Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 09-03-1991AGENDA REGULAR NOTING — M UTICELL0 PLAMING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 3, 1991 — 7:00 p.m. Members: Dan McConnon, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Cindy I.emm, and Richard Carlson 7:00 pm 1. Call to order. 7:02 pm 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held August 6, 1991. 7:04 pm 3. Public Hearing --A conditional use request to allow development of a hospital parking lot in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone. Applicant, Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital. 7:23 pm 4. Review update to concept plan/Chelsea corridor planning study. 7:53 pm S. Review proposal to develop a gas dispenser refurbishing facility. Applicant, G 6 0 Oil. Additional Information Items 8:13 pm 1 . A conditional request to allow retail/commercial activities Ias listed in Chapter 12, Section 2, S-2 (limited business district) of this ordinance in a PEM (performance zone mixed). Applicant, 21st Century Builders. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation with additional conditions. 8:15 pm 2. A variance request to allow construction of an attached garage within the front yard and side yard setback requirements. Applicant, Baymond and Karin Dickey. Council action: No action required, as the request did not come before them. 8:17 pm 3. Set the neat tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, October 1, 1991, 7:00 p.m. 8:19 pm 4. Adjournment. MINWES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 6, 1991 - 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Dan McConnon, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Cindy Lemm, Richard Carlson Members Absent: None Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Dan NcConnon at 7:02 p.m. 2. A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Richard Martie to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held July 9, 1991, with the following change. Under Item 3 of the July 9, 1991, Planning Commission meeting, the vote should have been as follows. Voting in favor: Dan McConnon, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Cindy Lemm; Opposed: Richard Carlson. Motion to approve the minutes was carried unanimously. 3. Public Hearin --A conditional request to allow retail[ commercial actyvities as listed in Chapter 12, Section 2, B-2 (limited business district) of this ordinance in a P8M Joerformance zone mixed). AoDlicant, 21st Century Builders. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant City Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members and members of the public that were present the request of 21st Century Builders to be allowed to build a strip center in a PSM (performance zone mixed) zone. 21st Century Builders was represented by Mr. Russ Rosa of the architectural firm which is the firm that Is preparing the plans for the proposed strip center. Mr. O'Neill explained the changes that have been proposed from the original plan that was submitted over a year ago. The new site plan shows a larger building with the square footage increased from 23,530 square feet to 26,287 square feet. The original plan called for 124 parking spaces while the new plan shows an increase to 131 parking spaces. Mr. O'Neill noted that even though the parking was increased by seven spaces, 14 additional stalls have been located to the back of the structure, thus resulting in 37 total parking spaces in the rear to be used by employees working within the proposed ten store strip center complex. Mr. O'Neill questioned the number of parking spaces that are shown in the rear of the property. He noted the conflict that could occur with the placemont of parking spacce in front of the roar entrance Page 1 Planning Commission Minutes - 8/6/91 doors. Mr. Rosa indicated that the parking spaces in front of the doors could be striped accordingly for loading/unloading areas. The original plan called for driveway access off of Cedar Street at a location between Sixth Street and the railroad tracks. This street access has been moved and replaced by a pedestrian walkway. The driveway access located near the railroad tracks will be utilized for an exit only at that location, with the driveway access off of Sixth Street to be used as an entrance and an exit. Northeasterly from the Sixth Street driveway access, the driving lane is shortened to a 12 foot driving width. The developer is proposing an entrance only access along this driveway for additional width on the south to allow more room to construct the berm into the southerly portion of the lot. Chairman, Dan McConnon, closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and opened it up for any further input from the Planning Commission members. Concerns addressed by the Planning Commission members were the 12 foot driving width on the south side of the property, the 22 foot driving width on the north aide of the property, and the number of parking spaces as shown in front of the rear entrance doors of the businesses on the east side of the property. With there being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve the conditional use request to allow a retell/commerc Sal 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 conditions: 1. A sidewalk Is to be constructed on the south side of the building continuous with the sidewalk on the rear of the property and on the southeast corner of the property and on the southwest corner of the property that sidewalk be continuous along the south portion of the building. If at all possible, increase the 12 foot driveway access width along the southwest corner of the building. The driveway should be increased to munch a 17 foot driveway width as shown northeast of the 12 foot driveway width. The driveway width on the north side of the property should be Increased to a 24 foot driveway width. The parking space to the rear of the site located near the rear entrance doors of the businesses that have access to the east or rear portions of the building should be striped accordingly to reflect loading/unloading zonae only. Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 8/6/91 Z. The next condition is development of a final landscaping and berming plan to create an effective transition between commercial and residential properties as determined by a city planner. A bond in 100• of the cost to install berming and landscaping shall be delivered to the City prior to issuance of a building permit. The next condition is development of a steep grade or combination of steep grade and retaining walls, accompanied by installation of a safety fence for the purpose of eliminating access to the edge of the steep grade. The fence shall be made of a weather resistant material and shall be a least six feet high. Prior to issuance of a building permit, drainage and retaining wall construction plans shall be approved by the City Engineer. 4. The parking requirements are based on retail use only. No restaurant use is allowed without an amendment to the conditional use permit. S. (trading and landscaping plan is to show a five foot sidewalk located one foot off the property line and located on the city right of way. The motion was based on the finding that the conditional use request with conditions as noted should be approved because it will not tend to depreciate adjoining properties and is consistent with geography and character of the area. The motion carried unanimously. 4. Public Hearing --A variance request to allow construction of an attached garage within the front yard and side yard setback requirements. Applicant. Raymond and Karla Dickey. Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, explained to the Planning Commission members and the members of the public, Raymond and Karla Dickey's variance request to be allowed to construct a garage within the side yard setback requirement. Dickey's are proposing to be allowed to construct an attached garage up to six feet from the side property line. On the enclosed site plan it is shown that the proposed attached garage would be located next to the six foot drainage and utility easement on the side lot line and there would be sixteen feet between the proposed garage addition and the attached garage of the adjoining property owner to the west. Chairmen, Dan MCConnon, then closed the public hearing and asked for any further input from the Planning Commission Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes - 8/6/91 members. There being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Cindy Lemm to approve the variance request to allow a attached garage to be constructed within the side yard setback. The variance is based on the finding that a hardship exists as the home is located on the property is a manner that makes it impossible to develop a two car garage without a variance to the side yard setback requirement. The motion carried unanimously. The two conditions that go with this approval are that the garage must not encroach on the front yard setback and must not encroach in the six foot drainage and utility easement on the side yard setback. Prior to going on to additional information items, Kr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant City Administrator, introduced Mr. Jim Hagland to Planning Commission members. He is with the Northwest Covenant Church. Mr. Hagland explained that he would be back before Planning Commission members in the near future with the proposed site development for a new Covenant Church in the City of Monticello. He explained that the planning process for site selection for a new church usually takes between two to three years prior to tho actual construction of a church facility. Additional Information Items 1. A variance request to allow the driveways of a zero lot line duplex to be constructed up to the aide yard property line. Applicant, Don and Joan Doran. Council action: No action required, as the request did not come before them. 2. A variance request to allow a pylon sign to be placed within the sign setback requirement. Applicant, Wright County State Bank. Council action: No action required, as the request did not come before them. 3. A preliminary plat request entitled Phase I of Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. Applicant, Value Plus Homes. Council actions Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. d. A request to rezone ten acres of unplatted land from AO (agricultural) to R-1 (single family residential ) . Applicant, Value Plus Homes. Council actions Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. S. A request to amend Section 3-2, General Building and Performance Requirements, by adding the following provisions to the list of the dwelling unit reetrictiones S. In the R-1 (single family residential) and R-2 (eingle and two Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes - 8/6/91 family) district, all single and two family dwelling units constructed after July 22, 1991, must include development of a attached or detached garage. Minimum size requirements for a garage floor is 400 square feet. Applicant, City of Monticello. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. 6. A request to rezone 120 acres of land from AO (agricultural) to R-1 (single family residential), which would allow development of an elementary school facility as a conditional use. Applicant, Monticello School District #882. