Planning Commission Agenda Packet 06-10-1980AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 10, 1980 - 7:30 P. M.
Members: Jim Ridgeway, Dave Bauer, John Bondhus, Dick Martie, Ed Schaffer.
Loren Klein (ex -officio)
1. Review of Minutes - 5/20/80 Regular Meeting.
2. Public Hearing - Monticello Sign Ordinance.
3. Public Hearing - Proposed Ordinance Amendment to Allow a Day Care
Facility within an R-2 Zone as a Conditional Use.
4. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment to Allow Duplexes in R-2 Zones
to be Owned by Two Separate individuals.
5. Public Hearing - Subdivision, Rezoning and Conditional Use Request -
Quintin Lanners.
6. Review of the Home Occupation's Ordinance.
7. Discussion of Lawful, Non -Conforming Uses within Certain Zoning Districts.
8. Discussion - Letter from Department of Interior on "Monticello Island".
v
MI NOTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 20, 1980 - 1: 30 P. M.
Members Pres ent: Jim Ridgeway, John Bondhus, Dick Martie. Loren Klein (ex- officio).
Members Absent: Dave Bauer, Ed Schaffer.
1. Approval of Minutes.
A motion was made by John Bondhus, seconded by Dick Martie to approve the
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission on April 28,
1980. The vote was unanimous.
2. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit - Marcella
Corrow - AUC Day Care Center.
Marcella Corrow, representing the ABC Day Care Center, was present and
made an application for a conditional use to allow that day care facility
to be moved into the present day "First Baptis t Church" on West Broadway
in Monticello .
Two items of concern were - does the building meet the building code require-
ments and does the building and the property meet the zoning requirements.
Although, in both cases of concern there were some items which would need
improvement, both items could be improved to meet the present requirements,
and thus , a motion was made by John Bondhus, seconded by Dick Martie to
recommend approval of the conditional use. Al 1 voted in favor.
3. Public (fearing - Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment to Allow a Consign-
ment Auction Sales and/or Auction Sales racili tv within a B-3 Tone.
This item was for the consideration of amending the ordinances to allow a
consignment auction sales and/or auction sales facility within a 0-3 zone.
Several items were presented as part of the agenda supplement, which should
be considered as part of the ordinance amendment, which would allow that
type of facility. Also considered was amending the present parking lot
requirement for that type of facility. The concern there would he that a
building of 2.400 square feet would only need 21 parking spaces when the
occupany load in that building could quite possibly be as high as 162 persons
under the present parking lot requirement. One consideration which was taken
was that the occupant load allowed in a buildi ng of that size is that one
person be allowed for each 15 square feet, or as that which is determined by
the building code. 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 who arr ive at a location in do auto-
mobile, that would more accurately reflect the number of parking spaces that
would be required. Also taken into consideration were - if outdoor sales
PLANi COMMISSION MINUTES - 5/20/80
are going to be held, an adjustment should be made upward to accommodate
those additional parking spaces which might accommodate more individuals
at an outside sales area.
A motion was made by Dick Martie and seconded by John Bondhus to recommend
approval of the ordinance amendment, and also, to amend ordinance section
10-3-5-(H)-(22) to state that the number of spaces required for parking would
be determined by using the building code to determine the maximum occupant
load, and then divide the occupant load by 2.5, which would be the number of
spaces required. That passed with unanimous approval.
4. Public Hearinq - Conditional Use for an Auction Sales Facility - Robert Davis.
Robert Davis, who owns the property across the street to the west of Heskins
Electric on Oakwood Drive, made an application for a conditional use so that
he may establish an auction sales facility at that location. Mr. Davis has
a large building on that property which facilitates the type of business
which he is hoping to establish. He has, in fact, held a couple of auctions
from that building and feels that it does suit his needs. However, in order
for him to continue his auction sales facility as a legal use, the ordinance
amendment as proposed in item 3 above would have to be passed, and also,
his conditional use application would have to be passed.
It appeared that Mr. Davis could meet those conditions of the conditional
use which was proposed, with an exception of a variance which he would be
applying for in the next agenda item. With a motion by John Rondhus and
second by Dick Martie, it was recommended to approve the conditional use
application provided that Mr. Davis meet also the condition of the variance
which is dealt with in the next agenda item. All voted in favor of approval.
