Planning Commission Agenda Packet 03-11-1980n
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, March 11, 1980 - 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS: Jim Ridgeway, Dave Bauer, Ed Schaffer, Dick Martie, John Bondhus.
Loren Klein (ex -officio) ,�
A�Paa
1. Approval of Minutes - February 19, 1980 Regular Meeting. M ire �U
2. Consideration of a Variance Request from Provisions of Home Occupation
(Beauty Shop) - Shirley Harris.
3. Consideration of a Variance Request and Subdivision of Lots - Lee Hatfield
Property by Gary DeBoer. y0"�* L S*-? ' V c
4. Review of City Council's Request for Information from the Planning
Commission Relative to Monticello's Sign Ordinance.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 19, 1980 - 7:30 P.M.
IJ
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Ridgeway, John Bondhus. Dick Martie, Loren Klein (ex -officio).
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ed Schaffer, Dave Bauer.
1. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Dick Martie, seconded by John Bondhus and unanimously
carried to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of December 18, 1979
and Special Meeting of January 11, 1980.
2. Public Nearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for
Northern States Power Nuclear Plant.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has required that NSP place
an overflow weir at the end of the outlet channel where the warm water
that is discharged from the Power Plant flows into the Mississippi River,
thus preventing fish from going into the channel.
Because Monticello has adopted the Mississippi Scenic L Wild Rivers
Ordinance, the request of NSP to install the weir must he part of a
conditional use permit, thus requiring a public hearing.
No comments were heard from the public, and therefore, a motion was made
by John Bondhus, seconded by Dick Martie and unanimously carried to
approve the conditional use permit to Northern States Power.
3. Public Nearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit - Bradley
[arson's Townhouses.
Previously, Mr. Brad Larson was before the Planning Commission and the
City Council with his request for rezoning of the Baptist Church Property
from R-1 to R-2 for the purpose of constructing townhouse units on Lire
property. Because the Council requested that a site plan which would
show the layout of the proposed development he prepared prior to any
approval, Mr. Larson was now before the Planning Commission with a site
plan and asking for a conditional use permit for the townhouses.
Mr. Larson indicated that he is proposing to build five 4 -unit townhouses
with each unit having an attached double car garage, which would exceed
Monticello Ordinance requirements. In addition, an association agref�ment
would he prepared binding all owners within the project to set rules and
maintenance requirements for the commonly owned property. The site plan
as presented shows a cul-de-sac coming from the property onto Highway 75,
which does not align with Sandy Lane across the highway so that traffic
from the project would be discouraged from using Sandy Lane as a thoroughfare.
PLANNING COMMISSION MiNUTES - 2/19/80
In addition to the conditional use permit, a variance would be required
for the square footage requirement since the open area per unit is 234
square feet short of the requirement of 5,000 square feet per unit.
Several concerns from surrounding property owners, including Mr. Gilbert
Stickfort, Earl Swan and Steve Johnson were presented at the Planning
Commission meeting as follows:
A. That traffic would be generated because of the additional density of
the development.
B. Mr. Gilbert Stickfort was concerned that previously there was a promise
made on the past variance for a duplex which was granted to Mr. Vern
Youngberg on Lot 1, Block 2, Creekside Terrace on Sandy Lane, which
the Planning Commission, at that time, indicated that there would be
no further rezonings of this nature in the area, but should be on a
scattered site basis throughout the City. Fir, Stickfort felt that
rezoning this property and allowing a conditional use permit for
20 townhouses would be going against what was said a couple years ago
when the property in Creekside Terrace was rezoned for a duplex.
C. Property owners were concerned whether there was adequate sewer and
water to serve this type of development. it was noted that the
property has been served by sewer and water across Highway 15 and
with the recent refurbishing of the lift station in West Bridge Park,
there should be no problem with the increased flow into the sewer lines.
D. Steve Johnson felt that additional requirements should he made of the
development for landscaping whereby the development should provide
trees or screening from adjoining single family residential areas.
Motion was made by nick Martie, seconded by John Bondhus and unanimously
carried to approve the Conditional use permit for the five 4 -unit townhouse
development. In addition, a motion was made by John Bondhus, seconded by
Dick Martie and unanimously carried to require 'Mr. Larson to present a
landscaping plan and front and side elevations of the proposed development
and structures to the Council in order to give the property owners in the
area a better concept of what would be built in the development.
4. Consideration of Variance Request - Beauty Sho in an R-1 lone -
GereTdinc Vinar.