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. 7. Review Chelsea Road area concept plans and determine if further changes need to be made prior to development of detail plans. Council actions No action required, as the request did not come before them. B. Consideration of establishing a recommendation to the Council regarding outside storage of construction equipment. Applicant, Floyd Kruse. Council action: Mr. Kruse agreed to clean up the property within 30 days. 9. Review a proposal to establish a mobile treatment unit. Council action: No action required, as request did not come before them. 10. Continued public hearing --consideration of establishment of regulations governing adult land uses. Applicant, City of Monticello. Council action: No action required, as the request did not come before them. 11. Consideration of approving a resolution finding HRA'a TIP plan associated with preplanning for the Shingobee, Inc. industrial development to be consistent with the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. 12. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, September 3, 1991, 7:00 p.m. Consensus of the five Planning Commission members present was to set the Planning Commission meeting date for Tuesday, September 3, 1991, 7:00 p.m. Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes - 8/6/91 13. A motion was made by Cindy Lemm and seconded by Richard Martie to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator page 6 Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/91 3. Public Hearin --Consideration of a conditional use reauest to allow development of a hospital parkin lot in a PSM iperformance zone mixed( zone. Applicant. Monticello-Bia Lake Community Hospital. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In conjunction with the construction of the addition to the existing hospital facility, the Hospital District is contemplating development of a 44 stall parking lot facility. According to the zoning ordinance, a conditional use permit must be obtained prior to development of parking facilities for adjacent commercial or multiple dwelling establishments provided that screening of abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2-G, of the Zoning Ordinance. In this case, it could be construed that the Hospital District is a commercial or semi- commercial enterprise and requiring a conditional use permit is consistent with the spirit of the zoning ordinance. SITE PLAN REVIEW: Hospital Expansion in July, the Hospital District began construction of an addition to the east wall of the existing hospital facility. According to Hospital Administrator, Barb Schwientek, the purpose of the addition is to add space for an inhouse C.T. scanner and mammography, ultrasound, and radiology work area; laboratory area; outpatient examination and treatment area; and waiting area. This will include 3,900 square feet of remodeling on the first floor of the hospital. The construction will also include an unfinished basement and unfinished second floor area for future expansion. Parkina Needs Analysis - Prior to Hospital Expansion According to the zoning ordinance, the combined health care related uses require 219 parking spaces. This includes 90 spaces needed for the Health Care Center, 80 spaces for the hospital, 34 spaces for the nursing home, and 14 spaces for the dental office. Presently, there are 209 parking spaces which means the total parking currently provided is 9 stalls (or 4%) less than what would normally be required by ordinance. According to Me. Schweintek, parking has increasingly become more of a problem and it appears that, in reality, the parking stall supply is more than 9 stalls snort. It is likely that the formula used for calculating parking demand for hospitals in outdated because it is based on a high percentage of Planning Commission Agenda — 9/3/91 patients being treated on an "in-patient" baste. In the past few years, many more patients are being treated on an outpatient basis and there is no formula in the zoning ordinance for addressing parking demands created by this emerging type of hospital use. It could be that outpatient care creates more parking demand than in-patient care. Whatever the case, according to the hospital administration, the need for additional parking space has been demonstrated even without the new addition. Attached for your review is an aerial photo that shows where the parking facilities are located and how many stalls they contain. Parkin Needs Analysis - Hospital Expansion For the type of uses described above, it appears that the hospital expansion will create more office use than hospital bed space. Therefore the formula for calculating parking stalls associated with office space uses was used in determining the parking requirement associated with the addition. This formula, when applied to the first floor expansion, results in the need for 18 additional parking stalls. According to He. Schwientek, the second floor will not be utilized immediately and no additional parking demand will be created for the time being. It should be noted that this space is as large as the first floor and, someday, will create the need for an additional 18 parking stalls. At a minimum, the new parking area provided should be large enough to handle an additional 36 stalls. This would accommodate the immediate and long term parking demand created by the addition. Parkinq Lot Expansion Design Review According to Ke. 9chweintek, the parking lot will be used by employees only. No client use of the parking lot will be allowed. The only public use of perking in the area will continue to be that which In associated with the nursing home. @tells created. The proposed parking lot will create 45 parking spaces which is 9 more than what is needed with the development of the addition. The additional 9 parking stalls will help to ease the overall parking stall deficiency; however, given the present trends, parking will likely continue to be somewhat of a problem. In addition, if the basement annex is ever developed for office use, then additional parking demand wi 11 bo created that can only be handled with development of a new parking area. Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/91 Location. The parking lot is proposed to be located directly north of the existing dental clinic building and west of the service drive serving the nursing home. Parkina lot access/traffic. Access to the parking area is proposed to come through a residential area via River Street. It is estimated that the additional 45 stalls will result in 120 to 180 additional vehicle trips through the residential area. Please note that in the past some neighbors have been actively opposed to introducing additional traffic in the area. It appears that the added traffic will impact about 15 homes. Attached you will find meeting minutes describing previous testimony associated with developments completed in 1981 and 1984. It Is possible that there will be some opposition to the concept of adding additional traffic to River Street. LandscaDinq. Of concern is the impact of the parking facility on the residential property to the west of the site. In response to this concern, the site plan calls for the parking lot to be set back 10 feet from the west property line. In addition, the site plan proposes installation of a 6 foot high, 901 opaque cedar fence. Tree and shrub plantings will also be installed to supplement the screening effect provided by the fence. Unfortunately, screening the view of the parking lot will also result in the view of the river being screened from the rear yard of the property located directly west of the proposed parking lot. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONSt 1. A motion to approve a conditional use permit, subject to the following conditioner a. Provide screening of abutting residential uses and landscaping in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2-O, of the Zoning Ordinance. b. Use of the parking facility is limited to employees of the Hospital District. C. Development of the basement annex as office or meeting space requires development of at least 9 now parking stalls. Notion to approve based on the finding that: a. The added traffic created by employees using the parking facility is not sufficient to result in a depreciation of adjoining R-1 (single family residential) land values. 3 Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/91 b. The parking lot is well screened and landscaped to sufficiently protect and mitigate the negative impact of the parking lot on adjoining properties and, therefore, serves to preserve the residential character of the adjoining neighborhood. There is a demonstrated need for such use. 7. A motion to deny conditional use permit and recommend that the parking lot facility be placed in an alternative location. Planning Commission could note the following concerns under this alternative: a. The adjoining land values will depreciate if additional non-residential traffic is introduced to River Street. The proposed screening and landscaping does not sufficiently protect the adjoining residential areae. C. The Hospital District has land area available for parking that has direct access to Hart Boulevard. Exploration of this alternative site should be pursued. As you will note, on the comprehensive site plan provided, City staff has outlined an area that could possibly be used for development of a parking area in lieu of the area proposed. This area is located behind the existing health care facility and east of the nursing home. According to Barb 8chwlentek, this area may ultimately become a parking area at such time that the hospital or health care facility expands further. This potential area for parking was not deemed desirable for development at this time because the coat is higher due to physical constraints that the site presents and because the parking convenience provided by the alternate site is not as good as the location proposed. from a land use traffic management standpoint, the alternative site would be preferable to the site under consideration because all of the traffic created by the alternative site would have immediate access to Hart Boulevard and no additional traffic would pass through a residential area. 4 Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/91 C. STAFF RECOMENDATIORs The Hospital District is sensitive to the needs of the neighborhood and has designed the parking lot accordingly. The landscape plans appear to be sufficient to properly screen the parking lot from the adjoining residential areas. In addition, the Hospital District has indicated that parking will be limited to employee parking only, thereby limiting vehicle trip frequency. It appears that the additional traffic may have a nominal impact on the neighborhood. On the other hand, before development of the nursing home, this neighborhood had no "commercial" traffic. Now, even without the expansion, there are a considerable number of cars that use River Street to get to the nursing home. In addition, all hospital deliveries are made via River Street to the loading berth behind the hospital. It could be that adding additional traffic to the existing load would begin to undermine the adjoining residential property values and generally result in a diminishment of the ability of residents to enjoy their property for residential uses. No firm recommendation is made regarding this decision. If �j Planning