Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 04-20-1980AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 20, 1980 f L. 1. Minutes of Special Meeting - April 28, 1990. S$� ON a t L&C' 2. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit - Marcella Corrow. 3. Public Hearing - Considering Ordinance Amendment to Allow Consignment Auction Sales and/or Auction Sales Facility within a B-3 Zone. 4. Public Hearing - Conditional Use for an Auction Sales Facility - Robert Davis. 5. Consideration of a Variance - Robert Davis. 6. Consideration of a Simple Subdivision - Kenneth Larson. -- 7. Consideration of a Variance to Move a House within the City Limits which is Over 25 Years Old - Monticello -Big Lake Hospital. 8. Consideration of a Variance for a Zero Lot Line Duplex - Quintin Lanners. 9. Possible Discussion of Sign Ordinance Amendment Recommendations from John Uhan. V Li� PLANNING COMMISSION - 5/20/80 AGENDA SUPPLE14ENT 1. Review of Minutes of Special Meeting - April 28, 1980 at 5:00 P.M 2. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit - Marcella ' �r Corrow. W" ;94k Ay 44- C--Aft- Upon completion of the transfer of the Oakwood School property to the City of Monticello and vacation by the School District, most likely the Oakwood School building will be coming down. At that time, it will be 0 0� necessary for the ABC Day Care Center to 1 ovate elsewhere. Marcella Corrow, representing the ABC Day Care Center, has made an appli `,'►b`wcjcation for a conditional use to allow that Day Care facility to be moved �e �t into the present-day First Baptist Church on West Broadway in Monticell IM 0'. L� / 0 �a< According to Monticello ordinances, a :lay care and/or group nursery that 31 1v v `� caresfor more than five children during any day may be allowed as a lv�� conditional use in an R -a zone, provided certain criteria is met. it �l f appears as though that criteria would be met in the Baptist Church propert ° 0 One of the concerns would be the off-street parking, and that could quite LO 9� easily be remedied since it only requires four parking spaces. As fardpi as building code requirements go, there would be some changes required within the building in order to allow that facility to be used as a day 0 care center; however, those problems could be resolved. A sign would be allowed, provided the square footage of that sign did not exceed 18 square feet, and if the sign were freestanding and its height were P�1 not more than 8 feet. *POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this conditional \ Q use request. S 74rd'-901 REFERENCES: Enclosed map depicting area. -'io ``FAQ r \ APPLICANT: Marcella Corrow, ABL Day Care Center. ���• d.4.1 Litt,- S I Public Hearing - Considering Ordinance Amendment to Allow Consignment Auction Sales and/or Auction Sales Facili ty within a B-3 Zone. P -Y Possibly, the City of Monticello should consider amending the ordinances in the B-3 zone to allow a consignment au etion sales and/or auction sales facility as a conditional use. Some items for consideration for that conditional use might include the following: The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and �� site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distaneeof the lot. * Y/f , j'1'4 ,0L 4"-� . i - 1'�aY v t 1, PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA - 5/20/80 / At the boundaries of residential districts, a strip of not less than 5' 5:5shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Ordinance Section 10-3-2(G) of this Ordinance. C. Any light standard islands and all islands in the parking lot shall be �landscaped or covered. f u.> / Parking areas shall be screened from view of abutting residential ��/ districts in compliance with Ordinance Section 10-3-2-(G) of this Ordinance. E. Parking areas and driveways shall comply with Monticello Ordinance 10-3-5-(D). F. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict through traffic movements, shall comply with Ordinance Section 10-3-5 of this Ordinance, and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the public right-of-way or from an abutting residence, and shall be in compliance with Section 10-3-2-(H) of this ordinance. H. The entire area shall have drainage system which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 1. All signing and information or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with Ordinance Section 10-3-9. J. The provisions of Ordinance Section 10-22-1-(E) of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 2K All All conditions pertaining to a specific site are subject to change when ✓ the Council, upon investigation in relation to a formal request, finds that the general welfare and public betterment can be served as well or better by modifying the conditions. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or abutting residential districts in compliance with Section 10-3-2-(G) of this ordinance. 6M. "Outside sales connected with the principal use is limited to 30% of the gross floor area of the principal use building. This percentage may he increased as a condition of the conditional use permit. Outside sales areas may not take up parking space as required for conformity to the Ordinance requirement. 