Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 05-11-1982AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 1982 - 7:30 P.M. Chairman: Jim Ridgeway Members: Joyce Dowling, Pd Schaffer, Bill Burke. 1. Approval of the Minutes of the April 13, 1982 Meeting. 2. Public Hearing - Variance Application - 0. L. Stanialau. 3. Public Hearing - Variance Application - Reinert Construction. 4. Public Hearing - Variance Application - Willard and Shirley Murphy. S. Unfinished Busineen. G. Now Buoineas. 7. Mooting Reminder. The next regularly ochodulod meeting of the Planning Commionion will be on Juno 8, 1982. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELI.O PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 13, 1982 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Ed Schaffer, John Bondhus, and Bill Burke. Members Absent: Joyce Dowling. 1. Approval of Minutes for the March 9, 1982 meetinq. A motion was made by Schaffer, seconded by Burke and unanimously carried to accept the minutes as stated. 2. Public Hearinq - Consideration of a Variance Request - Rosewood Corporation. Mr. Howard Rekstad, a partner in the Rosewood Corporation, was present to request a variance from Monticello's sign ordinance to allow his corporation to place a for sale sign of 80 square feet on their vacant lot. Present ordinances allow a sign of only 20 square foot. Mr. Rokstad's request was based on the theory that his property is located adjacent to the freeway and that because traffic moves past that property rather rapidly, it would be necessary to have a large sign which would enable lettering largo enough for the fast moving traffic to read legibly. A motion was made by Schaffer to grant the request for six months only, however, thin motion died for lack of a second. A motion was made by Burke and seconded by Bondhuu to deny the request and the motion passed on a vote of three to one (3 to 1). The Planning Commiosion'o conconouo for denying this request wau that they felt it would be inconsistent with the present sign ordinance in existence within the City of Monticello. 3. Public Hearinq - Consideration of a Variance - Monticello Country Club. Thin item was on the agenda for concidaration to allow the Monti- cello Country Club to build a pole type storage building at the Monticello Country Club property which is located in an R-1 zone. However, since there woo not a representative of the Monticollo Country Club present to answer any quostiono, this item wau tabled until rho next regular mooting on May 9, 1982 at which time a rep- rosentativo from the Monticello Country Club could be procent to prosent thio proposal and anower any questions which the Planning Commionion might have. C� � Planning Commission Minutes - 4/13/82 4. Public Hearing - Consideration of Amending Monticello Ordinances. At a previous Planning Commission meeting, it was decided to give consideration to amending two Monticello Ordinances at a future public hearing. Nonticello ordinance section 10-3-2-(F)-(2) is an existing ordinance which tends to be rather lengthy and wordy, and left room for confusion. Therefore, it was decided that maybe new wording could be given to that ordinance to keep the same meaning but make it more easily understood. As a result, the following ordinance amendment is proposed: No fence, structure, planting, trees or shrubs shall be For- mitted within the visibility area of any corner formed by property lines intersecting with a street or by property lines intersecting with a railway right-of-way. (The visi- bility area referred to above shall be in the form of a triangle with two sides formed by the property lines men- tioned and the third side formed by a straight line connect- ing the two (2) twenty-five (25) foot points on both sides of the corner. EXCEPTION: 1. Chain link fences with openings of one atd five-eighths U 5/8) inches to two (2) inches and not exceeding a maximum of forty-eight (48) inches in height may be allowed anywhere within the visibility area. 2. Except as provided in Section 10-3-2-(F) (2), fences, plantings, trees or shrubs not over three fact in height may be permitted if not prohibited by othor areas of the ordinancau. 3. Except as provid od in Section 10-3-2-(F) (2), fences may be orected on any part of a lot when they are to be located behind the front line of thu principal building on that lino. 4. Fences over G feat in height shall bo treated as structures and will require appropriato permits as required. on a notion made by Dondhuu and seconded by Burka, this agenda item was unanimously passed and approved, amending this auction of the ordinance. The noxt ordinance for considorationwaa Section 10-3-2 (N) where two itemu wore considered to be added to the ordinancau which would clarify and add restrictions in co much an the oizo and location of propane tanko and othow fuel storage tanks and alto for woofl pilau. - 2 - Planning Commission Minutes - 4/13/82 They were as follows: 5. Propane tanks, fuel oil tanks, and other similar fuel storage tanks which do not exceed 1,000 gallons in capacity and shall not be located within five (5) feet of any property line. 6. Wood piles in which wood is stored for fuel provided that not more than 10 cords shall be stored on any property. NOTE: A cord shall be 4' X 4' X 8'. All wood piles shall be five (5) feet or more from rear and side yard property lines and shall be stored behind the appropriate set back line in front yards. A motion was made by Burke and seconded by Bondhus and unani- mously approved to recommend this ordinance section for passage by the City Council. 