Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 12-08-1981AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION December 8, 1981 - 7:30 P.M. Chairman: Jim Ridgeway Members: John Sondhus, Bill Burke, Dick Martie, Ed Schaffer. 1. Approval of Minutes of Special Meeting held on November 17, 1981. 2. Public Hearing - Set Back Variance - Shawn McGoff. Unfinished Business - Review of proposed ordinance changes. (Bring those proposed changes along to meeting. You received them with you November 10th, 1981 agenda. If you do not have them, please call City Hall to got another copy of them). Now Business - Meeting Reminder - The next regularly ocheduled mooting of the Planning Commiosion will be January 12, 1982. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, November 17, 1981 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: John Bondhus, Loren Klein, Dick Martie, Ed Shaffer Bill Burke. Members Absent: Jim Ridgeway (Dick Martie acted as chairman) 1. Approval of the Minutes of the November 10, 1981 Meeting. Bill Burke made a motion which was seconded by John Bondhus and all voted in favor of, to approve the minutes of the November 10, 1981 meeting. 2. Simple Subdivision - Ken Maus. Ken Maus, of Maus Foods and owner of the northern most builcling of the two buildings of the former Decorative Services property along with the newly developed parking lot on the north side of the same building, made a request for a simple subdivision to include a small portion of the east side of that building, along with a small portion cDf the pro- perty on the southeast corner of that newly developed parkirq lot. Mr. Maus proposed that this simple subdivision of parking lot include that building and also enough area to accommodate parking w2-,ich will be rwquired for the occupant use of that portion of the buildinq, which is approximately 10 spaces. Monticello ordinance requires office buildings and professional buildings to have at least three 13) parkirig spaces plus one apace for each 200 square feet of floor area. A motion was made by Ed Schaffer and seconded by Bill Burke to recom- mend approval of this simple subdivision contingent. upon Mr . Maus ruleitting s plat to the city ataff which would indicate that adequate property was being included with the building to provide for the re- quired parkiny spares. All voted in favor. 3. Public iloarinq - Variance Requent - I101 wohmann. Mr. Hal Wehmann was present and presented his proposal to build two 4—unit apartment buildings. Ilia proponal was to build one 4-unitt, apartment building on Lot 5 on 14olkers Hillside Addition and a second 4—unit apartment building on Int G of ilolkero Hillside Addition, which iu immediately adjacent. At thio time the huildingo would le apartment huildingo under the ownership of one individual, however, in the near future, upon completion of those buildingo, it is moot like ly that thune Isuildings would be condominiumized. - 1 - Planning Commission Minutes - 11/17/81 In applying the minium lot sire formula for Monticello's ordinances to these proposed buildings, it has been determined that each building would require a lot of 15,000 square feet, minium. However, Lot 5 is only 14,025 and Lot 6 is only 13,200, leaving these lots 101 and 15% short in the required lot area, respectively. Thun, a minium lot size variance is required. Also, a variance is necessary for the front yard and the rear yard set back, since Mr. Wahmann is proposing to move the building on Lot 5 as far west as possible and then move the building on Lot 6 as far cast as possible to allow for alignment which would give the people in the southern most building a view of the park to the north which the pro- perties over look. This view would be unobstructed by the building on Lot 5 being in front of the building on Lot 6. Also, Monticello ordinances allow only one driveway per lot unit, and in the case of these two properties, those is only two 80 foot lot units, which would allow for only 2 driveways. Mr. Mahmann is pro- posing three driveways to service the 8 garage unite which would be created. Taking into consideration that this development would be immediatoly adjacent to a park where it is unlikely that any further development would ever take place, and that there would be plenty of play ground and open area on site or near site, the Planning Commission unani- mouely approved a motion by John Dondhuo and seconded by Bill Burke to grant the following throe variances, - That the buildings be allowed to be built on those lots as pro- posed with loss square footage than is required for a building of similar typo. - That the requosted twenty foot front yard sot back and the ro- questad 15 foot rear yard sot books be allowed. - That the third driveway be allowed to be developed to service the 0 garage units which ars going to be built and included into the buildings. 4. Now Business - Discussion of Ex -officio Member Status. Loren Klein, Zoning Administrator and also ex-offieo member of the Planning Commission, requested that the Planning Commission consider roco=ending to the City Council that the ex -officio member be eliminated from membership on the Planning Commisaion. Since the ox -officio mem r and toning administrator are one person in the same, it wan the zoning administrators fooling that better public relations could be had in dealing with people applying for variances, conditional uses, etc., if the peroon who they were dealing with, in this coos the zoning administrator, was not a member of the Planning Commission. - 2 - Planning Commission Minutes - 11/17/81 The zoning administrator would, however, continue to attend all the Planning Commission meetings, but would not act in the capacity of a member of the Planning Commission, but only as a staff member to be available to advise the commissioners as to the statue of ordin- ances, application of ordinances, etc. A motion was made by ¢d Schaffer, seconded by Bill Burke with all voting in favor to recom- mend to the Council that since the zoning administrator and ex -officio member are both one in the same, that the ex -officio member be elimi- nated from the Planning Commission and be required only to attend the meetings in the capacity of zoning administrator. A note was made that the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission will be on December 8, 1981. sting Adjourned. ren D. Klein ilding Official - 3 - t / K . G� YAC � lire l V/ 0 MEMORANDUM TO: The Planning Commission Members FROM: Gary Wieber, City Administrator DATE: December 4, 1981 SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment Review for December 8, 1981 meeting. This is a supplement to the previous Planning Commission agenda sent out by Loren Klein. The following are some coimeents on possible ordinance amendments regarding reducing the minimum square footage of homes for Monticello and realty signs in Monticello. Both of these items were dis- cussed at our last meeting. Reducinq Minimum Square Footaqe Requirements for Sinqle Family Homes. The following are comments in this regard: - 15 communities were surveyed, of which 12 responded relative to minimum size requirements. Of the 12 responses, 5 restricted the size of a home. The other communities only used the limitations contained in the uniform Wilding code. This code requires that at lcaot one room in a dwelling unit be at least 150 ogaare feet in area and other habitable roams be a minimum of 70 square feet. - The following are the 12 communities that responded: - Little Fallo - Buffalo - Milaca - Cambridge - Princeton - Sartoll - Annandale - Sauk Rapids - Howard Lake - Big Lake - Elk River - Thief River Fallo Cambridge, lloward lake, Thief River Fallo, Little Fallo, and Big Lako have minimum oquaro footage requiremento. For your information, Monti- cello' o minimum aquaro footage requlremento for a oinglo family homo io 750 feet for a split entry or 2-lovel per floor and 1,000 cquare feet for a rambler. Big Lake, ao an example, requirco 1,008 aquaro feet for a rambler and 912 oquaro foot for a 2-lovel home ouch ao a oplit level. - There may bo some concern in that minimum cquaro footage requiremento attract cuboidized houoing. - 1 - Memo - The Planning Commission Members December 4, 1981 Page 02 - Because of recent court rulings, mobile type homes may not be able to be prohibited by a city. However, by having a minimum square footage standard, this would be one way of controlling this. - Concern would be if the homes were smaller, there would be less in- terior storage and there would be a tendency to have exterior storage such as snowmobiles, bikes, etc. - According to our building official, The Farmers Home Administration has had 7 or 8 requests to build single family homes in Monticello, but could not because of the minimum square footage requirements. - It may be better to allow smaller hones in a particular area such as a new subdivision. This may be more preferable than to allow a smaller size hose in existing areas which have already been built up. In this way, no one could complain that the rules have been changed in the middle of the ball game. In light of the above, I recommend that the City of Monticello adopt an ordinance to allow a home, spilt entry or rambler of 768 square feet, pro- vided that a single family garage would have to be provided and in the case of homes, such as slab hones that only have one level, a double garage would have to he provided. This would, to some extent, deter the problem with exterior storage. Additionally, I recommend that these types of smaller homes only be allowed in a distinct single family zoning dis- trict, which would have to be requested for new subdivisions. In this way, the area would have to be rezoned to R-lA, for example, and that par- ticular zoning district would allow homes of a smaller size as indicated. There would always remain the possibility that the City could amend its ordinance in the future to allow this size of home to exist everywhere or to amend the ordinance to he more restrictive. Realty Signs - Specifically "Open House". I offer the following comments: - "Open House" signs would ba allowed, but this would not include model homes or Iota for sale, etc. - Signa would be prohibited from 10:00 P.M. to 7,00 A.M. - Size would be restricted to a standard realty size sign. - No permit would be necessary. - Each model home could only have 2 off premise signs. - The name of the owner of the sign would have to he in small print on the sign itself. Memo - The Planning Commission Members December 4, 1981 Page R3 one other item that might be discussed at Tuesday night's meeting is the fact that Dick Martie has resigned from the Planning Commission effective immediately. The Planning Commission members may want to suggest some names to the City Council who appoints new members at their first meeting in January. Planning Commission Agenda - 12/8/81 AGENDA SUPPLEMENT 1. Approval of Minutes of the Special Meetinq held on November 17, 1981. 2. Public Hearinq - Set Back Variance - Shawn McGoff. Shawn McGoff, owner of Lot 3, Block 6 in the Meadows Division, has made an application for a variance to be able to build a 5 X 8 foyer/ entrance onto the front of his home. This property is zoned R-1. Mr. McGoff does not presently have entrance onto his home, but rather when you come into the front door, you come directly into the living quarters of the home. It is Mr. MCGoff's intent to build an entrance way onto the front of his home which would be 25 feet back from the front yard set back, rather than the 30 foot, as required by Monticello ordinance, as an engery conservation measure. Mr. McGoff desires to build this foyer to reduce the amount of heat loss when going into his home through the front entrance. AS previously stated, if allowed, this entrance would come within 25 feet of the property line where the ordinance requires 30 feet. Enclosed, please find a copy of a letter from Mr. McGoffa only abutting neighbor in which he otateo he hao no objection to this front yard variance request, and states that he supporta Mr. MCGoff's request. APPLICANT: Shawn McGoff CONSIDERATION: Consider approval or denial of this variance requeot. REFERENCES: A letter from an abutting neighbor stating no objections to this variance request. - 1 - PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES - November 10, 1981 Section 10-3-1 (H) Currently reads: Whenever a lawful non -conforming use of a structure or land is discontinued for a period of six (6) months, follow- ing written notice from an authorized agent of the City, any future use of said structure or land shall be made to conform with the provisions of this Ordinance. The Change: Delete the words "following written notice from an authorized agent of the City". Reason: Often times a lawful, nonconforming use will be discontinued, but i:s not immediately brought to the attention of the City of Monticello. With this change proposed, such use cannot be continued after lapse of six (6) months regardless of whether a notice has been sent from the City or not. Section 10-3-2-(B)-2 Currently reads: Basements may be used as living quarters or rooms as a portion or residential dwellings. The Change: Delete the sentence. Reason: According to the uniform building code, certain provisions have to he adhered to before basasments can be used as living quarters. If this statement is not elaborated upon, a person might got the impression he can une his hauement for living quarters regardless of what provioions are made. Section 10-3-2-(F)-5-11 Currently roads: Three percent of the service area within an off-street parking area shall be landscaped with green and/or decorative surface treatment - trees and shrubbery for all develuiments except single family dwellingo. Tlie Changs: Dolotion of entire section. Beacon: Thin provinion has not been enforced and would probably be unreason- able to incorporate into a parking lot a green area, in light of the weather 'I cunditionn in Minnesota with snow removable. Section 10-3-2-(1-5-C Currently reads: One percent of the develoiment coats, or 51,500, whichever ie greater, an determined by the building permit valuation, shall be devoted to landocaping not completed at the time of the isnuanco of the cortificate of occupancy. Thio bond nball he for one year at the end of which the city han the authority to complete the nocuouary landscaping. Thin provision doen not apply to oinglo family renidencoa. The Change should read as followoi Ona percent of the development costa, or 4 0I $1,500, whichever in greater, no determined by the building permit valuation, ti nv1 shall bo devoted to landocaping excluoive of sod and walkwayo. A bond shall I' be reyy���ired for X40" of landocaping not comploted at the time of the ioauaneo of thpu'r-Rificate of occupancy. Thin bond shall be for a period of time, nut greater than one year, not forth by the building official at the end of which the city han the authority to complete the nocoauary landacapiny. Thin pro- viuion doeo not apply to single family reaideneen. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES November 10, 1981 Page 12 Reason: A period of time of one year is greater than the City would normally allow since most of the provisions of this nature would be due to weather, and the landscaping could be completed within six to eight months. You will note also, that additional language was inserted since this was left out of the final copy of the ordinance previously. Section 10-3-3-(D) 2 Currently reads: Terraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops or similar features provided they do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure or to a distance less than twv (2) feet from any lot line. The Change: Eliminate words "Uncovered porches, stoops". Reason: Since this section defines what types of items would not be encroach- ments on yard set backs, it Is recommended that uncovered porches and stoops be eliminated, since these could be construed as a dock, for example. It is questionable whether you would want a deck to extend beyond the side yard set back. Section 10 -3 -5 -(D) -8-(A) Currently reads: PARK114C SPACE SIZE: Ench parking space shall be not less than nine (9) feet wide and twenty (20) feet in length exclusive of access aisles, and each space shall be nerved adequately bj access aisles. The Change: Ma44 of the parking spa; shall be not leas than nine (9) fact wide and twenty (20) feet it, length and MAI rlvrll be not lean than 7S fv t wide and and 16 feet in length exclusive of access ainles, and earh siwc,� ahall W served adequately by accuas aisles. Rea son: In order to conserve space and make allowances for compact cars. Section 10-3-5-(D)-8-((,) Currently reads: Curb cut openings ohall be at a minimum three (3) foot from the aide yard property lino in residential dia- tricta and five (5) feet from the aide yard lot line in Wsinear:,-r industrial dir.tricts. The Change: After the word openings add "and driveways". Alco add 3cntencu, THs section shall riot wilily to thared drivewaya 1,y adJ,.urning pro)ortiea. Rea con: To make it clear that drivewayn, in addition to curb cut openiral::, :.hall he a minimum of three (3) fret from the aide yard inoperty lune in rcoidential districts and five (5) feet from the aide yard lot line in &ral- rlrao or industrial dictricto. .r,retfon 1q -7-5-(F)-4 Currently reach: The boulevard portion of the ntreot right-of-way shall 1w! used for Forking. Tho Change: After the word "D1all" add "not". Rea tion r To correct a typographical error on the original ordinance. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES November 10, 1981 Page 03 Section 10-3-5-(H)-18 Currently reads: RETAIL STORE AND SERVICE BUSINESS WITH FIFTY (50) PERCENT OR MORE OF GROSS FLOOR AREA DEVOTED TO STORAGE, WARE- HOUSES AND/OR INDUSTRY: At least eight (8) spaces or one (1) space for each two hundred (200) square feet devoted to public sales or service plus one (1) space for each five hundred (500) square feet of storage area; or at least eight (8) spaces or one (1) space for each employee on the maximum shift whichever is appropriate. The Change: RETAIL STORE AND SERVICE BUSINESS WITH FIFTY (50) PERCENT OR MORE OF GROSS FLOOR AREA DEVOTED TO STORAGE, WAREHOUSES AND/OR INDUSTRY: The number of required spaces shall be as determined by Method 1 or Method 2 below, whichever results in the greater number of spaces: Method 1: At least eight (8) spaces or one space for each 200 square feet devoted to public sales or service, plus one space for each 500 square feet of storage area. Method 2: At least eight (8) spaces or one space for each employee on the maximum shift. Reason: The current language is confusing and there is some question which method would be appropriate. By indicating the greater of the following two methods, eliminates the ambiguity in the current ordinance. Section 10 -3 -9 -(B) -1-(d) Currently reads: Political Campaign Signs: Shall not exceed four (4) square feet in all "R" zoning districts, or twelve (12) square fact in all other zoning districts. Every campaign sign must contain the name and address of parsons responsible for such sign, and that person :shallbe responsible for its removal. Signs erected before the primary elec- tion shall remain in place for no longer than five (5) days after the general or special election for which they are intended. All signs shall be confined to private property. The City shall have the right to remove and destroy un - nightly signs or remove signs after the five (5) day limit and assess a fee of one dollar ($5.00) per signek The Change: First sentence should be changed as follows: Shall not exceed twelve (12) square foot. Third sentence should be changed as follows: Signs shall remain in place for no longer than five (5) days after the election for which they are intended. Reason: The first sentence was changed to allow the same size sign in a rooi- duntial district as all other zoning districts sinco four (4) square foot is fairly small. The third sentence was changed in order that the ordinance may read easier. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINAIICB CIIA14GES November 10, 1981 Page 04 Sectior. 10-3 -9-(B)-2-(k) This is an added provision. Overhanging signs The Change: Over hanging signs added to the prohilrited sign list. Reason: Over hanging signs are no longer allowed and this is in conjunction with the next proposed ordinance amendment. Section 10-3-9-(C)-5 Currently reads: Overhanging signs will be allowed to project over public right-of-ways in the village of Monticello until Decem- ber 31, 1976, which is the cut-off date after which no overhanging signs will be permitted. The Change: Delete this section and renumber Sections 6 tluu 10 that follow. Section 10 -3 -9 -(E) -2-(b)-(1) Currently reads: Option A. Under Option A, only wall signs shall be allowed. The maximum number of signs on any principal building shall he six signs (four product identification signs and two premise identification signs), with only two walls allowed for the display of the signs. Each wall shall contain no more than two product identification signs and une premise identification sign. The total maximum size of wall signs shall be determined by taking twenty percent (20%) of the gross silhouette area of the front of the building, up to three hundred (300) square feet, whichever is leas. For purposes of determining the grosoarea of the silhouette of the principal building, the silhouette u)mll be defined as that area within an outline drawing of the principal building nes viewed from the front lot line or (tom the related public street (o). The Change: Add a n,:ddlo paragraph which would read as fol3owo: It a principal building in nn a corner lot, the largest olde of the building m.,y be ubal t„ rletermine the gross eillwuette ar ,a. Reacon: To clarify what side in unocl for building on a cornet lot. Section 10 -3 -9 -(E) -2 -(h) -(3Z Currently reads: In the cave of it uhepping center where there Are two (2) or more buoinoua usen, a Conditional Ucc Potmit ohall he granted to the entire shopping center in accordance to an overall alto plan Indicating their aizo, lavation, and height of all signs prer,"teu to the Ochollping Planning Conunlnsion. A maximum of five. percent (51) of the q[Oae area of the front silhouette ❑ball apply to the principal building wherethe agyrcya'r allowable sign area in equitably diotrilrtted amonqut the reveral luoin"ur.,�n. In the cane of applying thin conditional uric 1-rmit to a nhr)pping centot, tho❑hopping center may have one (1) pylon or fn•c utanding sign idc•ntifyinq the center which is 10 conformance with this Ordinance. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES November 10, 1981 Page 05 The Change: Substitute the word building for shopping center. Reason: There is no definition of shopping center and this provision would allow any building which has two (2) or more uses the same provision as previously granted to a shopping center. Section 10-3-9-(e)-2 Currently reads: ANNUAL SIGN HANGERS LICENSES: All sign hangers engaging in the business of erecting, constructing, enlarging, alteration, repair, moving, removing, demolishing, or equipping a sign shall be required to be licensed annually. Fees for sign hangers license shall be provided in the Monticello City Ordinance. The Change: Deletethis section. Reason: Not necessary. Section 10-5-4-(C)-3 Currently reads: The provisions of Section 10-22-1 (5) of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. The Changes The (5) should be an (E). Reason: To correct a typographical error in the original ordinance. , S,:ction 10-22-1-(A) Currently reads: Request for amendments or conditional use permits, as provided within this Ordinance, shall be filed with the Zoning Administration on an official application form. Such application shall be accompanied by a fee as outlined in Chapter 25. This fee shall not be refunded. Such application shall also be acconpanicd by ton (10) copies of detailed written and graphic materials fully explaining the prop000d change, development, or use. The Zoning Administrator shall refer said application, along with all related infaamation to the City Planning Commission for consideration and a report and rocommendation to the City Council. The Change: Eliminate the words "ten (10) copies of" in the 4th centence. Ronson: Sometimes it Is not necessary to have ten (10) copieG of everything, and the following would Gtill allow for the provioiono where noro copies would be neeoGsary. Section 10-7.2-1-(C) Currently reados The applicant or o repreGentativo thereof Ghall appear before the Planning Cemmiaoion in order to answer questions concern- ing the proposed amendment or conditional uoe. The Change: Delete this section. Ri naon: Often timer; the applicant cannot he present or have a representative preGent. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES November 10, 1981 Page @6 Section 10-22-1-(D) Currently reads: The amendment or conditional use application shall be referred to the City staff for a report and recommendation to be presented to the Commission. A preliminary draft of the City staff's report and recommendations shall be given to the City Planning Commission at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting at which said report and recommendations are to be presented. The final report and recommendations to the City staff !-- to sto be entered in and made part of the permanent written record of the Planning Commission meeting. The Change: The second sentence,"ten (10) days,"should be changed to -three (3) days!' Peason: This provision is not currently being adhered to and if it were, people would sometimes have to wait five to six weeks to be on the Planning Co:mniusion agenda because of the time frame indicated above. Section 10-22-1-(G) Currently reads: The Planning Commission shall sut a date for a public hearing. Notice of such hearing shall be published in conformance with the State law and individual notices, if it is a district change or con- ditional use permit request, shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the hearing to all owners of property ac- cording to the Wright County encasement recordn, within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the parc,1 included in the request. The Changes In the first sentence delete the words "Planning Coamianion" and substitute "City staff". Reaves: In order to expedite hearingo, the city staff sets the hearings for the Planning Commission rather than to wait for a Planning Consnincion to have a meeting, set a hearing, and then consider the matter at the next meeting. Section 10-22-1-(N1 Currently reads, The Zoning Adminintrator shall notify the applicant of the Council's decision in writing. The Changes Delete thin section. Reasons Thin in unnoccorary. Section 10-22-3-(D) Currently readn: PP.IO'ORNANCB BOND: 1. Except In the care of non -income producing residential property, upon approval ut a conditional ucc permit the City shall bo provided with a surety bond, cacti oncruw, cortrfi- cate of deposit, cecuritioo, or each deposit prior to the issuing of building prrmits or initiation of work on tho propoued improvcmontu or d,velopmont. Said security ❑hall guarantee conformance and compliance with the conditiune of the conditional use permit and the codes of the City. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES November 10, 1981 Page 07 2. The security shall be in the amount of the City Engineer's or City Building Inspector's estimated costs of labor and materials for the proposed improvements or development. Said project can be handled in stages upon the discretion of the City Engineer and Building Inspector. 3. The City shall hold the security until completion of the proposed im- provements or development and a certificate of occupancy indicating compli- ance with the conditional use permit and ordinances of the City has been issued by the City Building Inspector. 4. Failure to comply with the conditions of the conditional use permit and/or the ordinances of the City shall result in forfeiture of the security. The Change: Delete the entire section. Reason: Unnecessary, impractical, and would cause a hardship on the applicant. Section 10-23-8 Currently reads: PERFORMANCE BOND: (A) Except in the case of non -income producing residential property upon approval of a variance or appeal, the City shall be provided with a surety bond, cash escrow, certificate of de- posit, securities or cash deposit prior to the issuing of building permits or initiation of work on the proposed improvements or development. Said security shall guarantee conformance and compliance with the conditions of the variance or appeal and the ordinances of the City. (B) The security shall he in the amount of 1.5 timoo the City unginoor's or Building Inspector's estimated coot of labor and materials for the proposed Improvements or development. (C) The City shall hold the security until completion of the proposed improve- ments or development and a certificate of occupancy indicating compliance with the variance or appeal and ordinances of the City Iwo been iusued by tho City Building Inspector. (1)1 I'ailure to comply with the conditions of the variance or appeal and the ordinnncen of the City shall result in forfeiture of the security. The Change: Delete the entire section. R,. ac on: Same as with previous performance bond requirements for conditional ucr uhould not be nuccouary for variances either. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES November 10, 1981 Page 08 NEW ADDED Section 10-23-8 RECONSIDERATION: Whenever an application £ or a variance has been considered and denied by the Planning Commission or City Council, a similar application for a variance affecting substantially the same property shall not be considered again by the Planning Commission or the City Council for at least six months from the date of its denial: And a subsequent application affecting substantially the same property shall like wise not be considered again by the Planning Commission or City Coune it for an additional six months from the date of the second denial unless the de- cision to reconsider sue', a matter is made by the Planning Commission- if such a request is denied by the Planning Commission, the applicant may appeal this deci :ion to the City Council. Reason: This same language applies to conditional use pennits and no similar language is in the variance section. This would prevent a variance from bcinq reconsidered on a constant basis if requested by the applicant. Section 10-24-1 Currently reads: ISSUANCE: No building or structure here- after erected or moved, or that portion or an existing structure or building erected or moved shall W occupied or used in whole or in part for at,y pur- pose whatsoever until a certificate of occupancy shall have bocn iusu ud by the Building aijopa;*%-,r stating that the building or structure complier with all of the provisions of this Ordinance. The Change: In the first centonce, the 4th "or" should be changed to "of". Reason: To correct a typographical error in original Ordinance. Section 30-24-2 Currently readD, APPLICATION: Said certificate shall be applied for coincident with the application for a building porm.H., conditional use permit, � .a"n"d•/.�or variance and shall be isuucd within ten (10) days :atter the 0j*t6Uw Building ' shall have found the building or atructuro uatisfactory and given final inspection. Said application ❑hall lie accompanicd by a fee a, out- lined in Section 30-25-4. The Chanqo: Delete the words in the first oontonce which rend an follown: "within ten (10) days". Reason, Once the final inspection Kan been given, o certificate of occupancy In granted immediately. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES November 10, 1981 Page R 9 Section 10-24-3 Currently reads: REQUIREMENT: Construction performed pursuant to the provisions of the ordinances establishing and regulating Building Codes of the City of Monticello shall not be subto the requirement of a Certificate of occupancy established by this Ordinance. The Change: The word "subject" incorrectly spelled. 1,eason: To correct typographical error. Chapters 26 s 27 of Title 10 should be reversed. Beason: Chapter 27 was for the Wild and Scenic Act which was actually added after the original ordinance, however the section on enforcement and penalties, Chapter 26, should actually be last and should be designated as Chapter 27. Section 10-22-5-(M) Currently reads: Approval of a request shall require passage by a four -fifth (4/5) vote of the full City Council The Change: Eliminate this section. Reason: A requirement of a simple majority,as you can sea by the enclosed article from the League of Minnesota Cities June 1981 magazine, it could he questioned as to itu validity. Additionally, as you are wall aware, thin has frequently become a problem when acme of the members of the Plan- ning Commission or City Council are not present. If there are only four members present, then it requires a vote of 100% of the people present for approval and when there are leas than four members present, there in no way that the item could be approved. Section 10-22-3-(B) Currently reads: RECONSIDERATION: Whenever an applica- tion for a conditional use permit has leen considered and donied by the City Cuuncil, a similar application for a conditional use permit affecting sub- stantially the name property shall not be conuidered again by the Planning Comminnion or City Council for at least six (6) months from the date of its denial; and a nubcoquent: application affecting substontially the came property ulu:ll likowise not W considered again by the Planning Oomminsion or City Cw ncil for an additional six (6) months from the date of the second denial unlcou a decision to reconoldor such matter in made by not lose than four- fifthL (4/5) vote of the full City Council. The Changs: Delote the words in the last sentence " not loan than four- fiftL, (4/5) vote of lull". Reanon: Same no previous proposed amondment. I PROPOSED ZONING ORDINIJICE CHANGES November 10, 1981 Page 010 Section 10-23-6-(F) Currently reads: A variance of this Zoning Ordinance or grant of an appeal shall be by four-fifths (4/5's) vote of the full Planning Commission serving as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Should there be less than four (4) Planning Commission Members present at any meeting, the applicant may have the matter brought directly to the City Council or have the hearing continued at a Planning Commission meeting at a later date. The Change: Delete this section. Reason : Same reason as in the two previous ordinance amendments proposed. Section 10-23-6-(Y.) Currently reads: A grant of an appeal requires a four- fifths (4/5') vote of the full City Council to reverse the decision of the Planning Zommission. The Change: Delete this section. Reason: Same reason as the provicus throo ordinance amendments proposed. Section 2-1-2 Currently reads: ORGANI7.ATIONt MEETINGS: The Commission shall elect a chairman from among its mrmbers for a term of one yrar and the Com- mission may create and fill such other officoo as it may determine. The Commiosion shAll hold at least one (1) regular meeting each month. This meeting shall be hold on the third Tuesday. Meetings shall commence at seven thirty o'clock (7130) p.m- Hearings stall ix heard at .,uvcu: furry -five o'clock (7:45) p.m., or as soon thereafter as poosible. It shall adopt rules for the transaction of husiness and shall keep a record of its recolutionn, transactions and findingo, which record shall be a public rccurd. The Change: The second paragralih should be chmngod to read ar fol lows: Regular meetings of the Planning Commission shall he held on the uocond TuoWay of each month. Such mootings shall commence at 7.30 u'cluck p.m. The Planning Commission shall ac3opt rules for the transact ic.n of tunines3 and shall keep a record of its reoolutiona, trani.actionn and findings, which record shall be a public record. Reason: Eliminate roforencu to holding at least one regular neutiny each month and having the hearing sot for 7:45 P.M. There may be times when it. is not necessary to have a regular mooting each month and t�iddtt tonally, hearings are held starting at. 7 :30. 1UNING—SPICIAl. USI PI YSIIIS 11ruu lel irry 7u1luig nrdman, les .rufhnnnnl; sln•e rill ur a undrnundl trees n•qurre rnote than a srmplc rim- Iurd1 ut the a uune d it planning a run. uussuni rn approve the In•nnae No. N1any cities have Inning or- dinances which require a sujx•r ma- jority such as a Iwo -thirds unto of the cuuned beton• a special or condi- tional use permit may be issued. tluwevef, such ieepun•ments risk placing the city in a logically and perhaps legally untenable positron. that is so because denial of such per- mits ermits is contingent upon findings by the council or planning comin—ion or both that certain criteria of the tuning ordinance have not been mel. ZVIAa v. Cry of Cryslal, 283 Minn. 192, 167 N.W. 2d 45 (1969). With, for example, a two-thirds vote required by the ordinance in order to issue the 1wrmrt, it is possible that a majority of the council will vote for a finding that the ordinance uiteria have been met: yet no perms can be issued because loss than two thuds of the members of the body approve is. suance. Lven it the unfiname is construed to require a two thirds vote to find a face, n would very likely he difficult to cunvince a reviewing court Ihal a Fast, efficient m and repair of we Berger son -Caswell is well equipped, not only for well drilling, but maintenance, too. If yuu have a reduced flow from an aging pump, or if you are starting to pump sand or other foreign materials, call us for an analysis of repairs. We can put now life into existing wells, quickly and economically. Call (612) 479.3121 Bergerson-Caswell, Inc. 5115 Industrial StlooleMaple Plain, MN 55959 NOTE Plan To Attend Local Energy Officials Conference (CLEO) August 27 and 28, 1981 Details Later finding accepted by a majority of a body is not a valid affumative finding simply because the pruposr tion did not have the extra vote or two to reach a two-thirds majority. In any event, the fact that a majority of the hearing body agrees that the facts warrant issuance will undercut the credibility of the city's argument before any reviewing court. 