0 No pets or livestock may be sold at this auction sales facility. P Provisions must be made to control and reduce noise when adjacent to a residential zoning district. Q, All outside store e. shall be effectively screened from public view in accordance -with -Monticello Ordinance Section 10-3.2-(G), and limited to 108 of the gross floor area of the principal use building. - 2 . PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA - 5/20/80 Should we amend our ordinance to allow auction sales and consignment auction sales as a conditional use, one item that should be taken into consideration is our ordinance Section 10-3-5-(H)-22, which presently says that skating rinks, dance halls or public auction houses should have two offstreet parking spaces plus one additional offstreet parking space for each addi- tional 200 square feet of floor space over 2,000 square feet. The concern there would be that a building of 2,400 square feet would only need 21 parking spaces when the occupant load in that building could possibly be as high as 162 persons. Quite possibly, in a case such as an auction house, one should consider that the occupant load allowed in a building like that is one person for each 15 square feet. Using that formula, in a 2,400 square foot building, the occupant load could be 162 people, and if that figure were divided by - 2.5 - , which is the average number of persons that arrive at a location in an automobile, that would more accurately reflect the number of parking spaces that would be required. Also to be taken into consideration should be, if outdoor sales are going to be held, an adjustment should be made up- ward to accommodate those additional parking spaces which might accommodate more individuals at an outside sales area. You may want to note that this item of an ordinance amendment was prompted at the request of Mr. Robert Davis, who will be applying for a conditional use and a variance under items "4" and "5" below, so that he may be permitted to establish an auction facility at his residence which is located across Oakwood Drive from Heskins Electric in the Oakwood Industrial Park. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending this ordinance amendment for approval. 4. Public Hearing - Conditional Use for an Auction Sales Facility - Robert Davis. Bob Davis, who owns the property across the street to the west of Heskins Electric on Oakwood Drive, has made an application for a conditional use so that he may establish an auction sales facility of the type that is proposed as an ordinance amendment in item "3" above. At this point, Mr. Davis has a large building on that property which would facilitate the type of business which he is hoping to establish. He has, in fact, held a couple of auctions from that building and feels it does suit his needs. However, in order to continue as a legal use, the pro- p posed ordinance amendment in item p3 would have to be passed, and he would then have to meet the criteria set down of a conditional use. O At this point, it does appear that Mr. Davis can meet those conditions of a conditional use, with the exception of a variance that he would be applying for in the next agenda item. This item of a conditional use would be contingent upon recommending approval and passage of the ordinance amendment as described in item N3. POSSIBLE ACTION: Considering recommending denial or approval of this condi- tional use request. REFERENCES: Enclosed map depicting area. APPLICANT: Robert Davis. -3- PLANNING COMMISSION - 5/20/80 5. Consideration of a Variance - Robert Davis. Lj Bob Davis, who owns the property discussed in item p4 above, has made application for a variance from the parking lot and curbing requirements should he be allowed a conditional use to develop the auction sales faci- lity, as described in item 93, which he applied for in item q4. If the conditional use in item 94 is granted, Mr. Davis would be required to develop a parking lot. If the formula for determining the number of parking spaces required for the auction sales facility were adopted as suggested in item R3, that facility would then require 65 parking spaces for the inside sales, and if outside sales areas were developed, additional parking spaces would be required. Mr. Davis has suggested that the City consider allowing him a period of one-year or more to determine whether or not his business would be successful and worth continuing before he were required to develop a parking facility. If that consideration were given and granted, a bond in the amount of 115 times the proposed parking lot development would �k be required prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. y OSO' POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending denial or approval of this p� variance request.A0 4+ REFERENCES: Same as item i4 APPLICANT: Robert Davis 6. Consideration of a Simple Subdivision - Kenneth Larson. Ken Larson, who owns the east 51' of Lot 6, and all of Lots 7 d 8, Block 32, Lower Monticello, has made a request for a simple subdivision of that pro- perty. His proposal is to divide those three lots, which run in a north/ south direction, into two lots which run in an east/west direction. That property now contains approximately 30,000 square feet, and if the subdivi- sion were approved, it would create two lots which would be approximately 82+y' wide and 183' deep, each containing over 15,000 