5. Public Hearin - Consideration of a variance - City of Monticello. John Simola, Public works Director, was present and made a presenta- tion to the Planning Commission on his request for a new storage building to be built on the maintenance building property, which is located in an R-1 zone, thereby, requiring a variance to be built. The Planning Commission considered those requirements, which are stated in the ordinances, for buildings of this type which are built within an R-1 zone which are to be used for public utilities. One main consideration that the Planning Commission had was offective screening around the property. Another consideration was possibly requiring that building to be built big enough to accommodate in- door storage for all materials and equipment. The members of the Planning Commission each expresoed their fouling that the City should be more responsible to their ordinances and not request variances. A motion was made by DondhuG, seconded by Schaffer to grant the variance but require that the proposed storage building be either built larger or that additional storage bins be built to accommodate indoor storage for all machinery and materials. All voted in favor of this motion. However, after further diocuouion of the motion which had pruvioucly been passed, a motion was made by Dondhuo, seconded by Schaffer and unanimously paosod to rescind the previous motion. At this point, Dondhuo made a motion which was seconded by Schaffer and unanimously possod to allow the varianeo for the now building and that an effective ocroon be built around the perimeter of the maintenance building property which would be conoistont with tho effective screening which is required by Monticello ordinances. Planning Commission Minutes - 4/13/62 Also, in two years the Planning Commission wants to review the effect of the screening to determine if further requirernent should be placed for additional buildings or indoor storage for machinery and materials. .Ang ng Adjourned. Loren D. I n Zoning Administrator - 4 - i \ to all- 9 lln �. VaY1ao� top 9v;n* L to 0' L 5 lla90 Shot CAheth 8 V 1 r�Zze ��c�����ij,�jjJ� � . '• 1, � �'lllJlljtl-` J'�_ '• •��o•,,' N �.. ;;• , � • `;'dip ' �.. '`--�.. f^.( ,?"j� I-/-� `' .••...t.i y9pl, .%7`0l. '"��++r�_LL ��!! �{) (7 j j •f / .%i;t ' r' 'r�� J . G' !'i�j •1-"=•G1._� ���T»)'«7l�!ii�J `1/' ). b r ° � . No. 94 t `� 4 .. " ^, ,�'`'\. `\�` ..-- •- a �--- �i7tII of All tl tip roll �a0lir i\l,. it; A.' . nli, ra _ _ Bonticellu, 01inurentil 55362 tiny 5,1982 Monticello Planning Commission, Mont ice l lo,Dti nnesota ATT: Loren D.Rlein,7.oning Administrator Gentlemen : At the Stated Colmlunieation of ollr Lodge on Aay 4,1982 a motion was made,seconded and carried that we do not approve of a variance of Monticello Ordinance 10-3-9 (13)(2)(}) which would allow the erection of a sign to be located on the roof at the rear of Lot 10 and 11,131ock .15 as proposed by the npl,lieant, 0. L.S to nis lau Respectfully submitted .kKWICULO LODGE N0, 16 A.F. h A.M. "�K`s P.E.Dnhl, Secretnry r .4. I- FLICKER'S 7V & APPLIANCE Monticello. Minnesota 55362 (612) 295.5122 Monticello Planning Commission; May 7, 198e Asa retailer and a firm heli�ver in business identification and considering that the main parlinr, areas are behind the atores, 1 am very much in favor of not only this variance, but also would like the city to consider a chance in the ordinance to allow a style of rooftop signs when the building construction design does not accomodate a flat wall stvlo sign. Froner ruidclines for roofton signs could improve the pnrking lot entrance identification of many C, P, D husinesses and aid in policing the many oxistinr rooftop aims to nret n uniform, nnsthoticnlly ploasinf( ordinanco quidolinc. Sin�lv,� Marn Plickor, own'ir Flick jr' s T. V. °, Appliance L.ry,..k_� +'�i 1� _ '\ 1\rte"` �.���'♦ ,t/ ♦�/� Pis— V as I � ICY � _-••' � ► �!•l .�� �, '.a �' •� • i f • f fir. � � �4'� a .:� MMV Application to build within 12' of the side yard property line. ` �• i•J',•iww� Cy Reinert Construction Omrowe� ���'•��� 1 r:. Planning Commission Agenda - 5/11/82 AGENDA SUPPLEMENT 1. Approval of the Minutes of the Aoril 13. 