Planning Commission Agenda Packet 04-08-1980an
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, April B. 1980 - 7:30 P. M.
MEMBERS: James Ridgeway, Dave Bauer, Dick Martie, John Bondhus, Ed Schaffer,
Loren Klein (ex -officio).
1-A. Consideration of Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of March 11, 1980. qhs/
op-
E3I DS•N -, c.
1. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for a Tire Shop - Jay Morrell.
2. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for Parking Lot - McDonald's. HrLQ �80
3. Public Hearing - Consideration of Rezoning Request - Harold Ruff. 7/1-VP
/jP
4. Public Informational Meeting on Monticello Sign Ordinance. -
5. Consideration of Variance Application and Extension of Conditional Use
Permit for Administrative Office Addition - ISD #882. v
6. Consideration of a Variance from Sideyard Setbacks and Minimum Lot Size
Requirements and Request for Subdivision of Property - David Munson.
7. Consideration of a Variance Request from Parking Ordinance Require- y/Lp
ments - Kelly Driscoll.
8. Consideration of a Rear Yard Variance Request - Mel Wolters.
0
Planning Commission - 4/8/80
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
LJ 6V
1. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for a Tire Shop - Jay Morrell.i
0,'Yyh'�
Jay Morrell, owner of the Stor-Away Building on South Highway 25, would 1r
v� like to turn a portion of that building into a tire shop, which would
\7y�r L require a conditional use permit. a.
til r
In the redevelopment of that property, he is proposing to extend the hard- J) 7 �;✓
surfaced area out approximately 40' from the building on the south side
to make access to the area where the major access to the tire shop will yYW
.y be. He plans to provide adequate off-street parking.
V 0 However, on the south side and west end of the new concrete Pfwd 1 to be QF
r jr placed, he would like to eliminate the perimeter curb and place additional�jl���
, AClass q5 or gravel for overflow parking, which would require a variance. 7r�
�O \6 ViAPPLICANT: Jay Morrell f,wy
I� r
0� : �, REFERENCES: Map depicting the area and a site plan. �✓ 9
y YCONS IDERATION: Recommend approval or denial of this request. a`S
2. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for Parking Lot - McDonald's.
McDonald's has requested a conditional use hearing for the development stage
of the third parcel of land on the I-94 Tri -Plaza (Parcel A).
It is McDonald's intention to develop Parcel A into an overflow area for
their present facility located on Parcel B.
stag Because this lot is within a Planned Unit Development (PUD), it is necessary
to hold a public hearing on a conditional use permit when development occurs
!. on that parcel .
4D /j'V In their proposal for development, it is a request of McDonald's that land-
�Q scaping, at least not 100% of the $1,500 required by ordinance, be consi-
dered not necessary by the granting of a variance.
Qpj�✓" �A couple of items in addition which should be addressed would be:
Sf4, A. Signs necessary to direct traffic flow.
B. Lighting - both the amount and fixture design (this could possibly
7�0
require additional lighting to be consistent in design with what isalready in use.��,,APPLiCANT: McDonald's
REFERENCES: Map depicting the area.
CONSIDERATION: Recod approval or denial of their request.
u �
l
�1VV� - 1
Planning Commission - 4/8/80
3. Public Hearinq - Consideration of Rezoning Request - Harold Ruff.
Mr. Harold Ruff has requested that rezoning of a certain parcel of land
be made from R-1 to R-3.
This parcel lies between County Road #39 and the Burlington Northern
Railroad tracks, East of Kampa Estates and West of the NSP Maintenance
Building - that parcel contains approximately 3.94 acres.
The basis for requesting the rezoning is included in a letter which
accompanies this request.
APPLICANT: Harold Ruff
REFERENCES: Enclosed letter outlining the basis for the request,
a zoning map depicting lot.
CONSIDERATION: Recommendation of approval or denial of this
rezoning request.
r4
- 2 -
4. Public Informational Meetinq on Monticello Sian Ordinance.
Purpose of this item is to review the Monticello Sign Ordinance as a result
of a request by the City Council. Of immediate concern is the Monticello
Ordinance provision which requires that all non-conforming signs, including
billboards, flashing signs, rotating signs, signs that may be too big, too
many signs, etc., be brought into conformance by August 21, 1980, which is
the termination date granted after a five-year amortization period.
