Planning Commission Agenda Packet 09-06-1988AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING CMUSSION
Tuesday, September 6, 1988 - 7:30 p.m.
Members: Richard Carlson, Cindy Lemur, Richard Martie, Mori Malone,
Dan McOonnon.
7:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order.
7:32 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of Regular meeting held August 2, 1988.
7:34 p.m. 3. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow Expansion of an
existing Parking Lot up to within the Five Foot Green Area
Setback Requirement. Applicant, Monticello Eduplay Child Care
Center.
7:49 p.m. 4. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow a Pylon Sign to be
Constructed in excess of the Maximum Sign Square Footage and
Height Requirements. Applicant, Tom 7tomb Store.
8:04 p.m. 5. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow a Parking Lot to be
Constructed within the Five Foot Green Area Requirement. A
Request to Allow this Parking Lot to be Constructed in Two
Phases. Applicant, Bridge stater Telephone Company.
8:19 p.m. 6. Rezoning Request to Rezone a Lot from R-1 (Single Family
Residential) to R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential). If
Rezoned, a Request to Replat this Residential Lot into Eight
Townhouse Lots and One Common Area Lot. If Replatted, a
Conditional Use Request to Allow up to Eight Townhousee on an
R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential) Lot. Applicant, Floyd
Markling.
8:44 p.m. 7. Simple Subdivision Request to Subdivide One Unplatted Lot into
Two Unplatted Lots. Applicant, Tom Holthaue.
8:49 p.m. S. Tabled Request for a Preliminary Plat Review for a Proposed new
Subdivision plat. Applicant, Charles Ritze.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS:
9:14 p.m. 1. Site plan review - 28 Unit Subsidized Elderly Apartment
Building.
9:29 p.m. 2. Landscaping Requirements Update.
9:44 p.m. 3. Building Exterior Requirements Update.
9:49 p.m. 4. Variance Request to Allow Construction of a Garage Addition
within the Front and Side Yard Setback Requirements. Applicant,
Jamas Collette. Council action. No action necessary as there
was no appeal.
1
AGENDA - MONTICELLO PIANNINO COT4RSSION, PAGE 2
10:01 p.m, 5.
Variance Request to Allow Construction of a New Detached Garage
within the Bide Yard Setback Requirement. Applicant, Kermit
Bensen. Council action. No action necessary as there was no
appeal.
10:03 p.m. 6.
variance Request to Allow Two Driveway Curb Cute in Excess of
the Maximum Allowed. Applicant, M i P Transport. Oouncil action.
No action necessary as there was no appeal.
10:05 p.m. 7.
variance Request to Allow a Driveway to be Reconstructed within
the Bide Yard Setback Requirement. Applicant, Michael wieber.
Council action. No action necessary as there was no appeal.
10:07 p.m. S.
variance Request to Allow Placement of a Pylon Sign within the
Setback Requirement from a Public Right of flay. Applicant, J a
K Properties. council action. No action necessary as there was
no appeal.
10:09 p.m. 9.
Set the Next Tentative Date for the Monticello Planning
Commission Meeting for October 6, 1988, 7:30 p.m.
10:11 p.m, 10. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, August 2, 1988 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Mori Malone,
Dan McConnon.
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill.
1. Meeting called to order by Chairman Richard Carlson at 7:34 p.m.
CLARIFICATIONS:
Mr. Dan McConnon asked for a clarification on the motion that was granted
on the variance request by the Coast to Coast Store. Motion should
reflect that the square footage allowed be stricken from the motion and
that the reason for granting the motion should be re -stated that the extra
sign height was warranted because of the safety factor involved and strike
out square footage in its entirety and the additional height would be
needed to receive exposure from the public right of way of Walnut Street
and West Fourth Street instead of Walnut and Pine Street (Highway 25).
Cindy Lemur also would like to clarify the motion she made for the variance
request by Mr. Merrill Busch and it is as follows: statement should be
added after the motion carried unanimously that the reason for the
granting of the variance would be of the historical preservation of this
property.
2. Motion by Dan McConnon, seconded by Cindy Lem to approve the minutes of
the regular meeting held, July 12, 1988. Motion carried unanimously.
3. variance request to allow construction of a garage addition within the
front and aiaeyard set back requirements. Applicant, James Collette.
Mr. Collette was present to propose hie variance request to allow
placement of an attached garage within the front and sideyard set back
requirements. With no input from the public, Chairman Richard Carlson
opened up for any input from the Planning Commission members.
Mr. Richard Martie questioned the amount of set back the proposed garage
would have to the neighboring property to the southwest, which would be
the Birkholder property. Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson indicated
that their would be at least a 20 foot oideyard set back between the
proposed garage addition and the closest portion of the northeast end of
the Birkholder house.
Mr. Dan McConnon questioned the footage from the property line in the
northeast corner of the proposed garage addition. He also questioned if
the applicant could [wild a smaller garage. Mr. Collette answered that
the footage may vary a foot to a foot and a half instead of 8.8 feet it
could be 7.3 feet to the side property line from the proposed northwest
corner of the garage. Mr. Collette also indicated that he did conoider
building a smaller garage to stay within the front and sideyard set back
Planning Minutes - 8/2/88
requirements. He indicated that he likes to do wood working projects and
by allowing the longer garage, it would allow him to place a shop in the
back portion of the garage and also by allowing the garage to be pushed
forward four feet it would allow him to go out of the garage entrance door
instead of the overhead garage doors.
Richard Carlson indicated that the smaller garages, as which were proposed
when these houses were built are too small by today's standard. That now
when they do build garages they are building larger and more wider garages
to accomodate two car garages. Jeff O'Neill indicated that the
determination of the square footage of the garage in relationship to the
request. The hardship was created by the developer in the placement of
the house on this lot. Chairman Richard Carlson indicated that in the
past, Planning Commission hears on the average two requests per year from
this development and the adjoining development, the Anders Wilhem Addition
in regards to variance requests to allow a garage within the sideyard set
back requirement.
Mori Malone questioned the size of the lot in relationship to the house
which is on it. Zoning Administrator, Anderson indicated to Ms. Malone
that the house was so placed on the lot that centered it an the lot
instead of allowing enough room for a two car garage of the width that is
most desired right now. Dan MoConnon questioned the width of the
drainage utility easement. Anderson indicated to Mr. McConnon that we
have 6 foot drainage and utility easements on the sides of the lots and on
the front and rear we have a 12 foot drainage and utility easement.