Geraldine Vinar requested a variance to operate a beauty shop frum one r0or,
of tier home, having no employees and no more than one appointment at any
time, unless there would be an overlap of one person leaving and a new
appointment arriving,
The variance was requested to operate this husiness since this type of u,;e
does not fall exaCtly within the definition of d home occupation. Specify•
tally, the ordinance Indicates that no mechanical equtpmont .hall be.
employed that is notcustomarily found in the hone and nu Occupation Shill
- 2 -
PLANNING OCMMISSION MINUTES - 2/19/80
be permitted which results in or generates more traffic than one car for
off-street parking at any given time.
Various objections were received from surrounding property owners, including
a petition presented by Mr. Gilbert Stickfort and signed by himself and
Mr. b Mrs. Earl Swan and Mr. 6 Mrs. Bill Burke, along with Steve Johnson.
The objections included the following:
A. The property owners in the area bought property that was zoned R-1
and should remain residential.
B. Felt that this type of use would commercialize the area.
C. That a beauty shop would create additional traffic and parking problems.
D. That commercial uses of this nature should be downtown where the property
is commercially zoned.
Part of the Planning Commission discussion on this item concerned whether
allowing such home occupation uses as a beauty shop might not be an unfair
advantage to those beauty shops that operate out of commercial establish-
ments downtown and also members of the Planning Commission felt that a
precedent would be set with these types of uses and other home occupational
uses.
Because of the concerns of the surrounding property owners and the possible
i unfair advantage to the downtown shops, motion was made by Dick Martie and
seconded by Jim Ridgeway to deny the variance request for a beauty shop
to Geraldine Vinar. Voting in favor: Dick Martie, Jim Ridgeway.
Opposed: John Bondhus.
5. Consideration of Variance Request - Beauty Shop in an R-1 Zone -
Barb Soucy.
Barb Soucy also requested a variance to operate a beauty shop within one
room of her own home, also having no employees and no more than one appoint-
ment at any time. This property is located at 1305 West Broadway and is
Zoned R-1, single family residential, and is located approximately one block
west of the previous request of Geraldine Vinar.
Snme of the same property owners in the area, including Creekside Terrace,
voiced opposition to this beauty shop request as they did in the case
of Geraldine Vinar. Their reasons were primarily the same, and as a
result, motion was made by Dick Martie and seconded by Jim Ridgeway to
deny the variance request for a beauty shop to Barb Soucy. Voting in
favor: Jim Ridgeway. Dick Martie. Opposed: John Bondhus.
- 3 -
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2/19/80
6. Consideration of a Variance Request from Provisions of Monticello Sign
Ordinance Requirements - Scotwood Partnership. J
A request was made by the Scotwood Partnership for a ScotWood Motel for
the following variances from the Monticello Ordinances relative to
sign height and size requirements:
A. 180 square foot wall sign (Ordinance Section 10 -3 -9 -(E) -2-(b)-(2)
allows maximum of 100 square feet).
B. Pylon sign to be either 52 feet above Highway 25 at closest point,
or 65 feet high from base. whichever is less (Ordinance Section
10 -3 -9 -(E) -2-(B)-(4) allows maximum height of pylon sign to be
32 feet above roadway).
C. 32 square foot directional sign (Ordinance Section 10 -3 -9 -(B) -i -(h)
allows maximum of 10 square feet).
The Planning Commission members discussed previous sign variances that
have been granted to such businesses as the Silver Fox Hotel, which has
a 60' high sign and Vance's Standard Station, which has a 52' high sign.
It was noted that the primary reasons for granti ng uses such as a motel
and a gasoline station these additional variances for height were because
their business depended primarily on the freeway and the highway for their
trade .
It was noted by the Planning Commission that previous variances were
granted for establishments that did not butt directly against the freeway
and it was felt that some of these businesses were a distance away from
the freeway and that their particular signs were hard to see, and thus
the reason for the variances being granted. In addition, it was noted
that all the signs on the north side of the freeway do meet the present
ordinance requirements, and in fact, signs such as Perkins and Kentucky
Fried Chicken could even be higher without the necessary variances,
it was the consensus of the Pianning Commission that due to the location
of the proposed ScotWood Motel being adjacent to the freeway, additional
height above 32' would not be necessary as their sign should be adequately
seen in both directions since they can put the sign next to the Freeway.
Additionally, concerns were raised over whether future motels or gas
stations located anywhere within the City Limits would be granted variances
just because of their type of business, if this variance was allowed
for the ScotWood Motel.
Motion was made by Dick Martie, seconded by John Bondhus and unanimously
carried to deny all three sign variance requests for the ScotWood Motel
since it butts next to the freeway now.