It should be noted that the Planning Commission, at their last meeting,
expressed an interest in not only making property owners who may have signs
that are non-conforming already on their property along with the sign
companies notified of this meeting, but also a notice be put in the paper
and this has been done. It was the Planning Commission's hope that testimony
would be received on both sides of the issue, both pro and con.
Our City Planner will be at Tuesday night's meeting to serve as a resource
person. Additionally, 1 have contacted our City Attorney relative to
a legal interpretation of our existing ordinance, in addition to Dean
Hanson, sign technician with the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
One issue that the Planning Commission should be aware of is that there is
a possibility that the City of Monticello could be liable for compensation
to the sign companies based on the fair market value of their signs. Our
City attorney will be reviewing this matter specifically to determine the
following:
tib
A. Can a City legally amortize out certain types of signs provided a
period of time is given .
B. What compensation, if any, must be granted to the property owners and
sign owners, if an amortization period is involved.
C. Some of the signs in question are on land that was included In an
annexation of December 13, 1977 (Jim Boyle/Maurice Hoglund), and the
question would be whether the City would have to grant an additional
five years from the date of annexation for these signs.
D. What procedures in terms of written notices, etc., must the City take
if it intends to abide by its current ordinance.
E. What legal redress do other property owners have if the City decides
as an alternative to grandfather in the existing non-conforming signs
by other property owners, 1 mean property owners who own land along the
freeway and wish to put up additional billboards, etc.
1 am enclosing a letter 1 received that was written March 11, 1980, by
Dean Hanson with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. In addition
to this letter, 1 am enclosing the essay on billboard control that Mr. Hanson
refers to. It should be noted that the other items that Mr. Hanson addresses
in the March 17, 1980 letter are available for review at the MontlrPllo City
Hall, in addition to a model sign ordinance that was submitted by White
Advertising. Some of these items were too lengthy to reproduce, but I did
- 3 -
Planning Commission - 4/8/80
l feel that the essay mentioned by Mr. Hanson was quite interesting.
iJ One possible way to proceed at Tuesday night's meeting might be as follows:
A. Short summary presented on Monticello's existing ordinance.
B. Testimony received from interested parties.
C. Planning Commission discussion on alternatives as mentioned in possible
action below.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Planning Commission may wish to consider the following
alternatives:
Study the matter further.
B. Recommend Ordinance remain exactly as is.
C. Recommend that the ordinance be amended (if the ordi-
nance is to be amended, it is necessary that the Planning
Commission hold a hearing on any proposed changes.
REFERENCES: March 17, 1980 letter by Dean Hanson, Essay on Billboard Control,
and other letters are available at the Monticello City Hall that
have been submitted by Dean Hanson and White Advertising Company.
5. Consideration of Variance Application and Extension of Conditional Use
Permit for Administrative Office Addition - ISD #882.
ISD 0882 has made an application to add an administrative wing onto the
west end of the existing Junior/Senior High School. This addition must
be made as an extension of a previously granted conditional use permit, since
the building is located in an R-2 zone where schools are treated as condi-
tional uses.
The addition of this building does not require that any additional parking
be provided, because by applying the present ordinance requirements to the
respective Junior High and Senior High populations and number of total
classrooms, only 103 spaces would be required, and there are presently over
250 spaces provided, in addition to the proposed ten new spaces.
The ten proposed new spaces, however, require a variance, since parking f/
in a front or side yard in an R-2 zone is prohibited otherwise.
One possible consideration in granting this variance and conditional use Y
could be that the school require all employees and students to park on
the provided off-street parking, since there is more than adequate space,
and thereby relieve parking congestion on the streets by the School.
APPLICANT: Independent School District #882
REFERENCLS: Map depicting area and site plan.
CONSIDERATION: Recommendation of approval or denial of the variance and
conditional use requests. r
- 4 - , S' 5�,.,
Planning Commission - 4/8/80
6. Consideration of a Variance from Sideyard Setbacks and Minimum Lot Size
u Requirements and Request for Subdivision of Property - David Munson.
Mr. David Munson, who has purchased Lot 2, Block 11, except the West 4',
has made a request for a simple subdivision of lots. Because of the 4'
of the West side, the lot is short, the lot is now only 62' wide rather
than the W as was platted. The square footage of the lot is 10,230.