Commission is convinced that the added parking and associated traffic will not create a problem for the neighborhood, then alternative one should be selected. If, on the other hand, the Planning Commission is concerned that a problem may be created, it makes sense to require that the Hospital District further explore the possibility of using an alternative site to handle the growing parking demand. D. SUPPORTING DAM Health care complex site plan; Aerial photos Excerpts of minutes from previous meetings; Vicinity map; Parking lot site plan. S Planning Commission �Min-�-/17 6 22/80 One of the reasons for the necessity of eliminating the continuous concrete curb would be to allow drainage from the Church and the School adjacent to the Church to flow to the street without being obstructed. If there was a continuous curb barrier, it appears that the drainage would pond up between the Church and the School and the curb and not make it to the street because of the configuration of the construction. On motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded by John Bondhus, it was voted to recommend approval of this variance request. Jim Ridgeway abstained from voting. 11. Consideration of Rezoning and Conditional Use for a Proposed Medical Clinic East of the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital. The Monticello -Big Lake Hospital, on behalf of the developer of a proposed �• new clinic, made an application for rezoning of Lots 1 b 13, and the West 33' of Lot 2 of Block 22, Lower Monticello, and the east half of Oak Street lying between Blocks 22 6 23, from R-1 to R -B. In addition to the rezoning request, an application was also made for a conditional use for a medical clinic. This rezoning would then make the present R -B zoning adjacent to the Hospital large enough to accommodate this proposed medical clinic. This request at this time is only for a conditional use for the proposed medical clinic and the necessary rezoning, and does not include any request for an extension of giver Street to serve the parking lot proposed to the North of the new medical clinic building. At this time, the developer of the medical clinic is looking at the feasibility of entering the parking lot proposed to the north of the medical clinic facility directly Prom Hart Blvd. If this is not feasible, the developer may, at some time in the future, approach the City for an extension of River Street; however, it is not part of the request that River Street be extended at the time of this consideration. Previously, the City received correspondence from the neigh- bors in the Ellison Park area expressing their concerns with the possible extension of River Street to accommodate a parking lot to the rear of the medical clinic. Dr. Kasper, a property owner in the area, expressed come concern with the rezoning portion of the request. Dr. Kasper is not opposed to the medical clinic, but did express opposition to the possibility of any retail establish- ment which could be built in conjunction with the medical clinic. for example, a pharmacy. A motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded by John Bondhus was unanimous in its approval to recommend the rezoning and conditional use requests provided that the parking lot at this time not be allowed to open onto any extended River Street until such time as a hearing might be hold on that subject, and that the concerned neighbors in the Ellison Park area have an opportunity to speak their concerns. 3. Public Hearing on the Rezoning and Conditional Use for a Proposed Medical Clinic East of the Monticello-Biq rake Connmunity Hospital. Monticello -Big lake Community Hospital requested rezoning of Lots 1 s 13, and the West 33' of Lot 2, Block 22, Lower Monticello, and the Fast Half of Oak Street lying between Blocks 22 c 23, Lower Monticello, from R-1 to R -B. In addition to the rezoning request, the Hospital has also made an application for a conditional use for a proposed medical clinic. ' It was noted that previously the City of Monticello has received corres- pondence from neighbors in the Ellison Park area expressing concerns with the possible extension of River Street to accommodate a parking lot to the rear of the proposed medical clinic. Presently, the rezoning request and the conditional use request for the Clinic does not propose to use River Street extended to meet their parking lot, but rather to have parking lot traffic enter and exit onto Hart Boulevard. The developer of the Clinic has indicated that if, for some reason, Hart Boulevard cannot be used for entering the parking lot, they may, in the future, approach the City for possible extension of River Street to the rear of their parking lot. Mr. John Bondhus, area resident near the Hospital, expressed concern about the water drainage problem that now exists in the area that presently drains through his property, causing large flows through his existing trout ponds. Mr. Bondhus was concerned that if the drainage through his property is increased because of future development within the City, future storm sewer outlets would have to be provided to allow for the increased runoff and suggested that the City consider keeping a small area along the vacated Oak Street for a drainage/utility purposes. Mr. Bondhus noted that, although the Clinic requested the casements be eliminated to allow for the development of the Clinic, he euggeoted that a small area an the east aide of the property be retained for possible future utilities. CCouncil Minutes - 9/22/81 Consulting Engineer, John Badalich, indicated that if drainage became a problem, holding ponds could be constructed between Hart Blvd. and County Road 73, which would help alleviate any excessive