west
side of the theatre at about the building midpoint.
Pedestrian traffic leaving the structure will enter directly
onto the drive area. Staff Is concerned that this situation
might be somewhat hazardous, and the parking plan or
construction plans should be adjusted to reduce the hazard.
In light of the problems noted above, I asked the City planner
to take the basic plan and prepare alternative sketch plans
which address problems noted above.
ALTERNATIVE PARKING PLAN A
The pedestrian hazard could be eliminated by installing a
6 -foot wide sidewalk along the west wall of the structure.
Doing so would require that the parking angles be increased,
which would result in the lose of eight parking spaces, and
thus the plan would be deficient in terms of the ordinance by
five parking spaces. This alternative would also require the
same variance to the side yard setback.
Alternative A shows a planting hedge and a jogged curb line
along Highway 25. The jogged curb line limits the potential
of bumper ovorhang, protects planting hedge, and provides
additional green space. This particular design creates snow
removal problems.
Please see the attached parking area sketch plan A for more
information on this alternative concept.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/5/90
ALTERNATIVE PARKING PLAN B
Under plan B, the pedestrian hazard could be reduced by
creating a jog in the building at the exit point, thereby
providing a pedestrian/vehicle eight line. This would require
an adjustment to the building plane. The basic parking stall
layout would remain the same under this plan creating 45
parking stalls. A separation between Highway 25 and the
parking lot could be created via installation of a low fence
or streetecape railing. The plan also shows planting of trees
on the Highway 25 right-of-way_ This plan is probably the
most expensive for the developer at the front end with
maintenance costs being less than parking plan A.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Council and Planning Commission are asked to review the
various plane and combinations thereof and discuss potential
adjustments to the basic plan with the developer. At the end
of the discussion, a motion should be made outlining the basic
components of the parking lot design.
C. STAFF RECONKENDATION:
Staff recommends that a variance be granted subject to
dovelopment of landscaping or screening materials designed to
mitigate the impact of the side yard setback variance. It is
staff's view that creating a separation or buffer between the
parking area and Highway 25 in the setback area remaining
after the variance would enhance the pedestrian environment
and complement existing streetecape improvements. Conversely,
approval of the variance combined with paving of the remaining
setback area would not be consistent with previous efforts to
beautify the area. Furthermore, it seems reasonable to expect
the developer to provide and maintain the landscaping or fence
separation in exchange for the variance, which does benefit
the developer by allowing development of many more parking
spaces than would otherwise be possible.
SUPPORTING DATAt
Proposed parking lot site plan; City planner alternatives A
and B) Video presentation at meeting.
l_
�•,
3.. 06
0
r
11
0
Ilk
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/5/90
6. Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of an ordinance
amendment to hard surfacing and curbina reauirement.
ADolicant. Citv of Monticello. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Enclosed you will find the latest update to the proposed
ordinance amendment regulating surfacing and curb
requirements. The proposed ordinance has been reviewed by the
City Engineer and by City staff and is now ready for your
review. As you recall, preparation of the ordinance amendment
was in part due to a site plan presented by Russ Martie which
required a significant number of variances. Council denied
the variance request; however, in the denial staff was
directed to work on an ordinance amendment which would lessen
the hard surfacing and curbing requirements. The ordinance
language prepared when applied to the Nartie situation would
allow Martie to reduce his hard surfacing and curbing
requirement by eliminating the need for such improvements to
the drive area between County Road 117 and the parking areas.
The ordinance amendment would continue to require that the
area in front of the overhead doors that is to be used for
routine delivery of materials must be surfaced with bituminous
material, and said area must also be curbed. Finally, as you
will note, the proposed conditional use permit which allows
lessening of the parking design requirements does call for
Installation of gates to keep the public out of these drive
areas and to make it difficult for commercial traffic to use
non -primary drive areas for commercial use.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the proposed ordinance amendment
lessening hard surfacing and curbing requirement as a
conditional use in the I-1 and I-7 zones.
Z. Motion to deny adoption of said ordinance amendment.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Planning Commission and Council review
the proposed languago and determine if the language is
consistent with City goals regarding development of parking
areas in the Industrial areae of the community.
0. SUPPORTING DATAt
Copy of proposed ordinance; Copy of Martie's Feed and Seed
Store site plan.
9
RUSS MARTIE FEED AND SEED STORE
LANDSCAPE AND DRIVE AREA ITEMS ICOST/ ITOTAL
(UNIT JUNITS
I I
I I
LANOSCAPING/OVERSTORY TREES 1 150 1 20.52
1 1
LANDSCAPE SCREENING OR FENCE - COUNTY RIGHT OF NAYI 150 I S
I I
IODNE/ INOT DONE
IVALUE 1VALUE
I
I I
1 1 13,016
ASPHALT PAYING NORTH AND NEST OF LOADING BERTHS ISMS 1 11600 1 $9,660 1
1 1 1 1
CURB NORTH OF LOADING BERTHS I16.00 1 610 I $3.610 1
I I I I
ASPHALT PAVING SOUTH OF LOADING BERTHS 1$0.55 1 6225 I 1
1 1 1 1
CURB SOUTH OF LOADING BERTHS 1$6.00 1 665 1 1
TOTAL $13,520 1
$750
blue
rad line
11,521 gran
$3,210 blue line
19,M
n
8o --+ -
1 J
77104
'+ • r
�- ,A . � • ... .. n • : ••' ! Iii 7t
p • 1lofso . �
------------
I---------- C
E� 7ds
�.