1 hus, to avoid the logical, practical, and legal ddficulues inherent in the super ma. lurily threshold, we suggest that tom ing ordinances Provide that special and conditional peunits be issued by simple majority. Iv— IVfr 1 is PROPOSED ZONING ORDINATICE CHANGES November 10, 1981 Page #11 Section 10 -3 -5 -D -S -(F2) Curbinq - If curbing is intended only to resolve drainage problems rather than require a continuous concrete curb around the perimeter of the parking lot, the Planning Commission may want to consider an amendment which would indicate that such curbing was required unless a plan was presented by the developer and approved by the City Engineer which would adequately resolve the drainage problem. In this way, it would not be necessary every time for a developer to come back to AV the Planning Commission if drainage were the only question. However, my personal feeling is that a curb barrier serves a purpose other than merely to control drainage, that is, it specifically delineates a parking area, preserves landscaping, and has some aesthetic value. However, my point is that if all variances are goinq to he approved with the only question Laing drainage, then we might as well change the ordinance. Entire Section 10-20 Planned unit Development - I think this entire section is too lengthy (18 pages) and too hard to understand. I have enclosed a sample ordinance suggested by the League of Minnesota Cities that would cover approximately four (4) pages if it were typed up in our zoning ordinance book. it should be pointed out that the League of Minnesota Cities has suggested both a more lengthy Planned Unit Development ordin- ance and a shorter ordinance, and this particular ordinance in actually the more lengthy or detailed ordinance on Planned unit Dow olopment, and the shorter une woul.0 probably only cover about two (2) pages. I think the version that I havo enclosed suggested by the League of Minnesota Cities covers the major portions of what in intended to be covered by file more lengthy version that the City of Monticello has adopted. There may be some areas where we have to tailor-make planned unit development to fit the needs of the. City of Monticello, but in my estimation, the version onclosod by the League of Cities is preferable. .i Article 5. Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) Ordinance provisions for planned unit de- velopments vary widely in both their scope and substance. {yWraa,vertery: r�v.LLi+.: �' ra;,WJ6'fiarllt+dir3h.it4L.�'iG3ffu1� (ttt few ordinances provide for planned industrial districts distinct from planned unit residential developmcnts-01 Wle..•...r.„wtilil'�}'.od:i.un�arns_ryptce�u,rBA• na'�S:pyrg�Y.47Ai8�liltlfrtfa¢Bfe'�4� �[DBT9G�H.-.�u.r,tt...c.6LHh�;iil3f�lilYl�%� short form provisions are briefer, leaving muLh to be spelled out in administration of the providons by plan- ning commission or council rutry Small communities with no large tracts undevel- oped and no immediate prospects of large annexations or substantial redevelopment may wish toomit such provisions altogrr her. Since the planned unit development con- cept involves both subdivision control and zoning, it is desirable that there be appro- priatc tic -ins between the two. Any use of different administeringagencies for the two makes it more difficult to provide for an orderly system of PUDs administered to achieve sound planningiv oblectes. 400. Nor atm. dtlt4t ® Jvr. A.,A Irl psi♦ 0 See Part I for a general discussion of PUDs, their nature and purpose, and their advan- tages and disadvantages. 51. Objectives. It is the policy of the city to promote progressive development of land and con- struction by encouraging planned unit develop- ments (PUDs) to achieve: 51.01. Ev9���ti�r - �nro a rq!-yztedustt��tr-f�tPa�24(�ia!���octz�sv►dlna tsiilii6-s, h cegtucvnents 51.02. A more use ful pattern of open space and recreation areas and, if permitted as part of the project, more convenience in the location of acces- sory commercial uses and services; 51.03. A development pattern which preserves and utilizes natural features, trees and other vegeta- tion,andpreventsthcdisruptionof natural drainage patterns; 51.04 Amurcctticicnt use of land and a result- ing substantial savings through shorter utilities and streets; 51.05. A development pattern in harmony with land use density; transportation facilities, and com. munity facilities ubjecilves of the comprehensive plan. Comment: Because the PUD idea is so at vari- ance with usual district regulations and can- not be subject to the degree of detailed or- dinance treatment which assumes that every tract of land is like every other tract and can be controlled in advance by the same rules that govern all other areas, most ordl- A4 reale Long Form nance provisions for planned unit develop- ments include a more or less detailed state- ment on purposes, goals, or objectives as a guide to the administerirsgagencies and the courts. The statement of objectives should be adapted to meet local needs. 51. Where permitted. A PUD "ay be authorized in any of the following districts: Comment: Many ordinances do not confine PUDs to particular finds of disttrcts. The section may be omitted where PUDs are to be authorized anywhere in the city. Planned unit development provisions are usually applied in one of two ways -either by creating a separate zoning district for each PUD or by making the PUD an over- lay over the existing Toning. The liner method is used in this section and the an i- cle because the overlay technique uses the density requitement of the eomenuonal district as a starting point in determining a new limit. In addition the overlay, approach increases flexibility because the final devv,l- opmcnt plan is no: actually cnac:cd into law, the PUD approval process, rs sup simi- lar to the subdivision approval process, and a PUD designaticn can be applied to mope than one adjoining district. Upon approval of a PUD final dcvclopment plan, the overlay is applied to the zoning map by adding the designation "PUD" to the existing zoning district(s). For instance, a conventional R -R disc iet would he noted as R -8 -PUD on the map. Each PUD is commonly given a number. 53. Uses permitted. Compatible residential, commercial, industrial, public, and quasi puhlic uses may be combined In a PUD if the proposed lo- cation of the commerdal and industrial uses will not adversely affect adjacent pro poly or the public health, safety, and general welfare. When a PUD proposes a mixture of residential uses with cunv- menial o ind,,strial uses or but lythe Loundl may .43. d r 11 Long Form limit the development of not more than _ per cent of the tract to commercial uses and not more than _ per cent of the tract to industrial uses. 54. Standards 54.01. General. [very PUD shall conform to the standards prescribed in this section. 54.02. Relationship of PUD site to adjacent areas. The design of a PUD shall take into account the relationship of the site to the surrounding areas. The perimeter of the PUD shall be so designed as to minimize undesirable impact of the PUD on ad- jacent properties and, conversely, to minimize un- desirable impact of adjacent land use and develop- ment characteristics on the PUD. 54.03. Minimum size. A PUD shall consist of at least _ acres. 