With no further input from the Planning Commission members on a motion by
Cindy Le=, seconded by Richard Martie to approve the variance request to
allow construction of a garage addition within the front and sideyard set
back requirements. Motion carried unanimously. Reason for approval is
the hardship was created by the developer of this project.
6. A variance rawest to allow construction of a new detached garage within
the sieeyara set back requirements. Applicant, Kermit Benuen.
Mr. Kermit Bensen was present to propose a variance request to allow
placement of a new detached garage within the sideyard set back
requirement. Mr. Beneen's proposed new detached garage would replace the
existing smaller single car garage and would match up to be the same size
as his adjoining property owner to the west, Don and Nancy Smith's
detached garage.
with no further input from the public, Chairman Richard Carloon then
opened it up for any input from the Planning Commission members or City
Staff. Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson presented a letter to Chairman
Richard Carlson to have read from Don and Nancy Smith, adjoining property
owner to the went, expressing their total support for Mr. Bensen'e
request. Mori Malone indicated in driving by the site, she saw no problem
with the variance request as proposed by Mr. Bensen in that it would match
up with the existing garage of Don and Nancy Smith in that they have a
shared driveway to service both garages.
Planning Minutes - 8/2/88
Richard Carlson questioned if Mr. Smith's garage should receive fire rated
sheetrock sheeting on it now, even though it was built approximately five
years ago. Zoning Administrator, Anderson indicated that we would deal
with the existing building permit application should this variance be
approved. At that time, this garage would have to receive the fire rated
sheeting within any portion of the garage that falls within 10 feet of the
adjoining Smith's garage to the west. If the Smith's were to expand their
garage or to remodel their garage at that time, fire rated sheathing
would be applied in the portion of the garage that falls within 10 feet of
Mr. eensen's garage. Mr. Dan McConnon questioned to what the fire rated
sheeting means. Zoning Administrator, Anderson indicated that any
portions in the occupancy that a garage is classified, which is M-1
occupancy, any portion of this M-1 occupancy would fall within 10 feet of
another structure or an R-3 single family dwelling structure within 10
feet of the area would have to receive fire rated sheathing.
With no further input by Planning Commission members or City Staff, motion
by Richard Martie, seconded by Mori Malone, to approve the variance
request to allow construction of a new detached garage within the sideyard
set back requirement. Potion carried unanimously. Reason for approval of
the variance request is that it is a shared garage and this would be the
best location for the detached garage.
5. A variance request to allow two driveway curb cuts in excess of the
maximum allowed. Applicant, M 6 P Transport.
Mr. Jay Morrell, partner in M 6 P Transport, was present to propose a
request to allow 50 foot expansion on of an existing 24 foot wide driveway
and also the creation of another 50 foot driveway curb cut off of Dunae
Road. Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson indicated that the setback for
driveway curb cut width is at the property line. Additional widths of
driveway curb cute are done by constructing wider turning radi between the
property line and the existing bituminous pavement of the street which
services this driveway curb cut.
Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson questioned Mr. Morrell if the
semi -truck tractor with the trailer behind it can adequately make a turn
going south on Fallon Avenue in making a righthand turn and proceeding
west onto Dundas Road. Mr. Morrell indicated that the backend trailer, as
it makes its full turn onto Dundas Road would actually be off the
bituminous pavement portion of the Dundas Road.
With no further input from the public, Chairman Richard Carlson opened up
for input from the Planning Commiocion members. Richard Martie indicated
that 50 feet would be the minimum needed to accomodate a semi -truck
tractor with a trailer behind it to make a turn off of city street into a
proposed business. Dan McConnon questioned if he could reduce the 24 foot
curb cut, which exists and just keep the 50 feet that he is asking for his
variance. Mr. Morrell indicated that he would like to leave the existing
24 foot curb cut to accomodate semi -truck tractor traffic in the area to
service the building on the southeast warehouse building which he has
leased out additional space for Decorative Services to use. A good share
of their material is brought in by semi -truck tractor and there is a
loading dock outside of this building to accomodate loading and
unloading.
Planning Minutes - 8/2/88
With no further input from the Commission, motion by Richard Martie,
seconded by Dan Mcconnon to approve the variance request to allow two
driveway curb cuts in excess of the maximum allowed. Fallon Avenue curb
cut would be expanded 50 additional feet to accomodate a total width of 74
feet and the driveway curb cut along Dundas Road would be created with a
50 foot curb cut. Motion carried unanimously.
6. A variance request to allow a driveway to be reconstructed within the
sioeyaro set back requirement. Applicant, Michael Wieber.
Mr. Wieber was present to propose his variance request to allow his
driveway to be reconstructed and a portion of this driveway, which would
accomodate a parking space, to be allowed to bring it right up to the side
property line.
Mori Malone questioned the location of the driveway in relationship to the
string line or by the stakes put up. Mr. Wieber responded that it is by
the string line where the proposed driveway would be reconstructed. Jeff
O'Neill questioned Mr. Wieber if a car was parked in the location
proposed, and a person stepped out of the car, would they be on his
property or on his neighbor's property. Mr. Wieber responded that they
would be on approximately two feet of his property when getting out of a
car parked in this location. Chairman Richard Carlson then read a letter
from the neighboring property owners to the west, Mr. Dan Carlson voicing
his concerns of locating this driveway portion up to the side property
line. Richard Martie questioned the width of a parking space as required
in relationship to the proposed 12 foot parking space that Mr. Wieber is
proposing. Zoning Administrator, Cary Anderson indicated that the parking
space size is of 9 feet in width for vehicles. Dan MCConnon questioned if
their was a vehicle parked up by the sidewalk entrance in which he uses
off of his driveway to get up to his house, if two vehicles could be
parked side by side in this location. Mr. Wieber responded that two cars
cannot park aide by side in this area. Assistant Administrator, Jeff
O'Neill indicated to Planning Commission member that their might be a
compromise in that Mr. Wieber would like to have 12 feet and by ordinance
the maximum you could go without a variance is 9 feet.
No further input from Planning Commission members or City Staff, motion by
Dan McConnon, seconded by Cindy Lemn to approve the variance request to
allow a driveway to be reconstructed within the eideyard set back
requirement. The driveway would be placed 2 feet from the aide yard
property line where 3 feet from the side lot line is the minimum set
back. Motion carried unanimously.