square feet, which does exceed the 10,000 square feet required in an R-2 zone by 11) times. At this time, no certificates of survey have been suhmitted, but it is assumed that the existing house would be at least 10' away from the newly created southerly property line of the northern lot. However, this approval could be contingent upon receipt of a certificate of survey showing that that minimum of 10' does actually exist, and if it does not exist, then another public hearing would be required. "4'60 i POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this simple subdivision request. REFERENCES: Enclosed map depicting the area of the lots. APPLICANT: Kenneth Larson M - 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION - 5/20/80 7. Consideration of a Variance to Move a House within the City Limits which J is Over 25 Years Old - Monti cello-Biq Lake Hospital. Monticello -Big Lake Hospital has made application to move the house that sets directly east of the Hospital to the South lot which Ken Larson is proposing to make a simple subdivision of in the previous item q6. Because that house is existing presently on one lot in the City and is proposed to be moved, a publ is hearing must be held. That house could be moved onto that proposed lot without requiring any further variances at this time. Since the house will be moved to a new lot, at that time, any deficiencies in the buil ding code requirements would have to be met. P " d The proposed move would be necessary to facilitate that lot where the �Qf house presently sets possibly available for a new clinic, which is being considered for that area. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this request. REFERENCES: Enclosed map depicting area from which house will be moved and enclosed map depicting the area where the house is proposed to be moved, and picture of that dwelling which was taken from the May 15th issue of the Monticello Times., APPLICANT: Monticello -Big Lake Hospital. j 5'W ell 8. Consideration of a Variance for a zero Lot Line Duplex - Quintin Lanners. Quintin Lanners has made an application for a variance to build a zero lot line duplex on the south 1/4 of Lot 3 and the souti 1/2 of Lots 4 8 5, Block 38, Lower Monticello. That property contains approximately 13,600 square feet, and is zoned R-2. If the subdivision and lot size were approved, basically, a duplex would sit on a 13,600 square foot lot. However, that one building would be owned by two individual people who would also own approximately 6,800 square 1� feet of that total 13,600 square foot lot. The difference in this situation where a duplex sits on a large lot that is divided into two smaller lots is that, even though the 6,800 square foot lot is all that one property owner may own, his dwelling setting directly against his neighbors dwelling would make one individual dwelling that sets on a lot of 13,600 square feet, and those two units, as a duplex, would be the same as one building on a large lot. in this case, that lot would be approximately 3,600 square feet larger in total than would be required In an R-2 zone. in order for this type of dwelling to be built, a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (copy of which is enclosed) would be required and would be recorded along with the property. Those covenants and descriptions are for the purpose of protecting the value and desirability of that real estate, and all parties having any interest in the described property, and the covenants would be upon the property and would continue with each indivi- dual new owner in the future. Items discussed in those covenants are such as garbage and refuse removal, and who shall be responsible. It states that no pets other than common household pets may be kept on the property, and that they may not be kept for commercial purposes. It states who would share in - 5 - ti PLANNING COMMISSION - 5/20/80 the repair and maintenance expenses and deals with other specific topics which are pertinent to the maintenance of that property. John Uban, of Howard Dahlgren b Associates, will be at Tuesday night's meeting, and possibly, if you have any further questions on a development of this type, he would be available to answer them. He has, however, recommended that we consider passage of this request. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending denial or approval of this request. REFERENCES: Copy of the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions and plat plan showing the proposed development, and a map depicting that area in which the property is located. APPLICANT: Quintin Lanners. 9. Item for Information Only John Uban, of Howard Dahlgren b Associates, has prepared his recommendations regarding the sign ordinance, and will be mailing them out to us. If they arrive prior to Tuesday night's meeting, copies will be distributed to you individually. However, if they do not arrive prior to Tuesday night's meeting, they will be given to you at the meeting, and you may want to discuss them at the meeting or postpone any discussion until a further meeting. -6- ut MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 8, 1980 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Dave Bauer, Ed Schaffer, John Bondhus. Dick Martie (came at 7:45) Loren Klein, ex -officio. 