5. Consideration of a Variance - Robert Davis.
Robert Davis, who owns the property discussed in item 04 above, made an
application for a variance from the parking lot and curbing requirements
should he be allowed a conditional use to develop the auction sales
facility as was described in item 03 and which he applied for in item ®4.
If the conditional use in item 04 was 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 p3, that facility would then require 65 parking spaces for
the inside sales, and if outside sales were developed, additional parking
spaces would be required.
Mr. Davis 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 lot.
If that consideration were given and granted, a bond in the amount of ly
times the proposed parking lot development amount was discussed. On a motion
by John Bondhus, seconded by Dick Martie, it was recommended to approve that
variance request, provided that Mr. Davis frond for 1� times the proposed parking
lot development, which would then have to be installed within a period of one
year should the husiness be continued for that length of time. All voted in favor.
- 2 -
PLANNING COMM. MINUTES - 5/20/80
6. Consideration of a Simple Subdivision - Kenneth Larson.
Ken Larson, who owns the east 51' of Lot 6 and all of Lots 7 8 8, Block 32,
Lower Monticello, made a request for a simple subdivision of that property.
His proposal was to divide these three lots, which run in a north/south
direction, into two lots which run in an east/west direction. That
property contains approximately 30,000 square feet total, and if the
subdivision were approved, it would create two lots which would be approxi-
mately 8215' wide and 183' deep, each containing over 15,000 square feet,
which does exceed the 1 0,000 square foot requirement in an R-2 zone by
1�; times.
At the time the Planning Commission met, no certificate of survey had
been submitted, but it was assummed that the existing house would be at
least 10' away from the newly created southerly property line of the
northern lot. On a motion by Dick Martie and seconded by John Bondhus,
it was recommended to approve this simple subdivision provided that a
certificate of survey were submitted and no variances would be required in
allowing the new property line change. All voted in favor.
7. Consideration of a Variance to Move a House within the City Limits which
is Over 25 Years Old - Monticello -Din Lake Hospital.
This item was requested to be postponed until the June 10, 1980 meeting
at the request of the Monticello -Dig Lake, Hospital.
S. Consideration of a Variance for a Zero Lot Line Duplex - Quintin Lanners.
Quintin Lanners made an application for a variance to build a zero lot
line duplex on the south 1. of Lot 3 and the south ', of Lots 4 h 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 13,600 square feet of property. However, that one building would be owned
by two separate individuals, who would also own apl3roximately 6,800 square
feet of that total 13,600 square foot lot. The difference in this situation
where a duplex sits on a large lots that is divided into two smaller lots
is that, even though the 6,800 square foot lot is all that one property owner
will own, his dwelling sitting directly against his neighbors dwelling would
make one individual dwelling, or duplex, that sets on a 13,600 square foot
lot and 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 he
required in an R-2 zone.
John Uban, of Howard Dahlgren Associates, was present at the meeting and
recommended that we consider this item for approval. A motion was made by
Dick Martie, seconded by John Bondhus and all voted in favor of this request.
3-
PLANNING COMM. MIN. - 5/20/80
9. Continued Review of Monticello Siqn Ordinance.
John Uban, of Howard Dahlgren Associates, presented the Planning Commission
with the possible sign ordinance amendments to allow off -premise signs as
presented by the Howard Dahlgren Company. This item was discussed with
Mr. Uban in some detail at the meeting, and it was determined to hold a
public hearing for possible sign ordinance amendments at the regular
Planning Commission Meeting at 7:30 P.M. on June 10, 1980.
A motion was made by Dick Iiartie, seconded by John 8ondhus and unanimously
carried to adjourn.
Loren(� �Lr. l 1. 13�'•.�! 1�1A.
Loren Klein
Zoning Administrator
LDK/ns
- 4 .
V
HOWARD DAHLORE N ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING PLaCNNER)8
ONE O P O V r L! ti 0 i C — C C
,..ANNE -0l.5, --501-
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 29 .May 1980
TO: Monticello City Council and Planning Commission
FROM: C. John Uban
RE: Sign Ordinance Amendments Allowing Existing Billboards tri
Remain as a Hon -Conforming Use
Based on our discussion at the 19 May 1980 Planning Commission meeting,
we have prepared an additional alternative method for amending the Sign
Ordinance which is presented following for consideration in addition to
those discussed in our memo dated 20 May 1980. Basically, the F+roposal
as described in thkametno, would allow existing billboards to rcmain an
non -conforming uses until such time as the Int upon which the sign in
located is subdivided, developed, or sold.