7. variance request to allow placement of a pylon sign within the side back
requirement or a public right or way. Applicant, 9 i K property.
Ken Maun was present for the proposed re -placement of their existing pylon
sign in new location, which would be within the setback requirement of a
public right of way.
Planning Minutes — 8/2/88
With no further input from the public, Chairman Richard Carlson then
opened it up for any comments from the Planning Commiasion members or City
Staff. Dan McConnon questioned the actual setback distance from the
public right of way in relationship to the two curb placements as shown on
the enclosed site plan. Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson indicated to
Mr. McConnon the placement of the pylon sign would be 6 feet from the back
of the new curb on the frontage road going past the plaza and 4 1/2 feet
from the existing curb that was placed on their property. Zoning
Administrator, Anderson also indicated that due to the new alignment of
the frontage road, the sign that exists was in the center of the new
frontage road that is under construction.
With no further input from the Commission, motion by Cindy Lemmm, seconded
by Dan McConnon to approve the variance request to allow placement of the
pylon sign within the setback requirement from a public right of way.
Motion carried unanimously.
Reason for Planning Commission approval, is that they do not approve of
the setback within the public right of way, but this is the best location
for this re—located pylon sign to get the maximum amount of exposure from
the east County Road 75 roadway`;
ADDITIONAL INPORMATION ITEMS:
1. Site plan review. Applicant, David Hornig.
Mr. Hornig was represented at the meeting by his family members due to a
meeting schedule conflict. The family representing Mr. Hornig indicated
on the enclosed site plan is the only change that they made from what was
previously submitted was that the buildings where switched. The 12 unit
townhouse is now situated on the north aide of their lot and the 16 unit
apartment building has been relocated to the west side of the lot. The
other changes are that the one 12 unit townhouse building has now been
broken up into two 6 unit townhouse buildings.
Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson indicated to the Planning Commission
members that the site plan, with the landscaping developed on it does meet
or exceed all the minimum requirements of our landscaping ordinance. With
no further input from the public or the Planning Commisaion members,
motion by Cindy Lemmn, seconded by Mori Malone to approve the site and
landscaping plan for the family subsidized apartment project to be known
as "Louring Green". Motion carried unanimously.
2. Review the proposed ordinance amendment on landscaping requirements.
Assistant City Administrator, Jeff O'Neill indicated to Planning
Commmisoion members the proposed changes to the landscaping ordinance as it
exists today. The section that is proposed to be changed is when the
property is being developed on an acreage of land that it be based off of
the area of land that is developed and an additional 30 feet surrounding
the area being developed. The only change is that the City Council, at
its discretion may allow the phasing in of installation of landscaping
over a period of three years. These were the two basic changes to the
existing Monticello zoning ordinance. It is at Mr. O'Neill's suggestion
Planning Minutes 8/2/88
that the Planning Commission members look at the proposed amendment and
add or delete anything that they see to be inappropriate for that. The
intent of this was to bring it before the Planning Commission members for
their review prior to review before the Housing Development Authority and
also the Industrial Development Committee.
Subject to the Housing Development Authority and/or the Industrial
Development Committee a final proposed draft for an ordinance amendment on
the on the landscaping ordinance section will be brought back before the
Planning Commission members probably at their September 6, 1988 meeting
through the public hearing process of the proposed changes.
3.
Proposed ordinance amendment on regulating the type of exterior building
construction.
Mr. O'Neill informed the Planning Commission members that the Industrial
Development Committee had received the proposed amendment on the
Industrial/Commercial Building exterior Restrictions. The Industrial
Development Committee felt that they needed more time to review the
proposed changes and they would discuss it again at their next regular
scheduled meeting in August.
d.
Side Subdivision request to subdivide three residential lots into two
res dential lots. Applicant, Don Bauer.
Council action. Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
4.
Variance request to allow erection of a pylon sign in excess of the
maximum neigfit_and square tootale allowed, and to be allowed the place a
sign witnin the minimum setoack tram a public rignt or way.
LBion
plicanE, Coast to Coast Store.
Council action. No action needed, as there was no appeal.
6.
Variance request to allow a detached ggarage within the frontyard set back
requirement. Applicant, Merrill Busch.
Council action. No action needed, as there was no appeal.
7.
Replateing request to re Plat an existing lot into eight townhouse and one
area lot. Applicant, Jay Miller.
Council action. Approve as per Planning Commission recommendation.
8.
A tabled conditional use request to allow more than twelve(12) apartmento
in a downtown commercial building. A Variance request to allow rive lel
he ri[et rloor Or a downtown commercial
exloting apartments to remain on �.mm
building as a non-contorming use. Applicant, Gary Hammer.
Council action. No action needed as request did not come before City
Oouncil. Applicant has put the former restaurant space up for lease or
rent.
Planning Minutes 8/2/88
9. Set the next tentative date of the Monticello Planning Commission.
Motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Dan MoConnon to set the next
tentative date for September 6, 1988, 7:30 p.m.
10. Motion by Richard Hartie, seconded by Dan McConnon to adjourn the meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully
Submitted,
Gary Anderson,
Sorting Administrator
IN
�. Planning Agenda - 9/6/88
,S A Variance Request to Allow a Parking Lot to be Constructed within the Five
Foot Green Area RecLuirement. A Request to Allow this Parking lot to be
Constructed in Two Phases. Applicant, Bridge water Telephone Company. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Bridge Water Telephone Company has negotiated a purchase agreement on the lot
immediately north of their existing telephone company building, the Floy McCoy
residence. Bridge Water Telephone Company is proposing to be allowed to
construct this parkinglotaccomodake the
et with imum requirements of our parking Int
ordinar}ce oL2 fear lang naxki„g wm2s w4 a 24 foot dridcs iAIe An another
20 foot set of parking epac:e width.