5. 1
4•i' WQ: 6..1i COLL AM N14AW11 140. 117
, I Dr . I
a:�
2. Amendment to D. 9 (k) SURFACING:
Drainage plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and
subject to his approval. City staff may waive this
requirement if it is determined that the drainage plans do not
merit further study by the City Engineer. Staff determination
in this regard shall be based on size of parking surface area,
simplicity of design plan, and proximity/accessibility to
existing storm sewer facilities.
EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (s) Stall aisle and driveway design
conditional use permit
3. Amendment to D. 9 (o) CURBING AND LANDSCAPING:
EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (s) Stall aisle and driveway desion
conditional use permit
4. Amendment to D. 9 (r) CURBING:
EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (s) Stall aisle and driveway desion
conditional use permit
5. D. 9 (s) Stall aisle and driveway design conditional use
permit.
Stall aisle and driveway design requirements as noted in (k)
Surfacing, (o) Curbing and Landscaping, and (r) Curbing, may
be lessened subject to the following conditions:
a. Any reduction in requirements requires completion of the
conditional use permit process outlined in chapter 22 of
this ordinance.
b. Final approval of parking and driveway drainage plans
associated with conditional use permit request shall be
provided in writing by the CiLy Engineer. Engineering
expenses greater than portion of building permit fee
allocated for engineer plan review shall be paid by
applicant prior to occupancy of structure.
C. A surmountable "transition" curb or cement delineator
must be installed as a boundary between an outside
storage area and a parking or drive area.
A:\PARXNOTE: 6/29/90
e. Development of a curb along the boundary between a
parking area and an area designated on site plan for
future parking is not required if said curb line is not
needed for drainage purposes as determined by the City
Eng 1nee r .
g. Exceptions to the standard curb requirements do not apply
to any parking or driveway perimeter that runs roughly
parallel to and within 20 feet of an adjoining parcel. �i+�`'•3°
h. This conditional use permit Is allowed only in I-1 and
I-2 zones.
I. Drive areas not used by the general public and not used
for routine delivery of goods or services do not require
hard surfacing or curb unless hard surface and curb is
needed for drainage purposes as determined by the City
engineer. Access to such drive areas must be restricted
by a gate which must be closed after each use. At such
time that routine use is noted, the drive area shall be
paved.
A:\PARKNOTE: 6/29/90
1-
L-01
508 Wright Street
Monticello, MN 55362
May 1, 1990
Mr. Jeff O'Neil
PO Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Jeff:
I am writing to express my interest in the position that exists in the
Planning Commission.
I have been involved, in the past several years, in all types of project
developments for municipalities, as well as, individuals. It is my desire
to continue my growth and experience levels in all phases of project
development.
I believe I could greatly enhance all the skills presently offered by
other members of the Planning Commission by offering a certain amount
of expertise in a vide variety of planning concerns.
I would greatly appreciate an opportunity to interview with your selection
comittee, so we might become better aquainted.
Sincerely,.
ko Emberton
Enclosure
0
MICHAEL W. EMBERTON
Box 559
Elk River, MM 55330
(612) 286.5780
OBJECTIVE
Project
Management/Estimating
SUMMARY
A consiatently
effective Senior Project Manager, fully
experienced
in project coordination and knowledge in the
construction
field with a performance record that demonstrates a
position
ability to provide satisfaction to all concerns.
AREAS OF
Produot
Line Development Trade Shows
KNOWLEDGE
Negotiating
Subcontractors Architectural Plan Reviews
Advertisi
ng Estimating
Sales
Training Leasing
Packaging
Territory Layout
Pricing
Sales Promotion
Land
Acquisition Perepectue Preparation
Planning
and Zoning Requirements
PERSONAL
Birthdate
02/09/57 Single
5' 11',
210 lbs. Excellent Health
SIGNIFICANT
WORK EXPERIENCES
1994 TO
Excalibur
Contracting, Inc.. a Commercial Contractor and Grand
'990
Mara ia
Woodworks, Inc., an Architectural Woodworking Company.
Position:
Senior Estimator and Project Manager
Responaibilities t
- Complete rosponaibility for operating companies with an annual
volume of 5 million
- Manage 70 employees
- Project aetimating
- Nogotiations with owners
- Planning and zoning, negotiating planning and zoning approvals
- Project budget
- Construction analysis
- Architectural review for favorable revisions
- Project budget projections
1982 to Millen Construction Company
1984 Pool % Ion a Planning and Development Consultant
Responoibilities s
- Worked with planning and zoning in a S state region to develop
projects
- Construction sales for major design build firm
- Dovolop lead sources
- Socure city approvals
- Control projwct development
- initial project design, layout and specifications
- Handle customer complaints
- Negotiate with product supplies
- Productide /�
-Produot development 7
R
Q
MICHAEL W. EMBERTON
Page 2
1975 to
Morton Building, Inc., a specialized construction company
1982
located in 22 states
Positions Commercial/Residential Adjuster
Responsibilities
- Full responsibility for operating the Construction Adjustmenta
Department
- Direct control for coordinating all construction adjustments,
building code violations, and owner complaints
Building Construction Sales
Lease Arrangements Estimating
Budget Investments Subcontracts
Construction Supervision Purchasing
1970 to
Positions Foreman - Residential Construction
1975
Responsibilitiees
- Srheduling of material
- Daily manpower schedule
- Layout
- Supervision
- Quality control
- Handle customer change orders
TRAVEL
Agreeable to the amount required by the position.
LOCATE
Willing to relocate, depending on potential.
REFERENCES
References are available upon request.
0