The proposed amendment would allow property owners and sign companien
t110 opportunity to continue to use their nxistinq billboards until such
time as they proposed to use the land more. intensively. This amendment
should also help prevent non-eonforminq hiIlhoards from beinq pc'rlMtunted
indefinitely.
The prol-ned amendment in tied to the fact that the billboard i r- the
principal use of tlto lot of record. Becaune of this fact, we hrmvn also
looked at the existing definitions to see if they are reasonably clear
and accurnte with respoct to the proponc•d revision. It appears that
the oxi!-Llnq definitions are adequate to prevent undue cnnfusinn III
interpreting the proposed revision. The applicable definttiono are
shown balnwl
Structure. Anything which in built, runes rutted, uI ererte, it
nn cdifico or 1::Iulldin9 of say kinds or any piece of work
artiflcally built up and/or composed of pat ttI jein.11 tcgethr•r
in nome dofinitemannnr whether temlv+rary +)t potmanent In
character.
Advntltning Sir7n. A billboard, pontet 1.1tt••1 I.+at+l, Imint-i
bulletin I~td , or other comiriuntcative device whirh in urod
to ndvertine pro1luctn, goodn, and/or Iwlvicen whirh ate nrlt
exclunively rvinted to the premino on which tho nlnn In
locat m1.
r�
MFI40RANDUM
RE: Sign Ordinance Amendments Page Two
WA
Principal Use. The main use of land or buildings as distinguished
from subordinate or accessory uses. A "principal use" may be
either permitted or conditional.
Accessory Building or Use. A subordinate building or use
which is located on the same lot on which the main building or
use is situated and which is reasonably necessary and incidental
to the conduct of the primary use of such building or main use.
Following then, is the proposed revision to the advertising signs
section under Prohibited Signs in Section 10-3-9 of the Zoning Ordinance.
This relatively minor revision would handle billboards in the manner
discussed at the 19 May meeting.
Also attached is a draft copy of an agreement form between the City of
Monticello and the property and advertising siqn owners which the City
could use. This form should give the City a stronger legal standing in
the event that a property or sign owner did not want to remove the sign
when the property was sold, subdivided. or developed for another principal
use. we wuuld suggest that the forms Inc sent to the owners by certified
mail with return receipt signatures kept on file at City 11all. In this
way the City would have documentation that the property owners received
the form. Please feel free to contact us if you desire any additional _
clarification of these procedures.
MEMORANDUM
REz Sign Ordinance Amendments Page Three
10-3-9 SIGNS
(B) PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED SIGNS
1. Prohibited Signs
g. Advertising signs, except that those signs which were
in place on or before • and which
are the principal use of the lot of record as of the
above date and which have an agreement on file with the
City on or before •• in the form
so designated by the City Administrator which is signed
by the property owner and the advertising sign owner
and notarized may continue as a non -conforming use
until such time as the lot of record above is
subdivided, developed, or the ownership changes, in
which case the non-conforminq advertising sign must be
removed within ten (10) days after written notice from
the Building Inspector. (Exceptions: Bus benches or
signs which advertise non-profit organizations.)
• There are two options for an effective date. One option would be
to use the date that this amondment is passed. This would allow
all existing billboards to be "grandfathered" in under thin
provision. The other option would be to use the date of the earlier
ban on billboards which would then not allow those billbonrcln which
were put up on a temporary permit since that time.
•• We would suggest allowing thirty (30) days from the time of )wfnsagn
and official notification of the owners for them to nubmit their
signed agreement.