flows at one time, and also, if storm sower outlets are needed to the River, the area at the sower plant could be used for the underground storm sower rather than through Oak Street. In regards to the conditional use permit, the Planning Commiooion, at their last meeting, recommended approval of both the rezoning and the conditional use permit for the Clinic provided the developers provide access to the prop000d parking lot from Hart Blvd., rather than opening up and extending River Street. / "ntion was made by Dan elonLgon, seconded by Phil White and unanimously G1� carried to rezone Lots 1 c 13 and the meet 33' of lot 2, Block 22, T~r Monticello, and the East Halt of Oak Btreet lying between Blocks 22 and 23, from R-1 to R -B, and also, approve the issuance of a conditional use permit for the proposed medical clinic contingent upon the proposed parking lot using Hart Boulevard as an access and exit point. (Sao zoning Ordinance Amendment 9/22/80 186) . tion A aWari4hc-n Atombat for tli6 Cpamnir21 I IL Plann►ng C7ission Minutes - 4114181 �_�-- 3. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Rezoning Request by Mel Wolters in the Meadows Subdivision Plat. Mel Wolters, ower of The Meadows, was present and proposed changing the zoning of the Meadows from R-1 to R-2, for Lots 1-11, Block 2, Lots 1-9, Block 3, and Lots 1-15 and Lot 24, Block 4, and Lots 1 6 2 of Block 5. Mr. Wolters made his proposal, based on a desire to locate zero lot line duplexes on various lots throughout The Meadows subdivision, although he indicated that it would be his intention to most likely not make more than 502 of the lots with duplexes upon them. Some discussion followed as to whether or not Mr. Wolters could be held to his intention of only building duplexes on 502 of the lots if the entire parcel were rezoned to R-2, and consequently, Dick Martie made a motion, seconded by Bill Burka to recommend the change from R-1 to R-2 only on Lots 1-11 of Block 2 and 1-9 of Block 3. When Mr. Wolters indicated he would be favorable to accepting that recommendation, all voted in favor. 4. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit Request (Re- Hearin) for Medical Facilities Company. On September 22, 1980, a public hearing on the rezoning and conditional use for a proposed medical clinic east of the Monticello -Big Lake Co=unity Hospital was held. Monticello -Big Lake Comaunity Hospital had requested rezoning of Lots 1 6 13, and the Went 33' of Lot 2, Block 22, Lower Monti- cello, and the east half of Oak Street lying between Block 22 and 23, Lover Monticello, from R-1 to R -B. Io addition to their rezoning request, the Hospital had also made an application for a conditional use for a proposed medical clinic. At that meeting, it had been noted that previously, the City of Monticello had received correspondence from people living in the area of Ellison Park, expressing concern with the possible extension of River Street to accommodato a parking lot at the rear of the proposed medical clinic. At that time, the rezoning request and conditional use for the clinic did not propose to have River Street extended to meet the parking lot, but rather it was designed to have the parking lot traffic enter and exit onto Hart Blvd. At that time, the developer of the Clinic indicated that, if for some reason, Hart Boulevard could not be used exclusively as the entrance and exit point to the parking lot, that they may approach the City for the \ possible extension of River Street to the rear of the parking lot. Barb Schwientek, Executive Director of the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital, was present and indicated it is now the developers intention to extend River Street to allow access to the parking lot, thus the rehearing was necessary. Planning Commission Minutes - 4/14/81 i �- Mrs. Irvin gallin, a resident of the area, presented a letter to the Planning Commission, and outlined some of her concerns. They were as follows : A. A potential of increased traffic flow which will increase the traffic danger to the children. B. A potential of further increased traffic if the parking lot is used by Hospital customers rather than just employees as originally proposed. C. A potential of lowering the asset value of their property as they now have a quiet, low -traffic area and this could possibly change. D. It could provide an idea, new mote area for additional problems to occur at night, including drug useage. E. It could create a great location for drag racing. Further, a petition was presented by several of the neighbors in the area, which basically outlined the same concerns as the letter presented by Mrs. Hallin. Fred Topel objected if access were going to be used to bring the ambulance into the Hospital on River Street. Bud Jensen objected to increased traffic in the area. Fred Topel was concerned as to who would pay the cost of the assessments for the extension of giver Street (this cost would be borne d by the abutting property owners, who in this case, is entirely the Hospital District). l Lovell Severson questionned whether or not a years delay could be instituted before opening up River Street to see if it was really necessary. Barb Schwientek pointed out that not passing on this issue would jeopardize the proposed clinic. A notion was made by Ed Schaffer and seconded by Dick Martie to recommend V opening River Street with better police protection in that area to be provided. All voted in favor. S. New Business - Jim Sorenson, a representative of Blocher outdoor Advertising Company, was present to make a request that in light of the fact they would be removing two of their outdoor advertising signs in Thomas Park, that they would like to request a variance