1. Review of Minutes. Motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Dave Bauer and unanimously carried to approve the Minutes of the March 18, 1980 Planning Commission Meeting. 2. Explanation of the 4/5's Vote Policy. Gary Wieber explained the policy the Council has on a 4/5's vote for items of variances and conditional uses. That policy is that if a variance or conditional use comes before the Council and not 100% of the members are going to be in attendance at the meeting where the 4/5's vote of the entire Council is required, that person has the option of bringing their variance or conditional use up a later meeting when the entire Council - that is all five members - would be available to vote. 3. Public (tearing - Conditional Use Permit for a Tire Shop - Jay Morrell. t1 Jay Morrell, owner of the Stor-A-Way building on south ilighway 25, would like to turn a portion of that building into a tire shop which required a condi- tional use permit. In the redevelopment of that property, he is proposing to extend the hard - 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 t,e. He plans to provide adequate off-street parking. However, on the south side and west end of the new concrete parking area to I>e created, he requested permission to eliminate the perimeter curb and place additional Class 5 or gravel for overflow parking, which required a variance. There was no public comment - either pro or con - and Jay Morrell had no uhjection to reviewing the elimination of curbing and hardsurface requirement at the end of d three-year period. On a motion by Ed Schaffer and seconded by Dave Bauer, it was unanimously recommended to allow the variance from the curbing and hardsurfacing requirements and to grant the conditional use for the Lire Shop, and that in three years, the hardsurfacing and curbing require- ment, be reviewed for possible Installation at that time. 4. Puhlic_Hearing _Conditional Use Permit for a__P_ar_k_iaLot-in_a_Planned lt_nit_ Development - McDonald's. McDonald's have requested a conditional use hearing for the development stage o1 the third parcel of land in the i-94 Tri -Plaza, or Parcel "A". It is the intentionof McDonald's to develop Parcel "A" into an overload flow area for their present eating facility locatod on Parcel "B" of the 1-94 Tri -Plaza. Because Lhi; lot is within a Planned Unit Development (PUD) it is necessary to hold d public hearing on a conditional use permit whenever development occurs on that parcel. In their proposal for development, McDonalds have requested that landscaping, at least not 100' of the landscaping, or $1,500 which is required by ordinance, be considered not necessary by the granting of a variance. A couple of additional items which were addressed were signs for directing traffic flow and lighting on the new parking facility. Al Inde, a repre- sentative of the McDonald's company, said that definitely signs would be installed to direct traffic flow and lighting would be installed in the new parking lot which would be consistent with that which is presently used at the McDonald's facility. Mr. Inde indicated that if the variance on the landscaping were granted now, that only sod would be put in and that land- scaping would still be coming, but at a later date. Mr. Inde was asked if he would be willing to bond for the landscaping that would be put in at a later date, and he indicated that he would be willing to post the ;2,250 bond. On a motion by Dick Martie and seconded by Ed Schaffer, it was unanimously approved to recommend approval of the conditional use permit and approval of the variance for the landscaping as requested. 4. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Rezoning Request - Harold Ruff. Harold Ruff has requested that rezoning of a certain parcel of land be made from R-1 to R-3. The parcel of land is that which lies between County Road 39 and the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks, lying east of Kampa Estates and west of the existing NSP maintenance building. That parcel contains approxi- mately 3.94 acres. Mr. Jack Maxwell, of Maxwell Realty, representing the purchaser of that property who has a purchase agreement contingent upon rezoning, stated that he had the following reasons why lie felt that property should be rezoned: A. Subject property is located in a neighborhood that does not lend itself to a single family residential zoning, because of the proximity of the NSP shop and the Bridgewater Telephone Company yard. B. An apartment complex would act as a buffer between the industrial property located to the east and south and the residential property to the west of the subject. The railroad tracks and Pinewood Elementary School lies to the north. C. 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 for many potential buyers of single family homes to qualify for mortgages, thereby forcing them into the rental market. A motion by nave Bauer, seconded by Ed Schaffer to recommend rezoning was unanimously approved. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4/8/80 5. Public informational Meeting on the Monticello Sign Ordinance. ij� Theu p rpose of this item was to review the Monticello sign ordinance as a result of a request by the Monticello City Council. Of immediate concern is the Monticello ordinance provision that requires that all non -conforming signs, including billboards, flashing lights, rotating signs and signs that may be too large, or too many signs, etc., be brought into conformance by August 21, 1980, which is the termination date granted after a five-year amortization period when the present City ordinances were adopted on August 21, 1975. One issue that the Planning Commission was made 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. The meeting was open to the public for comments, at which time the various individuals spoke. Al Joyner, who felt that directional signs are necessary in some form so that people can find their way to a particular location they want to be at. Roman Brauch, board representative of the Monticello Country Club, spoke and felt that directional signs were necessary for the same reasons as Mr. Al Joyner in the previous comment. Bill Seefeldt, who owns property on I-94 and also Electro Industries, felt that 4 the intent of our ordinances is good. However, he also suggested as the pre- vious two individuals that off -premise directional signs are necessary. Mr. Seefeldt felt that advertising and individual informational signs should be handled separately, Wayne Hoglund, representing the Hoglund Bus Company, felt that a pylon sign for each product line that a company handles would be favorable in the form of a freeway sign. Jim Franklin, of the Ben Franklin Sign Company, who has no billboard signs in Monticello because of our present ordinance which would not allow him to build them, would like to see the City adopt the sign ordinance pulicy that the State has, which would allow billboard advertising within the City of Monticello. Mel Wolters, who has had problems with the size of signs in the past at his Dairy Queen facility, stated that whatever is dons, he hopes that a lot of consideration is given and good information is taken before the ordinance is altered or a new one is established. Tom Brennan, who owns 1,800 feet along 1-94 within the City Limits of Monti- cello, encourages the permission to use billboard advertising along that corridor, and felt that it does not devalue anyone's property by having signs there. M - 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4/8/80 Vance Florell, of the Freeway Standard and Vance's Standard downtown, feels that billboard and off -premise advertising along the major highway corridors are essential to business and cited an example of how his business increased in the Monticello community because of billboard and off -premise advertising that he has done. Bob Fousek feels that advertising and promotional signs should be allowed. He feels that they are an asset to his business. After discussion among the Planning Commission members with those who had given testimony and among themselves on a motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Dave Bauer, it was unanimously approved to table the matter for further study. 6. Consideration of a Variance Application and Extension of a Conditional Use Permit for an Administrative Office Addition for Independent School District #882. independent School District 9882 has made an application to add an adminis- trative wing onto the west end of the existing Junior/Sr. High School. This addition must be made as an extension of a previously granted conditional use since the building is located in an R-2 zone, where schools are treated as a conditional use. The addition of this administrative wing does not require that any additional parking spaces be provided, however, because by applying the present ordi- nance requirements to the respective Jr. and Sr. High populations and the 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 pruposed new spaces, however, require a variance since parking in a front yard or side yard in an R-2 zone is prohibited otherwise. One item of concern of the Planning Commission members was that with all of the present parking available on the school grounds, the number of students and employees who do not utilize that parking but park along Washington Street. Mr. Shelly Johnson, superintendent of schools, indicated that he is working to correct that situation and thereby hoping to relieve the parking congestion on the street. Mr. Art Dorn, who lives across Washington Street to the west of the Jr. Sr. High School, questionned whether or not it was necessary for those students and employees to park on Washington Street, and requested that the Planning Commission require that they park in the school's parking lot facilities rather than on Washington Street. A motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by John Bondhus and was unanimously approved to recommend the granting of the extension of the Conditional Use and to grant the variance necessary for development of the parking lot in the side yard. 