M9
MEMORAtIDUM
RF.: Sign Ordinance Amendments Page Four
J
-DRAFT-
ADVERTISING SIGN AGREEMENT
In accordance with the provisions of Section 10-3-9 (B) 2 (q) of the
City Code of Monticello, Minnesota as amended on
we, the owner(s) of the following described property and the advertisinq
sign located thereon have received a copy of the provisions of this
Section which read as follows:
10-3-9 SIGNS
(B) PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED SIGNS
2. Prohibited Signs
g. Advertising signs, except that those signs which
were in place on or before and
which are the principal use of the lot of record
as of the above date and which have an agreement
on file with the. City on or before
in the form so designated by the City
Administrator which is signed by the prnperty
.owner and the advertisinq siqn owner and
notarized, may continuo an a non-conformi:xt use
until such time as the lot of record above_ is
nubdivlded, developed, or the ownernhip ch.u:gen,
in which case the non -con form inq idvertininq niqn
must be removed within ton (10) days after
written notice from the Building Inspector.
(Exceptions: Bun bencher or signs which advertise
non-profit organizations.)
We furthor certify that we have read the nbove proviniona and undorntArnl
the Implications with roupeet to ndvortininq nignn located on the
followinq described proporty:
Loyal Description:
MEMORANDUM
RE: Sign Ordinance Amendments Page Five
Property Owner of Record
and Address:
Signature a
Advertising Sign Owner
and Address:
Signature a
Witnessed by Notary Public:
Received on or before:
Dyi
V
SEAL
Citv Adminintrator
HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES
�,.cow.o4•n �
CONSULTING P L A N N E n 3
ON C G a ry v C L. N O , C-- CC
wiNNC�„U.�S, war, r.[�O�• ..BOJ
MI:MORANDIIM
DATE: 22 May 1980
TO: Gary wicber, City Administrator
City of Monticello
FROM: C. John Uban
RE: Dividing of Lots Containing More Than One Dwelling Unit for
Purpuses of ownership
Per your request, we have reviewed the Zoning Ordinance with respect Lo
L110 above. The Ordinance as written implies that permitted uses and
also conditional uses in the residential zones may be sold for condominiums
provided they meet the lot area per unit requirements contained in
Section 10-1-4-01). The Zoning Ordinance requirements fur Lhe r.:ain
stiuc L]:"e would, of course, remain the same whether tine units weiu owllf•d
by one party and rented or sold to individuals as condominiums.
We tuel that the :toning Ordinance as wtitten would allow tire City to
algvove the division of lots containinq multiple unit structures In otd—,
that t', individual huusing unite could be sold. The tutal structure
containing the units would then be subject to the Zoning Ordinance
requiromentn. In affect then, the units would be built to .unl meat .IL
one or more lot lines without the typical wetbacks.
ttuwevur, it tho city desires to mote clearly address th.� in,ur of divldinq
lots of multi -unit buildings for the purl,t�wc of selling Individual unit
we would suq-lent adding sumo clarifying lanquago to the Ordinance. A
clause could be added to Section 10-3-1- which would allow cnndominlum
units to have common walls, that Is to be Built at what iw sometimcu
called a zero lot line, provided the total ntructure mouts the setback
requirements and that each unit had the lut area ruquired. Such Llngu.,gc
Could be added in a now provision (E) to Section 10-1-l- at, follows;:
(E) Lotw of multiplo houutn.l unit wta'ucturuu may
divided for the purj]ose of condominium ownerchtp
I-tovidod that the principal structure containinq
the housing units shall rivet thu setback di mancet,
of the applicable aoninq diwtrict. In addition,
MEMORANDUM
RE: Dividing of Lots containing More Than One 22 May 1980
Dwelling Unit Page Two
each condominium unit shall have the minimum lot
area for the type of housing unit and usable open
space as specified in the Area and Building Size
Regulations of this Ordinance. Such lot areas may
be controlled by an individual or joint ownership.
Please give us a call if you neoi any additional clarification.
HH
SCOTT'S Inc.
P.O. Box 728 / Grand Forks, ND 58201 / Phone (701) 775-2577
May 31, 1980
City of Monticello
P. O. Box 777
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
ATTN: Gary Wieber
Dear Sirs:
This letter is to make application for a conditional variance permit
for an indeterminate length of time. This permit will enable Scott's Inc.
to operate from a mobile office located on the Southwest corner of 1-94
and Highway 25, to the back side of the Ford Garage. Refer to enclosed
diagram.
Scott's Inc. is a truck brokerage business serving as a coordinator
between a graver of potatoes and the buyer of his product.
The potato crop grown in this area is approximately 7,000 acres, making
about 6,000 truck loads. Of this 6,000 loads only about 5 percent or leas
stay in the state of Minnesota. These potatoes are sold as far away ns:
Boston, Miami, Los Angeles, New Orleans and any point in between.