Mr. Munson's request is to subdivide that lot into two parcels, one which
would be 58' x 62' with 3,596 square feet of property, and one which
would be 107' x 62', which would be 6,634 square feet of property. Both
of these lots would then be less than our present ordinance requires in
an R-3 zone. One lot would be only 36% of what square footage is required,
and the other would be only 66% of what square footage is required.
Mr. Munson has also requested that he be granted a variance to add 10'
to the west side of the existing home on the 58' x 62' lot (the south lot)
which would bring him within 8' of the west property line, which should
be a 20' setback according to ordinance.
Also, Mr. Munson would, if the subdivision is granted, like to build
a duplex on the north lot (107' x 62'). This would require a variance
because that lot would be only 6,634 square feet, as opposed to the
10,000 square foot requirement in an R-3 zone (for single family or
duplex construction).
It appears as though this proposal requires some considerable variances
as to square footage, but Mr. Munson is rather eager to pursue his request.
✓
APPLICANT: David Munson
REFERENCES: Map depicting the lot and a site plan.
CONSIDERATION: Recommendation of approval or denial of this request. �► 5
//�1
'�.
Consideration of a Variance Request from Parking Ordinance Require-
ments - Kelly Driscoll.
/
Mr. Driscoll is considering opening a bicycle sales and service store on
Lot 10, Block 16, Original Plat (Zoned B-4) and would like a variance
from Monticello's curbing and hardsurfaced parking requirements. \'9
Since he would only be leasing the property, rather than own it, and
because he is not completely sure of the Monticello market, he has
asked that the City consider allowing him to open for a year, as an
example, to find out about business in Monticello, and at the end of
that period, review whether or not he could put in those required
improvements, or make whatever other arrangements might become necessary.
v
5-
Commission - 4/8/80
�n terms of number of spaces, Mr. Driscoll meets the parking ordinance
and additionally, there are sufficient trees to cover the landscaping
t'' equirement.
1' Additionally, possibly the fact that there is a residential use in the
existing house, it might be considered for a variance to allow a business
on the same single parcel of property. L
APPLICANT: Kelly Driscoll n �►7
REFERENCES: Map depicting the area. l
CONSIDERATION: Recommending approval or denial of this request �✓ 1(
� i v+
B. Consideration of a Rear Yard Variance Request - Mel Wolters.
Mel Wolters, who is proposing to build an office building on Lots 9 6 10,
Block 5 (zoned B-3) would like a variance to build within 10' of the rear
property line as is shown on his proposed site plan for that property.
Normally, a 30' setback would be required, but in order to meet the
parking requirements, and better use the property, Mr. Wolters has
submitted this proposal.
One item worth your consideration would be that although this proposal
shows all the parking designed for standard sized cars, that a recom-
mendation for considering allowing up to 50% parking for compact cars be
sent along with this request, if recommended, to the Council, as was
suggested by our City Planner. The planner had previously recommended
that a 25% consideration for compacts be used, but with the rapid increase
in number of compact cars, they now recommend we consider allowing 50%
for compacts, which would allow for more spaces and better use of our
lots as the amount of compacts increases and standard sized vehicles
is reduced. For your information, this item of allowing a certain percent
of required parking spaces to compact is an item which will be addressed
as an ordinance amendment in the future.
APPLICANT: Mel Wolters
REFERENCES: Map depicting the area and enclosed site plan.
CONSIDERATION: Recommend approval or denial of this request.
-6-
,7
TO THE E CITY COUNC I L
Re: Request for Re -zoning
Reasoning behind the request;
I. Subject property is located in a neighborhood that does not lend
Itself to a single family residential zoning, because of thy.
proximity of the NSP shop and the Bridgewater Telephone Company yarJ.
2. An apartment complex would act as a buffer between the industrial
property located to the cast and south and the residential property
to the west of the subject. The railroad tracks and Pinewood
M ementa ry School lies to the north.
1. There is a good demand for apartments in the city, and this demand
Is expected to be increased in the future with the interest rates
rising to a point whereby it is impossible fur many potential buyers
of single family homes to qualify for mortgages, thereby forcing them
into the rental market.
3