to erect a now pylon sign over in Lauring Hillside Terrace. Mr. Sorenson was instructed by the Chairman to sake a formal variance application in the toning adminis- trator's office and pay the required fee, and that if this was done in adequate time, that he could be placed on the next Planning Cosmis- sion agenda on May 12, 1981. Ment. Adjourned. t Lo Klein, inning Administrator C3) -0- 1 6. Consideration of Amendment of Conditional Use Permit on Parkin Lot Access -Medical Facilities Camnenv. i Nodical Facilities Company, developers of the proposed medical clinic east of the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital, requested that their Con- ditional Use permit be amended to allow access to their proposed parking lot off of River Street at the rear of the proposed clinic. Previously, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for the dovelopmont of the clinic with the provision that the access to tho parking lot an eight would be off of Hart Boulevard. This provision was inserted as a result of in -put from neighbors in the Ellison Park area along River Street, who expressed concern with the possible extension of River Street to accommodate the parking lot at the rear of the propsed medical clinic. Since that time, the developers of the clinic have indicated that the proposed grado from the lower parking lot to Hart Boulevard may on occasions be difficult to maneuver and as a result the ambulance may have to use River Street if weather conditions aro unfavorable. In addition, the developer hes indicated that if the clinic is expanded in the future and additional parking space is needed for patients, the lower parking lot would be used and as a result should have an alternate route other than Hart Boulevard. G Council Minutes - 4/27/81 Barb Schwientek, Hospital Administrator, indicated that the intent of opening River Street would be for emergency use only by ambulance when necessary and also for employees to use the rear parking lot, but that in the future, patients may also use the lower parking lot as the clinic expands and requires more parking space. Concerns were expressed by neighbors along River Street in the ElliBon Park area that any extension of River Street to the medical clinic would result in increased traffic and safety problems. Mr. Irwin Kallin, property owner near Ellison Park along River Street, asked that the city prepare some type of plan that would control traffic and safety problems in the area such as lover speed limits, more frequent police patrols, etc. Mr. Tom McKee, clinic developer, indicated that they would be willing to work with the city and reeidences as much as pogaible to control any problems that could arise by the extension o: River Street, by increasing lighting in their parking lot if necessary, along with possibly closing off their parking lot at a certain time each evening, if necessary. After consideration of the testimony, motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus, and asked to be carried to adopt a resolution ordering the city engineer to prepare a feasibility report on the extension of River Street to the proposed medical clinic with the report also to include any sever line repairs, if necessary. (See Resolution 1981-16) in addition, a motion was made by Maus, seconded by Fair, to approve amending the Conditional Use Permit for the Medical Facilities Company allowing access from River Street to the proposed parking lot with a 2 year time limit at which time the situation would be reviewed to see if problems have arisen. Voting in favor was Maus, Fair, Crimemo, and Blonigen. Opposed: White. Motion was also made by White. seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried to have the City Administrator study and work on a pldn for providing safety and traffic regulations, etc. for the River Street area near Ellison Park such as speed limit signs, increased patroling services, etc. Conaidera on of Aw inR Contracar on Library Constrruetion Pr sect. fteen ids were recei 4Fiday, April 24, 1981, or t con- st tl n of a new librars ranged tram a low a bid of 8136, O from Cates Constpany to a high bid of 186,400. The chit s estimated n cost was 8120,00 The on- str tion Di received dude furniture and ixtures, la ecaping or he camplea parking lot. -jo- 0 Planning Co®iesion Agenda - 11/14/84 3. Public Hearin - A Conditional Use Request to Allow a Nursing Home in a R-B Zone - Applicant, Monticello-Big Lake Community Hospital Dis- trict. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE ARD BACKGROUNDt As the bond issue has passed for allowing the new nursing home to be built, the nursing home project is only allowed as a conditional use in a R -B zone. The nursing home will be located behind the existing Monticello -Big Lake Hospital with the building extending to the rear of the property on the 20 ft. intothe right-of-way of the platted River Street. No sewer relocation will be necessary at this time to allow for the construction of the now nursing home. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Approve a conditional use request to allow the nursing home in an R -B Zone. 2. Deny the conditional use request to allow the nursing home in an R -B Zone. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONi The staff recommends approval of the conditional use request to allow the nursing home in an R -B Zone. The nursing home is compatible with the existing property surrounding it and will bland in quite well. D. SUPPORTING DATA A copy of the location of the proposed site plan of the new Monticello - Big Lake Nursing Home. M e Condit 16al, Uee Requ i, it to allow a nursing home in an It -B Zone. z. Monticello -Big Lake :4mmunity Hospital•, Q j 17 1 j i I