Kest of this crop Is moved in approximately 90 days because there are
only 3 or 4 farmers that have storage facilities enabling them to ship
some of their product during the winter months. Less than 2 percent of
this crop is moved by the railroad, thus making a huge demnnd for truck
transportation.
If the former sells a load of potatoes to a receiver in New York City,
this sale would depend on his being able to deliver his product. Since the
farmer has neither the time nor the basic knowledge of where to find n
truck for this job. our service becomes vital to his ourvival. 'dot only
does he need a truck, but usually the truck is needed In 1 to 2 hours
from the time of sale. Because of no storage facilitiera the pot1110e5 F.,'
directly from the harvester into a truck. If no truck is avoiloble
Quickly it could cause a hardship for the grower because of un-
productive labor. This crop must be moved before the fall freeze, and
time is of great importance. Thus the more strategically located we are
the hatter we can serve the farmers needs. With the Increased operating
coots of a truck per mile, a central location gives us the opportunity to
have an adequate supply of equipment available at all omen.
"Your Truck Broker Since 1951"
The sale of this product may also, and quite often is done by a buyer or
broker in another state quite a distance from Minnesota. Thus making our
location even more important since all these sales are made only if trans-
portation is available.
If the product can't be transported quickly, efficiently and with a
great deal of regularity the buyers will buy the product from other areas,
such as Alabama, Texas, Colorado, Michigan or Wisconsin who are shipping
the same product at the same time.
What the general public is not aware of is that this type of product
is not hauled by the Common Carrier or freight company. It is transported
by the Independent owner -operator. The knowledge of how and where to find
this person can only come from years of experience. Our company has been
in this line of business since 1952, in Grand Forks, North Dakota, and
serving your area since July, 1964. We have been at our present location
since 1972, and the facility we are presently using is a 45 fnot mobile
unit built in 1972 to our specifications for an office.
At the present time we have not been able to runt a permanent facility
in Monticello that can facilitate our needs: easy access on and off the
highway, room for from 1 to 8 trucks at a time, from 15 minutes to 1 hour.
At this time we cannot justify a permanent building of our own because of
the limited time spent in Monticello for this short shlppiug season.
Our office presently being operated from July 28th through October 20th.
These dates can vary ten days either way.
Your immediate consideration for approval of this application iu
greatly appreciated.
S1nc crcly
S tt'e Inc.
Robert Pedorson, V. Preo.
Enc.
RP:kj
J ADDITIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM:
Consideration of a Variance to Allow Scott's Inc. to Continue to Operate
a Potato Brokerage from the Monticello Ford Property.
This item is in response to a letter from Mr. Robert Pederson, of Scott's
Inc. , of Grand Forks, N.D., who operates their potato brokerage office from
a mobile home that is situated on the rear or west side of the Monticello
Ford building.
Mr. Pederson'sproposal is to be able to continue to operate their brokerage
firm from that location on the Monticello Ford property with several variances
required. They are as follows:
1. A second principal use on a particular lot.
2. No landscaping requirements.
3. No hardsurfacing requirements.
His request also was based on the operation of his business only being from
July 28 thru October 20; however, those dates can vary ten days either way .
At the present time, they feel that they cannot justify a permanent building
of their own because of the limited time spent in Monticello during that short
shipping season.
They feel that the facility they have now is able to handle their needs, which
are:
A. Easy access on and off of the highway.
B. Room for one to eight trucks at any one time, which stay from
15 minutes to an hour, or possibly longer.
In Mr. Peder son's variance request, he is asking that they be allowed a permanent
variance from these items listed. However, as a staff recommendation, it should
be considered that the building which facilitates their offices does not meet
the building code and might set a precedent for others to bring the same type
of building into the community if it were allowed as a permitted use. Also,
at the present time. there is conflict between the City and Mr. Larry Flake,
owner of the Monticello ford and the same property on which Mr. Pederson is
proposing to continue his brokerage business, over Mr. Flake parking his vehi-
cles for sale off from the hardsurfaced area onto the grassed area. If a
precedent we reallowed to be established for the Scott's potato brokerage whereby
they were not required to have hardsurfacing and possibly only class 5 or
crushed rock , possibly Mr. Flake would feel this would be more than adequate
for his needs also, and maybe a cumbersome precedent could be established.