width that they are purchasing ie only 66 fee n w Also, th
would like to be allowed to construct this parking lot in two phases with the
the area
to occur snow a sometime in the future. The first phase would
I.�,X`/ encunpnse the arae that is now an existing garage and trees that would be
c t the time. The existing house is to stay until sometime in the
future to be removed and the parking lot to take up that area. To increase the
amount of green area, the total number of parking spaces accumulated in a
parking lot, only 25 percent of these spaces may be of the compact parking
space size which is 7 1/2 by 16 1/2 feet. If we also looked at part of a
variance within the development of the second phase of this parking lot project
to allow more compact parking spaces than the maximum 25 percent of the total
that is allowed. By doing this, we could pick up 3 1/2 feet of the green area,
inotherwords, a car when parked near the sidewalk an the west side of this
existing lot would not be over hanging onto the public sidewalk. The layout
does show a new driveway curb cut proposed to go in near the northeast corner
of this existing lot. By the placement of this driveway curb cut at or near
the northeast corner of this property would facilitate pulling the cars that
are parked along the west side of this lot back farther to the east to
acoomodate a little more parking area in the northwest portion of this proposed
phase 2 of the parking lot. Also, the adjoining property owner has suggested
that a screening fence be constructed along the entire east aide of this
property line in phase 1 and phase 2 to provide a screening area from this
parking lot to the next adjoining property owner to the east. Even though the
house is in a non -conforming use in this zone for this particular property B-4
(Regional Business), it is an adjnining residential structure, so we feel that
a screening fence of at least six feet but not more than eight feet in height
be constructed in phase 1 and also continued on in phase 2 up to within 30 feet
of the northeast corner of this property.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow a parking lot to be constructed
within the five foot green area requirement. Approve the request to allow
this parking lot to be constructed in two phases.
2. Deny the variance request to allow a parking lot to be constructed within
the five foot green area requirement. Deny the request to allow this
parking lot to be constructed in two phases.
Planning Agenda - 9/6/88
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed layout as presented in the enclosed site plan deal with a rather
unique layout for this proposed new parking lot. By also looking at a variance
when phase two is constructed to allow more than 25 percent of the total number
of spaces of this parking lot to be of the compact car space size, 7 1/2 feet
by 16 1/2, it will allow for more green area an the vest side of this proposed
parking lot in phase 1 and phabe 2, therefore increasing the green area
separation between the existing sidewalk and the newly created curbing for this
• �' parking lot.
D.
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request, copy of the site plan
for the proposed variance request, and a copy of the ordinance section in
regards to the green area setback requirements and parking lot deli width.
rI
•.• _ R A Variance Request to allow a parking lot to
be constructed within the (5) five foot
Tr
•'•' -• 7- �•• �'t !. a - F R green area requirement. A request to
• .%�,���.� �"•.�,�'•��•%" �•� allow this parking lot to be
\��I" :•
,;,' i j ♦„ �� . ♦,' „ onsturcted is two phases.
?i ±� atlon is Block 33, Lot 10
ginal Plat Addition in the
Cii Of Monticello.
�'• ,�v.+ •� y' ,; ADPL Bridge Water
Telephone Co.
0
y�ChW4) ., p / .';!I/1.
r I' ^' � I � (1 ,1 • 1 /'„ rte/ .
IVO. 94
t ' i �� /� 1 • 1 •�'1 1 • t' � jwR.' .
♦ �`T .� 1
t , . C�77O
'y
17-7
S✓ 4 q o
Except in the case of single family
and two family dwellings, driveways
and stalls shall be surfaced with
six (6) inch class five base and two (2)
inch bituminous topping or concrete
equivalent. Plans for surfacing and
drainage of driveways and stalls for
five (3) or mora vehicles shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for
his review and the final drainage
plan shall be subject to his written
approval.
(1) STRIPING: Except for single, two
family and townhouses, all parking
stalls shall be marked with white
painted lines not leas than four (4)
inches wide.
(m) LIGHTING: Any lighting used to illuminate
an off-street parking area shall be
so arranged as to reflect the light
away from adjoining property, abutting
residential uses and public right-of-ways
and be in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2, [GI and (HI of this Ordinance.
(n) SIGNS: No sign shall be so located
as to restrict the sight lines and
orderly operation and traffic movement
within any parking lot.
(o) CURSING AND LANDSCAPING: Except for
single, two family and townhouses,
all open off-street parking shall
have a perimeter curb barrier around
the entire parking lot, said curb
barrier shall not be closer than five (S)
feet to any lot line. Grass, plantings
or surfacing material shall be provided
in-allareao bordering the parking
(p) REQUIRED SCREENING: All open, non-reaidential,
off-street parking areas of five (5)
or more spaces shall be screened and
landscaped from abutting or surrounding
residential districts in compliance
with Chapter 3, Section 2 of this
Ordinance.
S. CALCULATING SPACE:
(a) When determining the number of off-street
parking spaces results in a fraction,
each fraction of one-half (�) or more
shall constitute another space.
(b) In stadiums, sports areanas, churches
and other places of public assembly in
which patrons or spectators occupy
benches, pews or other similar seating
facilities, each twenty-two (22) inches
of such seating facilities shall be
counted as one (1) seat for the purpose
of determining requirements.
(c) Should a stricture contain two (2)
or more types of use, each shall be
calculated separately for determining
the total oft -street parking spaces
required.
QSTALL, AISLE AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN:
(a) PARKI.M SPACE SIZE Each parking
apace shall be not less than nine (9)
feet wide and twenty (20) feet in
length exclusive of access aisles,
and each space shall be served adequately
by access aisles. EXCE M OM: Mete
duo ,%ed. up to 251 od the packing
apacea may be not teaa than seven
and one -hats (741 beet in uu.dth and
not teas than aixteen 1)6) deet in
Length when atwed adequatety by acceaa
aidtea to dCC0am10date Compact ca4
\ pa4hing, dnd ahoutd be masked as auch.
(b) WITHIN STRUCTURES: The off-street
parking requirements may be furnished
by providing a apace so designed within
the principal building or one (1)
structure attached thereto; however,
unless provisions are made, no building
permit shall be issued to convert
said parking structure into a dwelling
unit or living area or other activity
until other adequate provisions are
made to comply with the required off-street
parking provisions of this Ordinance.
(c) Except in the cue of single, two
y family and townhouse dwellings, parking
areas shell be designed so that circulation
between peeking bays or aisles occurs
within the designated parking lot
and does not depend upon a public
street or alley.
Except in the case of single, two
family and townhouse dwellings, parking
area design which requires backing
into the public street is prohibited.
Nof
ut access shall be located
forty (40) feet from the
intersection of two (2) or more street
ways. This distance shall
ed from the intersection
nea.