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 4/13/80 7. Consideration of a Variance from Sideyard Setbacks and Minimum Lot Size V Requirements and Request for Subdivision of Property - David Munson. K] Mr. David Munson, who has purchased Lot 2, Block 11, has made a request for a simple subdivision of lots. Because of the 4' of the west side of Lot 2 having been sold off to the abutting neighbor, the lot is now only 62' wide rather than the 66' as was platted. The square footage of the lot is 10,230'. Mr. Munson's request was to subdivide that lot into two parcels, one of 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 35% 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, which is the southerly lot of the proposed two new lots, which would bring him within 8' of the west property line, which should be a 20' setback according to the ordinance. Also, Mr. Munson would, if the subdivision is granted, like to build a duplex on the 107' x 62' north portion of the lot. This would require a variance because that lot would be only 6,634 square feet, as opposed to 10,000 square foot requirement in an R-3 zone. Because of the extensive amount of variance from the lot size requirements, Ed Schaffer made a motion, seconded by Dick Martie to deny all of the variance requests with all voting in favor to recommend that denial. B. Consideration of a Variance Request from Parking Ordinance Requirements - Kelly Driscoll. Mr. Driscoll is considering opening a bicycle sales and service store on Lot 10, Block 6, Original Plat, which is zoned B-4 and would like a variance from Monticello's curbing and harasurfacing parking requirements. Since he would only he leasing the property rather than owning 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 tie could put in those required improvements or make whatever arrangements might become necessary. In terms of the number of parking spaces, that property meets the parking ordinance in area and additionally, there are sufficient trees to cover the landscaping requirement. A motion was made by Dave Bauer, seconded by Ed Schaffer to recommeng granting the variance, contingent upon Mr. Driscoll coming bacl at the end of a one-year period to review his variance request again. All voted in favor. - 5 - PLANNING COMMISSIOii MINUTES - 4/8/80 9. Consideration of a Rear Yard Variance Request - Mel Wolters. Mr. Mel Wolters, who is proposing to build an office building on Lots 9 8 10, Block 5, which is zoned B-3, would like a variance to build within 10' of the rear property line where a normal 30' setback would be required. However, in order to meet better parking requirements and to better utilize the property, Mr. Wolters has submitted his proposal for the variance. One item that was considered was allowing up to 50% of the parking spaces to be for compact cars, as was also suggested by our City Planner. The Planner had previously recommended that a 25% consideration for compact cars be used, but with the rapid increase in the number of compact cars, the Planner now recommends we consider allowing 50% of the parking spaces for compacts, which would allow for more spaces and better use of our lots as the amount of compact cars increase and the standard size vehicles is reduced. Mr. Wolters also stated that he would like the variance from the setback because of the terrain of the property, the building could then be used as a part of the retaining wall, which would be necessary in order to develop that property. A motion by Dick Martie, seconded by John Bondhus was unanimously approved to recommend a 20' rearyard variance. 10. Miscellaneous. Several members of the youth hockey association were present to request that the City consider an ordinance which would allow temporary various types of sales in which the local youth hockey organization could raise money to fund the youth hockey program. This request was prompted because the youth hockey was selling fertilizer out of the back of a pickup on a vacant lot on the corner of 3rd and Pine, and was stopped from making those sales because our present ordinance does not allow that type of sale. After some discussion, the Plan- ning Commission voted not to take any action at this time but to further study the matter. Mee'[ ing Adjourned. Loren 0.—Klein Zoning Administrator & Building Official I. Di:/ns - 6 - v fl t;dJ 7 ,� t .'j ,�1�'r ••.-..• `f b,r� •Jar :; �-.•!I f j s + , ~r.•... '" •�~,. �.J(1r a ((h•,0 ^+J(}(�/twat _. �Vt �:%�; � : �•Jtr; f.' '�"'� ° •� t`,ay,`., '�'1 �. off 't � ' .*�' � ,,.- • 111 {` � ltsr•.,,.P "y HIGHWAY EPE�t� !...ili?r�-n.'_'�� PE�111 11artYRl0.NtE5 ` ppHptS14N bb — pNptZtpb��51timPin9 6 t G filo .._ IsHeITISITATNTEleXeM BOX 23C STAR ROUTE ■ MERRIFIELD. MINNESOTA 56465 ■ TELEPHONE12181765.3111 i Apt�f/yE� ofApril 14, 1980 V t - WINKELMAN ENTERPRISES, INC Attn: Duane Schultz/Keith Schupp PO Box 1144 St Cloud, Minnesota 56301 TO: CITY OF MONTICELLO SUBJECT: Parking Spaces - Proposed Clow Stamping New Facility It is our understanding that the City Building Code of Monticello states that we need 64 parking spaces. We at Clow Stamping Company have three shifts, two during the week and one which is the week- end shift. Operating in the fashion that we have at present, a maximum of 25 people are at the plant at any one time and estimate a maximum of 40 people at the plant at acy one time before expanding the building. We do not feel any additional parking is beneficial to this Company or the building project in view of the high building and maintenance cost. We do have future parking space designated should the space be needed for expansion. We respectfully ask a variance from this ordinance to 48 spaces. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated in this matter. Respectfully yours, CLOW STOTING COMPANY INC Stephen Paumen Director of Operations SP:klf