14 It would be a staff reconnendation that if Nr. Pederson were allowed to continue
his brokerage business from the present mobile home facility, that at least his
lot should be surfaced with crushed rock or similar product to control dust.
Also, it would be a staff recommendation that rather than granting a permanent
variance, if that is what the Planning Commission chooses to recommend, that
that variance be only for a one-year period at a time with the option of
being able to come back at the end of that one-year period and discuss with
the Council again the possibility of an extension.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this variance
request.
REFERENCES: Enclosed Plat Plan and letter from Robert Pederson, V.P. of Scott's
Inc.
APPLICANT: Scott's Inc.
v
SCOTTT Ine.
P.O. Box 728 / Grand forks, ND 53201 /Phone (701)'775.2577
May 31, 1980
City of Monticello
P. 0. Box 777
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
ATTN: Gary Wieber
Penr Sirs:
This letter is to make application for a conditional variance permit
for an indeterminate length of time. This permit will enable Scott's Inc.
to operate from a mobile office located on the Southwest corner of 1-94
and Highway 25, to the back side of the Ford Garage. Refer to enclosed
diagram.
Scott's Inc. to a truck brokerage business serving as a coordinator
between a grower of potatoes and the buyer of his product.
The potato crop grown in this area to approximately 7,000 acres, making
about 6,000 truck loads. Of this 6,000 loads only nbout 5 percent or leas
stay in the state of Minnesota. These potatoes nre sold as far away as:
Boston, Miami, Los Angeles, New Orleans and any point in between.
Most of this crop is moved in approximately 90 days because there art
only 3 or 4 farmers that have storage facilities enabling them to ship
some of their product during the winter months. Less than 2 percent of
this crop is moved by the railroad, thus making a huge demand for truck
transportation.
If the farmer sells a load of potatoes to a receiver in New York City,
this sale would depend on his being able to deliver his product. Since the
farmer has neither the time nor the basic knowledge of where to find a
truck for this Job, our service becomes vital to his survival. taut only
does he need a truck, but usually the truck is needed in I to 2 hours
from the time of sale. Because of no storage facilities the potatoes 90
directly from the harvester into a truck. If no truck is available
quickly it could cause a hardship for the grower because of un-
productive labor. This crop must be moved before the fall freeze, and
time to of great importance. Thus the more strategically located we are
the better we can serve the farmers needo. With tho increased operating
costa of a truck per mile, a central location given us the opp.rrtunity to
have an adequate supply of equipment available at all times.
"Your Truck Broker Since 1951 "
The sale of this product may also, and quite often is done by a buyer or
broker in another state quite a distance from Minnesota. Thus making our
location even more important since all these sales are made only if trans—
portation is available.
If the product can't be transported quickly, efficiently and with a
great deal of regularity the buyers will buy the product from other areas,
suchas Alabama, Texas, Colorado, Michigan or Wisconsin who are shipping
the same product at the same time.
What the general public is not aware of is that this type of product
to not hauled by the Common Carrier or freight company. It is transported
by the Independent owner—operator. The knowledge of how and where to find
this person can only come from years of experience. Our company has been
In this line of business since 1952, in Grand Forks, North Dakota, and
serving your area since July, 1964. We have been at our present location
sinca 1972, and the facility we are presently using is a 45 foot mobile
unit built in 1972 to our specifications for an office.
At the present time we have not been able to rent a permanent facility
in Monticello that can facilitate our needs: easy access on and off the
highway, room for from 1 to 8 trucks at a time, from 15 minutes to 1 hour.
At this time we cannot justify a permanent building of our own because of
the limited time spent in Monticello for this short shipping season.
Our office presently being operated from July 28th through October 20th.
These dates can vary ten days either way.
Your immediate consideration for approval of this application is
greatly appreciated.
Sincetrc1
Cif
itt's Inc.
Robert Pederson, V. Pres.
Enc.
RP:kj
z
J
Planning Commission - 6/10/80
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
1. Review of the Minutes.
Review and approve the Minutes from the May 20, 1980 meeting.