(e) Except in the case of single family,
twofamily and townhouse dwellings,
parking areas and tneir aisles shall
be developed in compliance with the
following sandards:
WALL WALL TO I:i.ERLO= TO
TO INTERLOCC MERL=
Xr.L3 MINI.MUM MI.iI:a:T:: MINIMUM
30 48.61 44.5' .40.3-
45 56.8' 53.4' 50.0'
60 62.0' 59.7' 57.4-
90 64.0' 64.0' 64.0'
Parallel Parking : Twenty-two (22) feet in length.
(f) No curb cut access Shallexceed twenty-four (24)
leerin width.
(g) odistricts
enings and driveways Shall
imum three (3) feat from
rd property line in residential
nd five (5) feet from theot line in business or
districts.
(h) Driveway aeeeae curb openings on a
public Street except for single, two
family and townhouse dwellings shall
not be located less than forty (40)
feet from one another.
(i) The grad* elevation of any perking
area shall not exceed five (5) percent.
(3) Each property shall be allowed one (1) curb cut per
one hundred twenty-five (125) feet
of street frontage. All property
shall be entitled to at least one (1)
curb cut. Single family uses shall be limited
rn one (1) curb cut access par property.
(k) 8UR►ACING: All areas intended to
bs uLlYirsd for parking space sad
driveways shell be surfaced with materials
suitable to control duet and drainage.
Planning Agenda - 9/6/88
3. Variance Recjueat to Allow Expansion of and EXleti Parki►�g Lot up to within
the Five PcoE Green Area setUdc Requirement. A V icant, fionticelt0 eaupiay
Child Care Center. 1G.A.f
A. REPERENCS AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Ren Catton, partner in the Monti Eduplay Child Care Center, to proposing to
be allowed to utilise the 30 foot portion of Outlot B between the existing
Monti Eduplay Child Care Center and the Wendy's fast food restaurant. By being
allowed to use this 30 foot portion of 0utlot B, Mr. Catton is proposing to
move the employee parking lot out into this are and redesign his existing
parking lot. With the redesign of the parking lot as shown on the enclosed
site plan, the parking will be removed on the north portion of the lot and
redirected on the 30 foot portion of Outlot B. Mr. Catton is also proposing to
relocate the existing enclosed trash dumpster back into the area near the
Wendy's trash dumpster enclosure.
The City of Monticello does have public utilities which are underneath this 30
foot portion of Outlot B. An agreement will be entered into between all
parties effected, Wendy's Past Food Restaurant, Monti Eduplay Child Care
Center, and Mr. Rent Rjellberg, and the City of Monticello regarding the use of
this 30 foot portion of Outlot B. If City has to get in to dig up the hard
surface, any part of the hard surface dug up by the utility construction in
this 30 foot area of Outlot B will be replaced at the Developer, Monti Eduplay
Child Care center's expense. Subject to the approval of the City Attorney, Tom
Hayes, this document shall become of legal record and shall be recorded on the
outlot B property effected by this agreement.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
1. Approve the variance request to allow expansion of an existing parking lot
up to within the five foot green area setback requirement.
2. Deny the variance request to allow expansion of an existing parking lot up
to within the five foot green area setback requirement.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
When you look at the site as it exists, we currently have a driveway curb cut
that was constructed on this 30 foot portion of Outlot B to serve as another
way of getting out of the Wendy's fast food parking lot. The problem that
exists with that is that it is not a hard surfaced driving area and that in the
rainy times of the months, we have mud coming back onto Sandberg Road creating
more of a maintenance problem for the City of Monticello. There currently
exists weeds that are allow to grow there until they exceed the 6 inch maximum
height and then they are taken care of by the owner, Ralph Hermes. This would
be a general clean up of the entire area and the five foot green area
requirement wasn't really there to begin with. What we will end up with is a
positive result with a better looking area when it is all done.
D. s.,,r..n...w DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request, copy of the site plan
for the proposed parking lot expansion, copy of the parking lot design
ordinance section.
... R A variance request to allow expansion of an
neign of an existing parking lot up to
with a (S) five Loot green area setback
r'r1��V �'''•.., f + R requ a _ Location is Block 2• Lot 1,
F •: •� / lock 1, 1• and Out Lot S. Plaza
'/•'\_ Partnere Add lion in the City of Monticello
''•.' •••fir •••'• \f ' ~'•,tJ "',~' APPLICANT: Monticello Eduplay Child
�'r •; \ •� �T�'•� . 'f`�,' +-" a canter.
J. ,
.44
• 1111 �.. \:i'�./.�' I -•\ (, , •/// , / � -"• -`/
�I :/% ! •/,�,' • / t i . + r . � �Z\ SII /.. /, � .., ;'� �; . k:
` � � ��/ / � • �.�� rte/ ..',
No.
Sq
r _ 1
1 ,f � I �g '
r
Except in the case of single family )
and two family dwellings, driveways
and stalls shall be surfaced with
six (6) inch class five base and two (2)
inch bituminous topping or concrete
equivalent. Plans for surfacing and
drainage of driveways and stalls for
five (S) or more vehicles shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for
his review and the final drainage
plan shall be subject to his written
approval.
(1) STRIPING: Except for single, two
family and townhouses, all parking
stalls shall be marked with white
painted lines not lose than four (a)
inches wide.
(m) LIGHTING: Any lighting used to illuminate
an off-street parking area shall be
so arranged as to reflect the light
away from adjoining property, abutting
residential uses and public right-of-ways
and be in compliance with Chapter I, Q
Section 2, (G) and (H) of this Ordinance.
(n) SIGNS: No sign shall be so located
as to restrict the sight lines and
orderly operation and traffic movement
within any parking lot.
(o) CURBING AND LANDSCAPING: Except for
single, two family and townhoasea,
all open off-street parking shall
have a perimeter curb barrier around
the entire parking lot, said curb
barrier shall not be closer than five (S)
feet to any lot line. Grans, plantings
or surfacing material shall be provided
in-allareas bordering the parking
area.
(p) ACQUIRED SCREENING: All open, non-residential,
off-street parking areas of five (5)
or more Spaces shall be screened and
landscaped from abutting or surrounding
residential districts in compliance
with Chapter 7, Section 2 of this
Ordinance.
�1oc N► a5
L»{ 9off
1
SA
111)6ERC RDAO """ L4V/'l►OV
— C*R tra N' -jr w'u#r r,"ON7`.
r4IQfiic0 tN, fr..etOut 363D1
CRFtN&JAy 00MA►Ce REgv,tsT
icw . oo�cr �o.►w.a w
oin
i
1,»
ii•
pv
Li. O
4
QUO» v
4
a � t1t
r.