. 4 -
u
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 2/19/80
7. Consideration of Subdivision Request and Variances - John Sandberq.
Mr. John Sandberg, current owner of a duplex on Lots 1 E 2, Block 30,
Upper Monticello, requested a subdivision of the property and variances
from minimum lot sizes in an R-2 zoning district. The proposed subdivi-
sion would create a 68'x132' lot fronting on Linn Street with the duplex
remaining on a 97' x 132' lot.
Mr. Sandberg indicated the reason for the subdivision would be to sell
the smaller lot to Les Finn so that he could build a single family resi-
dence near the downtown area. Mr. Les Finn indicated to the Planning
Commission that he does not desire a large lot for maintenance and upkeep
purposes, and because of his and his wife's age, they would prefer to be
closer to the downtown area.
The variances needed for this subdivision included a 12' variance from the
minimum lot width of 80'. and also, a variance from the minimum square
footage of 10,000 square feet, since the lot is only 8,976 square feet.
In addition. the lot line as proposed would be 315' from the stairway of
the existing duplex, thus requiring a rearyard variance of 26u.' from the
minimum requirement of 30' for the existing house.
Committee members were concerned over the type of precedent this might
set allowing variances from the minimum lot standards, but also felt by
some of the Committee members that possibly some smaller lots closer
to the downtown area should be available for people who want to live
close to downtown and who are older and do not like to maintain such a
large lot.
Motion was made by Dick Martie, seconded by John Bondhus to approve the
subdivision as presented along with the variances as requested for
Mr. Sandberg's lot 1n Block 30 with the understanding that there would
be no further variances necessary at the time of a building permit
application by Mr. Les Finn. Voting in favor: Dick Martie, Jim
Ridgeway. Opposed: John Bondhus.
8. Consideration of Subdivision and Request for Variances from Minimum
Lot Widths by Mr. Rick Cole.
Mr. Rick Cole requested to subdivide Lots 2 (except the a 10') and Lot
3, Block D. Upper Monticello, into two equal size parcels of 61' x 165'
each. The present lot sizes are 66' x 165 and 56' x 165'.
The present property now has a home located on it which is situated in
the middle of the lots, but Mr. Cole indicated that he is planning on
removing the building and building a new home on one of the lots,
in addition to the variance needed from the minimum lot width of 80',
Mr. Cole requested that the sideyard setback requirements of 20' for
an R -B zone be reduced to only 10'.
- 5 -
PLANNING C014MISSION MINUTES - 2/19/80
Although Mr. Cole indicated a single family home with a tuckunder garage
is planned for one of the lots, the Planning Commission was concerned
about seeing a specific site plan for the two lots prior to granting
this subdivision and variances. It was noted that although there are
two lots, or two legal descriptions at the present time, only one of
the lots - that being the 66' lot . would actually be a buildable lot
and meet the 75% requirement of the present ordinances as far as lot width goes.
Planning Commission felt that without having a specific site plan indicating
the single family home, approval of a subdivision as requested would leave
the lot open to other types of s t ructu res such as a duplex, etc.
Since a specific site plan was not available. motion was made by Dick
Martie, seconded by Jim Ridgeway and unanimously carried to deny the
subdivision request and variances .
9. Consideration of Changing Meetinca Date.
The Planning Commission discussed changing the meeting date from the
Third Tuesday of each month to e f they the second or fourth Tuesday
of each month.
The primary reason for the requested change by the City Staff was that
the agenda for the City Council is now being prepared as early as
Tuesday of the week preceeding the meeting. Normally, the items from
the Planning Commission go forth to the City Council at their next
meeting, and by preparing the agenda for the Council's following
meeting on the previous Tuesday, some of the items of the Planning
Commission will have to be brought to the Council not at their next
meeting, but at the meeting after that. It was noted that by changing
the meeting date to a different Tuesday, this would allow anything that
is on the Planning Commission agenda to go forth to the next regular
Council meeting without any delays.
Motion was made by John Bondhus. seconded by Dick Martie and unanimously
carried to set the second Tuesday of each month as the regular Planning
Commission meeting date.
Notion was made by Dick Martie, seconded by John Bondhus and unanimously
carried to adjourn.
Rick Moifstellerr
Assistant Administrator
RM/ns
6 -
SUep1V1tF°E� ?�W
r {'i ... '� //�„"'}!C'^�... r`'+-.:� r tt y.. �� j.,.. _ F� ,t� . � « f,#.' , u . ,r '• ti •�..
1• Vit' ..�, _ 61 _,; / �� •..�7 -..,, ��-:J�ry � • j /:�,tt�• .•�•'y i •, •. .`::
ARIAN Navas
r; I ' r..� j ♦ :'.a"• .. t , .'; J �'.`'-• •� '�
ai
~• �•wro,r '� j{f1� ��T •, rt,, •.;,. ,t a�.