2. Public Hearinq - Monticello Sign Ordinance.
Enclosed find a memorandum from John Uban of Howard Dahlgren Associates
regarding information that was requested of him at the last Planning
Commission meeting in May. This information, along with other information
that was submitted by Howard Dahlgren Associates, and in light of other
information taken at other meetings and of the public testimony from
this meeting, hopefully will provide adequate input towards the decision
necessary to either leave the present Monticello Sign Ordinance as is, or
make any changes that the Planning Commission chooses to recommend to
the Council.
Representatives of the outdoor advertising industry and other individuals
who were notified of the past meetings regarding the sign ordinance have
been notified in regard to tonight's meeting.
POSSIBLE ACTION: After taking into consideration the input of the past meet-
ings and public hearing information of tonight's meeting, possibly determining
a new ordinance amendment to recommend to the City Council for passage, or
possibly recommending to the City Council to leave the present sign or-
dinance as is.
REFERENCES: Enclosed memorandum from John Uban, of Howard Dahlgren Assoc.
3. Public Hearing - Proposed Ordinance Amendment to Allow a Day Care Facility
within an R-2 Zone as a Conditional Use.
The present Monticello Zoning Ordinance allows a day care home with up to
five children as a permitted use in an R-1 zone and allows the same as a
permitted use in an R-3 zone, with a day care facility with more than five
children, as a conditional use in an R-3 zone. It 1s a staff recommendation
that the Planning Commission and Council consider amending the present
ordinance to allow a day care facility with more than five children in an
R-2 zone as a conditional use provided that it meets all the conditional use
requirements as are required in an R-3 zone, as discussed in Section 10-8-4-(B),
At a recent Planning Commission meeting, it was determined to allow the
ABC Day Care Center to move their facility into the old Baptist Church property,
which is in an R-2 zone. This was an inadvertent mistake inasmuch as a
day care facility with more than five children 1s not a conditional use within
an R-2 zone, since the R-2 zoning does not permit it as such. However, at the
time it was advertised as a conditional use within an R-2 zone, there was no
opposition from anyone within 350' of the proposed location, and since adver-
tising that the prospect that a day care center with more than five children
may become a reality within an R-2 zone, there have been no public objections.
Planning Commission - 6/10/80
The ABC Day Care Center's request has been withheld from going before the
�s City Council until such time as the Planning Commission chooses to recom-
mend approval of the Ordinance Amendment, or to recommend not amending
the ordinance. Should the Planning Commission and the Council choose not
to amend the zoning ordinance, at that point, the proposal to move the
present ABC Day Care Center from the Oakwood School would be invalid.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of the ordinance
amendment to allow a day care facility within an R-2 zone as a conditional use.
4. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment to Allow Duplexes in R-2 Zones to be
Owned by Two Separate Individuals.
Upon a staff request, John Uban, of Howard Dahlgren Associates, wrote a
memorandum, copy of which is enclosed. to Gary Mieber which outlines how
they feel the present ordinance is interpreted to allow a duplex in an R-2
zone to be owned by two individual owners.
Mr. Uban states in his letter "we feel that the zoning ordinance, as
written, would allow the City to approve the division of lots containing
multiple unit structures, in order that the individual housing units could
be sold. The total structure containing the units would then be subject to
the zoning ordinance requirements. In effect then, the units would be
built to and meet at one or more lot lines without the typical setbacks."
Mr. Uban goes on to state that if the City desires to more clearly address
the issue of dividing lots of multiple unit buildings, that possibly we
should consider his suggested new language be added in a new provision,
Subsection E to Section 10-3-3, as is outlined in his memorandum which is
enclosed, dated May 22, 1980.
Basically, what this ordinance amendment would do is clearly show that the
present ordinances allow a zero lot line duplex,such as one which was approved
for Quintin Lanners at the last Planning Commission and Council meetings,
to be allowed without special Public Hearings.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending amending our present zoning ordinance
to more clearly address the issue of multi -unit buildings and dividing of
lots for those buildings.
REFERENCES: Enclosed memorandum from John Uban dated May 22, 1980.
-2-
u
Planning Commission - 6/10/80
5. Public Hearing - Subdivision, Rezoning and Conditional Use Request - Quintin
`J Lanners.