P
V �
�1oc N► a5
L»{ 9off
1
SA
111)6ERC RDAO """ L4V/'l►OV
— C*R tra N' -jr w'u#r r,"ON7`.
r4IQfiic0 tN, fr..etOut 363D1
CRFtN&JAy 00MA►Ce REgv,tsT
icw . oo�cr �o.►w.a w
oin
Planning Agenda - 9/6/88
4. A VarianceRe�tueat to Allan a Pylon Sign to be Constructed in excess of the
ti_ Maximum S1 square Footage an8 Height requirements. Applicant, Tom Thumb
Stole. (J..i
: -41 u.« -.i. :..-x:,.1151-
The Tom Thumb Food Store is proposing to be allowed to replace their existing
pylon sign with a oombination Tom Thumb Store sign and a separate Phillips 66
gasoline station sign. The total square footage of the two signs combined is
264 square feet threby exceeding the 200 square foot maximum allowed by
ordinance. It is also proposed that the new combination sign be elevated to 50
feet in height which would exceed the maximum of 32' allowed under the freeway
bonus. The maximum allowed under the freeway bonus is 32' above the traveled
portion of the road which gets its major exposure, in this case it would be
Highway 25.
Variances have been requested by other businesses in this area for additional
sign height and sign square footage and have been approved in the past.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Deny the variance request to allow a pylon sign to be constructed in
excess of the maximum sign square footage and height requirements.
Planning Commission must determine if there are circumstances that justify the
proposed variance. It may be difficult for the applicant to make a good
e justification for the variance request. Applicants single justification
appears to be based on the desire of economic gain which will be the result of
better advertising created by a higher and bigger sign. The desire for
economic gain is not a criteria for awarding a variance according to the zoning
ordiance. Therefore, unless there is another factor justifying the
installation of the higher and larger sign, it appears that there are no
grounds for granting the variance.
If the Ommmisaion does decide that the request is reasonable and a variance is
appropriate, then it should consider taking future action to amend the
ordinance to allow this type of sign development to occur without requiring a
variance. Such an amendment would create an ordinance that better reflects the
values of the Planning Cnmmmission regarding freeway eignage.
2. Approve the variance request to allow a pylon sign to be constructed in
excess of the maximum sign square footage and height requirements.
It appears that on previous occasions, the Planning Comaaission has allowed
installation of signs higher and larger than the maximum allowed, therefore it
appears that a precedent has been set. Since I am not familiar with the case
history I am not sure how previous precedents affect this case. Previous
precedent may compell the Planning Commission to approve this variance request.
As of the preparation of this agenda item, information regarding the precedents
has not been oollected. I hope to have this information at the meeting.
s
Planning Agenda - 9/6/88
C. STAPP REOM9 MTION:
Staff recommends denial of the variance request. The sign as presented would
be in excess of the maximum amount of sign height and square footage allowed by
ordinance under the freeway bonus portion, which allows a maximum of 200 square
feet of pylon sign area and a maximum of 32 feet in height. Such a large
variance does not appear justified and awarding the variance could create a
precedent that would add to the proliferation of higher and larger signs which
could result in significant visual blight. If the Planning Commission desires
to approve this request, it should consider adopting new language requlating
free -way signage.
D. DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request and copy of the site plan
for the proposed new pylon sign and a copy of sign square footage and sign
height requirements.
t�
r
s19t'
low ° Yin
R°so `� e�oB of
p Va & cow°u= °i4 xm't�, ui�° of �t 8� p o4° 11 ,
p° 114 °Q Py of. 14*
14* iw A'°
-tVi=e.
�•[1`�,('..e.. •,..� "-"..'.'.'.',���...�.';•i1. 3r�'+..,� 'rr' •'lv,l `f.tt 1 =._-
i---z4z�, r,.���+'�a.,.,.tJ�7 t,1, y %r/ :tf►a .. ,+ty til ,�a•1c •Q�• ( `'^�
�( "�-J •_K ���„ . !.+ 'fit ':,,�:. � •11ft� �.% 1H�'?(.rl .+� t� ' . / . 'o• . ..,,'�.
�..t r . „`• C t :jI. Pi ' t } ."'"y •ram 1 !• . `��»,.,r�. j{:
L7'
lr
t�....;,J�t .; •t �..r 1 ( ,, .�,,,-r 1P i�., /t ./ / . lI• �^./11r•r' �_'
• � ,i• � ;'�„� •'' ;t'% ,� + .•� \.. j / t j• Rrti,. •:t, Jl” f`j j:t. j:'�°'''"
•IGMWAY
NO. 94 t �/
=:''�' • ,•rte •.t•� _y,�aoa /,�.�r� - 1`-,+.
(b) Parking Areas, Driveways: No part
of the pylon signs shall be less than
five (5) feet from any driveway or
parking area.
(c) Area, Height Regulation:
SPEED AREA HEIGHT
ROAD CLASSIFICATION (MPH) (SO -FT.) (FEET)
Collector 30 25 16
34 50 20
60 100 26
major Thoroughfares 30 50 1B
39 100 22
60 125 26
45 Iso 26
50 175 28
21.y..y end S5 200 32
' and
above
(d) Definitions: Definitions of road
classifications apply as defined by
the official Comprehensive Plan as
adopted.
(•) Application: The level at which the
sign control system applies is determined
by the type of road, es defined above,
which directly abuts the subject property.
L. In the case of subject property
directly abutting mor• than
one (1) road, each designated
by a different road classification
type, the loss restrictive classification
shall apply in determining sign
area and height.
ii. lbth
sign height is determined
grad• ofthe road from
he signgains its principal•.
W. Area as determined by the formula
under 3 (c) above, applies to
one (1) face of a two (2) laced
pylon sign, or two (2) faces
of a tour (4) faced sign, etc.
V. A bonus allowing -Freeway Standard
Sigma• (200 aquae fere is ar.a
and 32' high) in a commerolal
or industrial area is axailable
to all businesses located within
800 lost of a freeway but do
not abnt
777
PllilL,
WI,
77
fiW•
d1MwWtoo,SN►y io �.,' wro
� :eJacatwrt•r �,?� � .