1982 M—riii, 2. Public Hearinq - Variance Application - O. L. Stanislau. Mr. O. L. Stanislau, owner of the building in which Cohen's Village Shop is located at 219 West Broadway, has made an application for a variance from Monticello Sign Ordinance 910-3-9 (B) (2) (j), which prohibits roof top signs. Mr. Stanislau is proposing a roof top sign to be located on the rear of his building which faces south towards the parking lot behind the Flicker property. At present, there are approximately 4 or 5 roof top signs on the back of the buildings in similar situations, however, these signs were in place prior to the adoption of the present sign ordinances in 1975. Since that time, no roof top signs have been allowed and as they have been taken down, for what- ever reason, replacement has not been allowed. The City has in fact, required that similar signs, that is, overhanging signs, he removed. Mr. Staniolau's variance application request states that the proposed sign is equal to or below the visual uitc line of the neighboring signs. He feels if the regulations requiring signs not to be roof signs are followed that it would create a hard- ship. Mr. Stanislau has already placed the frame for this sign, which he is proposing to erect on the roof top unto the building. After the frame work for this sign was placed, it was caught by the building official and brought to Mr. Staniolau'o attention that in order to have a sign there, it would require a variance, thus, his variance request is before you now. However, before Mr. Staniolau can complete the placement of thio sign, a variance would be necoesary or elno he would be in violation of the Monticello ordinance. - 1 - Planning Commission Agenda - 5/11/82 Two public comments have been received from the Masonic Lodge and from Flicker's T.V. s Appliance. One is an objection to this vari- ance and the other is in favor of this variance. APPLICANT: O. L. Stanislau. CONSIDERATION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this variance request. (The Planning Commission's decision can be appealed to the Council if the appellant does so in proper form). REFERENCES: Enclosed map depicting the location of the property of the proposed sign and public comments from the Masonic Lodge and Flicker's T.V. 3. Public Hearing - Variance Application - Reinert Construction. Cy Reinert Construction Company has made application to be able to build an apartment building within 12 feet of a property line were 20 feet is required. This property is zoned R-3 and is des- cribed as Lot 3, Block 1, Lauring Hillside Terrace. Mr. Reinert, owner of Hillside Properties to the east of Perkins where the 36 apartment units are located, has made a request to be able to build two additional buildings on the remainder of his property which is now undeveloped on the east end of the apartment complex. The only difficulty that the Reinert Construction Company will have in complying with Monticello ordinances in the irregular shape of the lot on which the new building❑ will be proposed does not allow for the construction of one of the two buildings to be built 20 feet or more away from the abutting property line. As of thin date, there have been no objections oxpressed in granting this variance. APPLICANT: Cy Reinert Construction Company. REFERENCES: An enclosed plan showing the location of the property on which this development will occur. CONSIDERATION: Consider recommending or approving this variance request (The decision of the Planning Commission is subject to appeal if the appellant filar the proper appeal). - 2 - Planning Commission Agenda - 5/11/82 4. Public Hearinq - Variance Application - Willard and Shirley Murphy. Willard a.nd Shirley Murphy are proposing to build a new motel on the property located between the V.F.W. and the Perkins Restaurant. The Murphys are proposing to build the first phase of the now motel as close as possible to the freeway, thus, they are asking for a 20 foot rear yard set back variance. On the south easterly corner of their lot, the property line takes an unusual shape and because of this unusual shape, the Murphys feel that it is necessary that they acquire a variance to allow that corner of the building closer than 30 feet to the property line in order to take optimum advantage of exposure on the freeway and also to allow a maximum amount of room for future expansion on the north end of the build- ing. Also, consideration is requested for allowing a pylon sign to be less than 30 feet from the property line on the south end of the property - Monticello ordinances require all pylon signs to be within the same set back distances as buildings. NOTE. In tho past all requests for pylon signs closer than 30 feet to the property line have been granted and maybe the Planning Com- mission would be willing to consider a variance in thin case also. APPLICANT: Willard and Shirley Murphy. REFF.RF.NCESi Enclosed in a map showing the location of the property involved and also a copy of a portion of the plot plan showing the property linco in question. CONSIDrR.ATION. Consider approving or denying thin variance re- quoot. (Thin decision made by the Planning Co=iosion is subject to an appeal if the appeal is made within the proper time and in the prop -or form). G. Now Runineso. Conaidoration of a Replacement for John Dondhuu on the Planning COMMi so i on. - 3 -