This item deals with three public hearing requests - they are a subdivision to
allow nine lots; a rezoning request to change from R-1 zoning to R-2 zoning
and R-3 zoning within that subdivision; and a conditional use request to
build the maximum number of apartment units allowed as a conditional use
within an R-3 zone on a lot of 66,555 square feet.
Mr. Lanners is proposing to subdivide the present Don Christopher property
located directly west of Balboul Estates, into nine lots. Of these nine
lots, his request is to rezone Lot 1 to R-3 and Lots 2 thru 9 to R-2.
As stated previously, Mr. Lanners would like to build as many apartment
units as possible on Lot 1, which is 66,555 square feet. That would have to
be done as a conditional use and could not exceed 12 units. At this point,
he has no definite plans as to style and size of building, but would like
to gain approval to build that apartment building so that he can go ahead
and get his design work done and also start development on the balance of
the lots.
His request for rezoning lots 2 thru 9 would be based on his desire to build
duplexes on each of the lots, which could be individually owned by the
People who reside within the unit, rather than have to be owned by one
owner and have rental units. Those duplex units would be the same as those
which were recommended for approval at the last Planning Commission meeting
for another lot owned by Mr. Lanners in another area of Monticello, and also,
would be done at the recommendation of our City Planner. The square footage
of Lots 2 thru 9 range in size from 10,175 square feet, which meets the
minimum lot size required in an R-2 zone, to 29,100 square feet, which
is approximately three times the size of the minimum lot size allowed in
an R-2 zone.
At the time of this writing, no comments have been received from Mr. John
Badalich, the City Engineer, as to the subdivision requirements which he
is reviewing, and there have been no objections from any members of the
public or neighborhood who have received public hearing notices of these
three requests.
POSSIBLE ACTION: You may want to take action individually on these three
requests. If you choose to do so, you would possibly take action on:
Item A - recommending approval or denial of this subdivision request;
Item B - recommending approval or denial of the rezoning request to rezone
Lot 1 to R-3 and to rezone Lots 2 thru 9 to R-2.
Item C - recommending approval or denial to build up to 12 apartment units
on Lot 1 if rezoned to R-3 as a conditional use.
APPLICANT: Quintin Lanners
REFERENCES: Enclosed plat plan showing lot sizes, etc.
- 3 -
Ij
Planning Commission - 6/10/80
6. Review of the Home Occupation's Ordinance.
At a previous Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission discussed
the possibility of changing the definition of a Home Occupation to include
more items, and also to make all Home Occupations conditional uses rather
than some be conditional uses and others be permitted uses. This topic
would be open for discussion, and possibly the Planning Commission would choose
to leave the Home Occupations ordinance and definition the same as it is, or
they may want to hold a public hearing, at which time they would consider
changing the definition of a Home Occupation to include other businesses
which could be held in the home than are already stated in the Home
Occupation definition, and also the Planning Commission may want to
discuss changing the Ordinances to show that all Home Occupations would be
considered conditional uses. This item is for your discussion.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Discussion only.
7. Discussion of Lawful, Non-Conforminq Uses within Certain 2oninq Districts.
Recently, there have been several complaints come in to the City Hall about
people who were grandfathered in with their businesses at the time that
the zoning was made to the entire city. One of those items which is receiving
a lot of attention at this time is trucking firms who have parking spaces
at their residences. Apparently, these people who own trucks which are
larger than allowed in residential zones are parking those vehicles in
the residential zones and it is causing concern to the surrounding and
abutting neighbors.
POSSIBLE ACTION: This item is merely for discussion and you may choose to
deal with it or to leave it as is and take no further action.
8. Discussion - Letter from Department of Interior on "Monticello island".
Enclosed is a copy of a letter received this past week from the Department
of interior, Bureau of Land Management, regarding a question that was
submitted to them from Howard Dahlgren Associates approximately four
years ago. At that time, the City requested information from them as to
the ownership and lawful use of the island below the Highway 25 bridge,
which is referred to in their letter as "Monticello island."
At this time, the Bureau of Land Management is in the process of determining
land use planning, and would like to know if the City of Monticello has
any plans for using the island. At one time, it was discussed that possibly
a small bridge could be built from Bridge Park to the island, and it could be
used as an annex, or a wilderness addition to the existing Bridge Park.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Item for discussion - you may or may not choose to do
anything with it.
REFERENCES: Enclosed letter referenced above from Department of Interior.
- 4 -