Sig+acraflert
Os1Aw,07sH.Rtoo. f q'q'r6'M•' � �
R CCMFLtll ETON SERMS
r�wiinr�n � nn r,w nmu�, !li 1Y'_•^~--• �` i
»rnvr•wr w.rra+.wrs 111 r++a...,,w
Sµ'srr,{�ltrr
V
Planning Adenda - 9/6/88
v 5. Oonsider variance re:uests associated with Racking lot development
proposed by
Brlcewater Teleprxw Company. variance requests incluse: (70 )
1. Request to exceed maximum percentage of compact parking stalls allowed.
Ordinance allows 258 of total, Proposal calls for 54% of total stalls to
be sized for compact care.
2. Request to develop parking area that does not meet width minimums.
Proposal calls for 60' minimum with 90 degree angle parking. Ordinance
requires 641.
3. Request to encroach on minimum distance that curb cuts can be made from
adjoining side yards. Minimum is 51. Proposal calls for curb cut located
2' from adjoining property.
4. Request to encroach on side yard set -back. Proposal calls for a 1'
set -back along the side yard. The ordinance requires a 5' set -back.
S. Request to encroach on required set -back of parking area from a roadway.
Proposal calls for a 13' set -back from Hwy 25. Ordinance calls for 15'
minima. 2' variance is required.
6. Request to allow parking lot to be constructed in two phases.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Bridge Vater Telephone has acquired an option on the lot ixmediatly north of
their existing structure. Bridge water proposes to develop a parking area
which will ultimately replace the existing single family dwelling. The
proposal calla for development of the lot in two phases.
During the first phase, the house would remain with the parking located between
the house and the Bride water Telephone Oompeny Building. Removed would be the
existing garage and trees. The existing curb cut on Hwy 25 will become the
access point to the lot during phase I.
Phase II calls for the removal of the house on the site and the addition of an
access drive connected to 3rd Avenue. Please see the site plan for details.
B. ANALYSIS:
As one can tell i.mmediatly from the list of variance requests, the proposal
seeks to create more parking spaces than the parking area can support. The
proposal calls for development of two core of parking on a 66' lot, which
according to the ordinance is very difficult to accomplish. Following are
problem associated with each variance request.
a
Planning Agenda - 9/6/88
1. Request to exceed maximum percentage of compact parking stalls allowed.
Ordinance allows 251 of total, Proposal calls for 54% of total stalls to
be sized for compact cars.
The proposal calls for development of a raw of compact car stalls across from
the row of regular stalls. It is likely that despite signage, there will be
instances where full-sized cars will use the compact spaces. When this happens
congestion will be created for full sized care entering and exiting parking
stalls opposite the compact stall that contains the full size car
2. Request to develop parking area that does not meet width minimums.
Proposal calla for 60' minimum with 90 degree angle parking. Ordinance
requires 641.
Allowing this request will create added congestion and difficultly in entering
and exiting parking stalls.
3. Request to encroach on minimum distance that curb cuts can be made from
adjoining side yards. Minimum is 51. Proposal calls for curb cut located
2' from adjoining property.
This request can be justified as curb cut can not be made any closer to
Highway 25 wiT ut encroaching on the minimum set -back from the intersection.
Approval of this request is the leaser of two evils as it is important in this
case to move the entrance to the lot as far away from the 3rd street and Hwy 25
intersection as possible.
4. Request to encroach on side yard set -back. Proposal calla for a 1'
set -back along the side yard. The ordinance requires a 5' set -back.
Allowing head -in parking to be developed within 1' of the side -yard property
line will create a situation where front-end bumpers will extend over the
adjoining property. This situation is not acceptable. This problem might be
remedied by allowing the variance with the condition that a fence be placed
along the sideyard property line thereby eliminating the overhang problem.
S. Request to encroach on required set -back of parking area from a roadway.
Proposal calls for a 13' set -back from Hwy 25. Ordinance calla for 15'
minimum. 2' variance is required.
%be proposal calls for encroachment on area that could otherwise help to buffer
the parking area from the busy street area and sidewalk. Bringing the parking
area closer to busy highway 25 was proposed may contribute to the negative
influence of vehicles and traffic on the environment experience by the
pedestrian in this area.
6. Request to allow parking lot to be constructed in two phases.
It is assumed that the home remaining after completion of Phase I will be
occupied by renters. Planning ission may wish to discuaa any potential
problems created by allowing development of Phase I parking next to living
quarters. Staff has not identified any problems with this situation.
Planning Agenda - 9/6/88
r C. OTHER OONSIDERATION:
Currently, Highway 25 access is provided to the single family duelling that
will be replaced by the Phase I parking lot. Though I have not researched the
matter, I have a feeling that PC= may object to replacing a single family
access to Highway 25 with a "high traffic" parking lot access. Furthermore,
the Planning Commission may wish to encourage development of a traffic pattern
that calls for a one way in at the Highway 25 access point, with an entrance or
exit provided an 3rd Street. This, of course, would not be possible with Phase
I, but could be developed with Phase II.
D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As stated on previous occassione, extenuating circumstances should be
demonstrated which justify variance requests. It is staff's view that Bridge
Nater Telephone fails to justify the variance requests as it appears that the
single justification's Bridge hater's desire for "as many parking spaces as
possible". It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny all variance
requests except t3 and /6 and ask that Bridge Nater Telephone Coapany redesign
its site plan to satisfy ordinance requirements.
E. DATA:
Copy of Site Plan and copy of site plan review/pertinent zoning ordinance
regulations.
1Z
SlrE PLAN
pRiporwArrm nlrpw CO,
05
a tia'n*cb�q.eat
e ariance Req
;f i14 Varianuc� �Request 04
op LrvQWrNASOI f0cm jj'
r Of AtON"CrLAO.
10 woomr coojvrr, MINNesorA.
V
W aW.VrVM, 'W—
vo ow fmoApw. PO wo tro wy w v ft
MmvrccLLI), Mmolm" UM
P"W
3-5 [DIS BRIDGE WATER TELEPHONE PARKING LOT PROPOSAL 3-5 (D19(c)
SITE PLAN REVIEW
Not Applicable S. CALCULATING SPACE:
(a) When determining the number of off-street
parking spaces results in a fraction,
each fraction of one-half (y) or more
shall constitute another space.