54.04. Minimum lot size. The minimum lot size requirements of other sections of this ordinance do not apply to a PUD except that the minimum lot size requirements of the underlying zone shall serve as the criterion to determine the maximum dwell- ing unit density of the total development. The city may, however, authorize a dwelling unit density up to _ per cent greater than allowed in the under. lying zone if the city determines that the proposed PUD is consistent with the objectives of this article. 54.05. Setback and side yard requirements. Notwithstanding other provisions of this article, every lot in a PUD abutting the perimeter of the PUD shall conform to yard requirements for the underlying district. Side yards between buildings in a PUD shall be not less than _ feet but such buildings may be built without reference to the ` property lines of the individual lots on which they are built. 54.06. Access to public right-of-way. The site of a PUD shall abut, and the major internal street or streets serving the PUD shall be connected to, at least one primary arterial, community arterial, or neighborhood collector street. 54.07. Utility requirements. Utilities, including telephone and electrical systems, installed within a PUD shall be placed underground. Uti!ity appur- tenances which can be effectively screened may be expected from this requirement if the city finds that such exception will be consistent with the ob- jectives of this article and the character of the pro- posed PUO. 54.08. Open space. A minimum of_ per cent of the residentidl portion of each PUD shall be reserved for common open space which shall be either held In common ownership by all owners in the PUD or dedicated for public use with approval of the council. Whenever possible, common open space shall be linked to the open space areas of ad- joining developments. Lommon open space shall be of such size, shape, character, and locations as to be usable for its proposed put pose. 1 54.09. Parking. Off-street parking and loading space shall be provided in each PUD in the same •44• Long Form ratios for types of buildings and uses as required in duce through traffic. Side yards of feet and the underlying zoning district. rear yards of feet shall be required if the in - 54.10. Arrangement of commercial uses. When dustrial area adjoins any residential use. All spaces a PUD includes commercial uses, commercial between the right-of-way line and the industrial buildings shall be planned as groups having eom- building line and all intervening spaces oetween mon parking areas and common ingress and egress buildings, drives, parking areas, and improved areas points. Each commercial area shall be separated shall be landscaped with trees and plantings and from abutting residential areas by appropriate properly maintained. screens or fences. The design of commercial areas shall provide for the integrated and harmonious de- sign of buildings and for adequate and properly ar• ranged facilities for internal traffic, circulation, landscaping, and such other features and facilities as may benccrosa. to make the agesattractiveand, efficient from the standpoint of adjacent non. commercial areas. Any area which is not to be im• mediately improved or developed shall be land- scaped or otherwise maintained in a neat and orderly manner as specified by the city. 54,1 L Arrangement of industrial uses. In any PUD including Industrial ruin, the industrial uses shall be provided in park -like surroundings utilizing landscaping and existing woodlands as buffers to scieen lighting, parking areas, loading areas and outdoor storage of raw materials or products. An industrial a ca in a PUD shall provide for the har- monious design of buildings and a compact group- ing in order to economize in the prov;slons of re- quired utility sersices. Streets In a planned indus. trial area shall be kept tua minimum in order to re- -05 Comment: The statement in ordinances of PUD standards vary widely, but that used ni the model, based on various actual and model ordinances, is suggestive of the subjects treated in typical ordinances. Examples of other types of standards sometimes .ncluded are (1) authority to limit commercial and industrial use areas to specified percentages of the total tract; (2) height limits for buildings in a PUD; (3) limitation on the number of dwellings of a particular type (eg.,town houses) inanycowiguousgroup; (4) a requirement that every property de- ve!oped in a PUD should be designed to abut upon common open space or sim lar arcas; (5) a requirement that a ehitectural style of individual buildings he related and compatible with other structures in the PUD, with overall site design, and wdh sur• rounding land uses; (6) requirement for a landscaping plan and its approval by the city; (7) requirement that a POD be served by city or a crmniunity sewer and water fact. lilies. Care should he taken that each stan- dard included is one that ,hould apply to all PUD% and that it n consistent with the PUD objective of encouraging nriagmatt.c design of large prolerls. I'ur this reason, PUD provisions of some toning ordinances contain praCtically no invanablr minnnum standards. Sacral of the standards in the model use the standards of the underlying tone as a base. In an ordnance pruuding that ap- proval of a PUD create+ a new district, this approach may be inappiopi.atc. Sonic or- dinances of that type rete, instead to the "standards of the residential, commercial, or Industrial district(t) mom similar in na- ture and function to the proposed PUD usc(s), as dcteim.ned by the planning tom. miWon (council) " 1 Long Form 55. Procedure 55.01. General. Planned unit developments shall be proposed and approved in accordance with this section. 55.02. Pre -application meeting. Before submit- ting a formal application for a PUD under 55.03, the developer shall meet with the (zon- ing administrator, planning director) and the plan- ning commission. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss early and informally the purpose and effect of this ordinance and the criteria and standards contained in the ordinance and to familiarize the developer with the city's comprehensive plan, in- cluding the land use plan, the major thoroughfare plan, and the parks and open space plan, and with the subdivision regulations and the drainage, sewer, and water systems of the city. Comment: Some cities omit this step as an ordi- nance requirement but encourage It anyway, perhaps even requiring It by formal or Infor- mal planning commission rule. Its importance is stressed by placing the requirement in the ordinance. 55.03. Application. An application for approval of a preliminary development plan for a proposed PUD shall be filed with the (zoning administrator, planning commission, or other ap- propriate official) by at least one owner or lessee of property for which the PUD is proposed. The application shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $ . The application with accompanying statements shall be submitted In ___ copies and shall include: 46. 