�``Y,• '"1`
4S
WAY
;' r • 1 •t •n � a . �.+♦ • y'.;
WAY h0. 94
� •`0.•'`'i � , r,+"!" • ; , t 1
C
fe
N
A�C'r�.l'iA(Ia1
e t—e1,W ✓/.P
Ila�F'el d s
Lots y, S, %�/oc/(• 39
1�
J
r
I 1
_
�
Y
w
. v
N
LOT
„>ouleve.d
_
Ce,t�, of 3d S4edf-,
_
I.
S 3
C
PLANNING COFIMISSION AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
2. Consideration of a Variance Request from Provisions of Home Occupation
(Beauty Shop) - Shirley Harris.
Shirley Harris, who was previously granted a variance for a beauty shop
in her home at 412 Ramsey Street, which is zoned R-2, would like to
further her variance request to allow her one part-time girl to work in
her shop.
Prior to opening the shop in her home at 412 Ramsey Street, Ms. Harris
was employed in a beauty shop owned by John Gossen. It was due to the
fact that Mr. Gossen planned to close the shop that Ms. Harris requested
to open her own shop in her home. At this time, there is another
beautician who also had worked in Mr. Gossen's shop who would like to
work out of Ms. Harris's home on a part-time basis. Ms. Harris feels
this would be beneficial to both her and the part-time girl as far as
allowing more flexibility.
The purpose of this item is to consider granting a variance from the
conditions of the original variance which stated - only the owner of
the property could be an operator at that shop.
CONSIDERATION: Recommending approval or denial of this request.
REFERENCES: Enclosed map showing location.
APPLICANT: Shirley Harris.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA - 3/11/80
3. Consideration of a Variance Request and Subdivision of Lots.
Gary DeBoer, on behalf of Mr. Lee Hatfield, is requesting a simple
subdivision of lots. This subdivision is of Lots 4 6 5, Block 39,
Townsite of Monticello.
Currently, there is a home located on the southerly part of Lots 4 6 5,
and the proposal would be to divide off the northerly part of
Lots 4 b 5 to create a separate, buildable lot.
The proposed lot would be 10,032 square feet, and the remaining lot
would be 11,728 square feet. Both of these would exceed the 10,000
square foot requirement which is necessary in an R-2 zone.
Current ordinance requires that a 30' setback be used on the rear
yard, and in this case, only 27' is available. Also, the present
ordinance requires an 80' frontage, while this lot provides only 76'.
However, you may want to consider that at the last Planning Commission
meeting, a recononendation was made to allow a lot with only a 68'
frontage.
CONSIDERATION: Recommending approval or denial of this subdivision and
variance requests.
REFERENCES: Enclosed plat map and map depicting location of lots.
APPLICANT: Gary DeBoer on behalf of Lee Hatfield.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA - 3/11/80
4. Review of City Council's Re9guest for Information from the Planninq Com—
mtsslon Relative to Mont,
Sian Ordinance.
Purpose of this item is merely to update the Planning Commission of the
decision made by the City Council at their February 25, 1980 meeting at
which the Council decided to request the Planning Commission, along with
its Planner, to review further the Monticello Sign Ordinance.
As you might be aware, the sign ordinance has been reviewed on various
occasions for one reason or another, but the particular problem at hand
for the City Council is the fact that the present ordinance does amorti ze
out all non -conforming signs, including billboards, effective August 21
1980. As a result of a vast amount of input from property owners and
sign companies, the City Council has decided to review the matter further
before it makes a definitive decision whether or not to continue the
ordinance as it exists or make some modifications.
Enclosed, for your review, is a document which includes a History of the
Monticello sign ordinance, background information and letters received
from sign companies, etc., relative to the Monticello sign ordinance.
This is being presented at this time for further background on the
entire Monticello City Ordinance as it applies to signs.
Our Planner is currently reviewing the Monticello City Ordinance with
the information I have sent to him. It is not intended that any type
of decision be made at Tuesday night's Planning Commission meeting, but
possibly some of the members may wish to have the Planner consider certain
aspects of the sign ordinance, and now would be the time to get this type
of input in.
At a later date, It is suggested that the Planning Commission would schedule
meetings to receive input from property owners, citizens, sign companies,
etc. One possibility the Planning Commission may want to consider is setting
up a special meeting to review the sign ordinance and gather input. I
have talked to John Uban, with Howard Dahlgren Associates, our City Planner,
and the date of March 25, 1980 would be acceptable to John Uban unless
the Planning Commission wanted to take this up at their next regularly
scheduled meeting, which would be April 8, 1980.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of scheduling review of sign ordinance
for future meeting.
REFERENCES; Document reviewing the Monticello Sign Ordinance.
4 -3