55.03.1. A vicinity map at a scale approved by the planning commission showing property lines, streets, existing zoning, and such other items as the planning commission may require to show the rela- tionship of the proposed PUD to the comprehensive plan of the city, to existing schools and other com- munity facilities and services, and to the surround- ing area; 55.03-2. A preliminary plan of the entire area in such detail as to show the land uses being requested, the densities being proposed where applicable, the system of collector streets, and the off -sweet park- ing system; 55.d3-3. A written statement explaining in de- tail and with supporting documentation the speci- fics of the development plan as it relates to the type of dwelling units proposed and the resultant population, the extent and nature of nonresidential development and the resulting traffic generated and parking demands created; 55.034. The propowd schedule for the develop- ment of the site; 55.03.5. A statement setting forth the reasons why, In the opinion of the applicant, the PUD will be In the public interest and consistent with the objectives specified fur PUU's by section 51. Comment: Some cities require payment of an application fee in order to dehay in part the city's administrative cost in processing the proposal. Some also impow such a fee in connection with approval of the final devel. opment plan. 1 Long Form The number of copes of the application Ufy the deviation from standard disco regulations Corm and supplementary documentation re- qured :n ordnance PUD provisons varies allowed by this ordinance foi PUD's �1 f .om three to a dozen or more. Some ordi. 1 nances do not specify the number, leaving 55.05. Action by council. Upon rece pt of the this to be %or ked out by the administering off¢ at or agency. recommendations of the planning comm -won, the There is similar variation in prescribing what council shall eonside— the appilcat on and, after t he application should contain or be supple- mented by. The model imposes several re- holding such pubic hearing as 't diems des•rable, - qunements as a m•nimum but permits the planning commission to ask for additional shall app'ore or disapprove the appl•caoon w th informal on. Nothing should be included in t he urd-nance which is not appropriate as a such changes or condo -ons, •f any, as t may deem rnmimum in every case. approp: rate. It shall include I -nd ngs on mane s on 5504. Action by commission. With.n_days which the p'ann-ngcomm'ss,un is icqu red to make of the I.i,ng of the application, the planning com- dete'm-nadons under 55.03 mission shall hold a publ.c hear:ng on the p-uposed 55 06 Final •cv,ew and approval. An app -,ca - PUD Iullowing written and pubCshcd notice as re - tion for is:ew and appiosa' of Ihr fmar dcscop- gwrcd loramendmenisofth,sordinanec.Following ment plan shall be filed by the appucanf with tht. such hea ing and wdthrn _days of the fd-ngot � within 12 months of the date on the appYcation, or at a later time agreed to by the which approval of the pfci-minary pian was green applicant, the plann;ng comm-ssion shall iecom- by the council. It appbcauon for find, dpp,ovaf .s mend ippio,al n disapproval of the pica minary not made %oth.n the tittle requ red, the p.c pusa piopob.0 ucth such changes and eond.tions as it shall he considered abandoned An app cation to may suggest and +hall transmit its ruommenda- final apprural may be fled I Im i of a Nub arca guns to ihi my council. In 'is recommendations for which plc:rminary approval has been g amvu du• nsrnmisson shall delcimme whether the pro - by the council. A final plan for a pa.t w a PUD powd PljD is con%istent with the object vL% lot shall p Ovide the samc pioport'un of open sPaec panned unit doelopmenis specftied m seuion 51 and the came over -alt dwell ng umf dens ty ..s is and w tth the canp,ehens've land use plan of the prorded in the om-all p,elan na-y pan city; v helhei the proposed dnelopment will ad. 55.07. Documentation iceluitcd A final apph. vame I irgeneial wellare of the neighborhood and cation and its supporting documental on shall give the rat y; and whether the benefits, combination of the same information as is rcquued of plats under ,a,iou• land uses,dproposed,andtheinterrelatlon- the subdnsion control ordinance of the c ty in ad. sh.p with the land uses In the surrounding area Ius- dl -on to +tach oche: info-twoon as cequ.ied by 47 Long Form this ordinance and by the planning commission as a condition for approval of the preliminary plan. In addition, the application shall be accompanied by such other documentation, such as restrictive covenants, incorporation papers, by-laws of home owners' association, dedications, and other condi- tions specifically required by the planning commis- sion and the council for the particular PUD. 55.08. Action on final application. Procedure for action by the planning commission and the council on an application for review and approval of the final plan for a PUD shall be the same as pre- scribed by this article for the action on the prelimi• nary proposal. In giving approval, the council may specify the length oft imc within which construction of the project must be begun or be completed, and it may attach such other conditions as seem neces- sary. The final development plan shall be in general conformance with the preliminary development plan as approved. Comment: Section 55 prescribes a typical proce- dure for administering the PUD provisions. It calls for an informal pre -application con- ference, (long form ordinance) an applica- tiun for and approval of a preliminary plan (sometimes called a concept plan), and a later application and approval of a final develop- ment plan. There is no statutory requirement fora pub- lic hearing in this process as lung as approval of a [IUD application dues not involve all amendment of the zoning ordinance. Both forms of the model require a hearing before the planning commission and permit the council to hold hearings at Its discretion. Sonic councils may wish to provide hearing requirements applicable to both bodies or to substitute a council hearing for a commission hearing. A few ordinances simply adopt by reference the notice and hearing require. ments applicable to amendments to the zon- ing ordinance This means a public hea,mg by either the planning commission or the council after publication of a notice at least ten days in advance of the hearing and, in case of a change in district boundaries affec- ting five acres of less, mailed notice to each property owner within 350 f"t of the pro. perly to which the change relates. The procedural section of the model uses the same administrative pattern as provided tot special use permits and variances: rccum- mendation by the planning commission, final approval or disapproval by the council. Some cities rely entirely on the planning commission instead; others would inject the council into the process only a, an appeal body in case the application is disapproved or approved in a form unacceptable to the pplicant. Article 6. Nonconforming Uses and Structures 61. Incompatibility of nonconformitics. Nun - conformities are declared by this urdmance to be incompatible with pcimitied uv_s in the drstncis in which the nonconformity occws. A nontunfurming use of a structure, a nunontaming use of lame, Or a nonconforming use of a structure and land n combination shall not be esicndul nr enlarged after pascrge of this ordinance by attachment ou a building or land of additional signs intended to be seen from off the piemises, of by the aildilion w other uus of a nature .shish would be gcncr.rlly prohibited in the district In which such use IN lo- cated. 62. Nonconforming lots of Record 62.01. Dwelling on small lot. In any district in which single-family dwell igs ate permitted, a single-family dwelling and customary ar.essnr,, •48.