(b) In stadiums, sports arenas, churches
and other places of public assembly in
which patrons or spectators occupy
benches, pews or other similar seating
facilities, each twenty-two (22) inches
of such seating facilities shall be
counted as one (1) seat for the purpose
of determining requirements.
(c) Should a structure contain two (2)
or more types of use, each shall be
calculated separately for determining
the total ofl-street parking spaces
required.
9. STALL, AISLE AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN:
(a) PARKING SPACE SIZE: Each parking
space shall be not less than nine (9)
last wide and twenty (20) feet in
length exclusive of access aisles,
Does not comply: and each space shall be served adequately
by access aisles. EXCEMOM: 07he4e
Proposal calls for 542 deelaed, up to 251 o6 the packing
of spaces to be compact apacee may be not Cees than seven
size. Variance requested.and one-hal6 174) beet in width and
not lean than aixteen ()d) beet a
length when aenved adequately by acceaa
a.i.atea to accommodate compact caa
packing, and ahoutd be mashed ae ouch.
Not Applicable (b) WITHIN STRUCTURES: The off-street
Parking requirements may be furnished
by providing a space so designed within
the principal building or one (1)
structure attached thereto; however,
unless provisions are mads, no building
permit shall be issued to convert
said parking structure into a dwelling
unit or living area or other activity
until other adequate provisions are
mads to comply with the required off-street
parking provisions of this Ordinance.
(o) Except in the cats of single, two
y Not Applicablelamily and townhouse dwellings, parking
areas shall be designed so that circulation
betwa+n parking bays or aisles occurs
within the designated parking lot
and does not depend upon a public
street or alley.
3-5 019(c)
3-5 (D)9(k)
Except in the case of single, two
family and townhouse dwellings, parking
area design which requires backing
into the public street is prohibited.
Complies
(d)
No curb cut access shall be located
less than forty (40) feet from the
intersection of two (2) or more street
right-of-ways. This distance shall
be measured from the intersection
of lot linea.
Not Applicable
(e)
Except in the case of single family,
two fimily anA townhouse dwellings,
Parking are%s and their aisles shall
be dovelcy&d in compliance with the
folloriag standards:
WALL MALL TO INTERLOCK TO
TO IWXMU Ctt 1NTF,RLOCK
ANGLE MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM
30 48.64 44.54 40.3'
Does not Comply.
45 56.81 53.4' 50.0'
Proposal calls for 60'
60 62.01 59.74 57.4'
spacing - 64' required
90 64.0' 64.0' 64.0'
with 90 angle.
parallel parking : Twenty-two (22) feet in length.
Proposal complies
if)
No curb cut access shall exceed twanty-four (24)
Leet in width.
Does not campy.
(g)
Curb cut openings and driveways shall
Proposal calls for
be at a minimum three (3) feet from
)' side yard set -back
the aide yard property Sine in residential
with curb cut also at
districts and five (5) feet from the
1' from the side yard.
side yard lot line in business or
Variance of 4' required.
industrial districts.
Not Applicable
(h)
Driveway access curb openings on a
public street except for single, two
family and townhouse dwellings shall
not be located toga than forty (40)
feet from one another.
Not Applicable
(i)
The grade elevation of any parking
area shall not exceed five (5) percent.
Proposal Complies
(1)
Each property shall be allowed one 0 ) curb cut per
one hundred twenty-five (125) feet
of street frontage. All property
shall be entitled to at least one (1)
curb cut. Single family uses shall be limited
to one lO curb cut access per property.
Proposal Complies
(k1
SURFACING: All areas intended to
be utilized for parking space and
driveways shall be surfaced with materiels
suitable to control dust and drainage.
a
3-5 (D19(k)
Proposal does not comply. (o) CURBING AND LANDSCAPING: Except for
single, two family and townhouses,
Proposal calls for all open off-street parking shall
1' set -back along aide have a perimeter curb barrier around
yard lot line. Variance the entire parking lot, said curb
of 4' required. barrier shall not be closer than five (5)
fast to any Lot line. Grass, plantings
or surfacing material shall be provided
in all areas bordering the parking
area.
3-5 (019(p)
Proposal complies as (p) REQUIRED SCREENING: All open, non-residential,
subject property does off-street parking arses of live (5)
not border rosidental district. or more spaces shall be screened and
However, screening would landscaped from abutting or surrounding
improve design as parking lot residential districts in compliance
does abutt residential property. with Chapter 3, Section 2 of this
Ordinance.
Except in the case of single family
and two family dwellings, driveways
and stalls shall be surfaced with
six (6) inch class five base and two (2)
inch bituminous topping or concrete
equivalent. Plans for surfacing and
drainage of driveways and stalls for
five (5) or more vehicles shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for
his review and the final drainage
plan shall be subject to his written
approval.
(1) STRIPING: Except for single, two
Proposal complies
family and townhouses, all parking
stalls shall be marked with white
painted lines not less than four (6)
inches wide.
Not known
(m) LIGHTING: Any lighting used to illuminate
an off-street parking area shall be
so arranged as to reflect the light
away from adjoining property, abutting
residential uses and public right-of-ways
and be in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2, (G1 and (H1 of this Ordinance.
Not Known
(n) SIGNS: No sign shall be so located
as to restrict the eight Sines and
orderly operation and traffic movement
within any parking lot.
Proposal does not comply. (o) CURBING AND LANDSCAPING: Except for
single, two family and townhouses,
Proposal calls for all open off-street parking shall
1' set -back along aide have a perimeter curb barrier around
yard lot line. Variance the entire parking lot, said curb
of 4' required. barrier shall not be closer than five (5)
fast to any Lot line. Grass, plantings
or surfacing material shall be provided
in all areas bordering the parking
area.
3-5 (019(p)
Proposal complies as (p) REQUIRED SCREENING: All open, non-residential,
subject property does off-street parking arses of live (5)
not border rosidental district. or more spaces shall be screened and
However, screening would landscaped from abutting or surrounding
improve design as parking lot residential districts in compliance
does abutt residential property. with Chapter 3, Section 2 of this
Ordinance.
3-9 (D)9(q)
Proposal Complies
with all sections
of the ordinance on
this page.
3-4 [P12
(q) ALL DRIVEWAY ACCESS OPENINGS shall
require a culvert unless the lot is
served by storm sever or is determined
unnecessary by Building Inspector.
Size of culvert shall be determined
by Building Inspector but shall be
a minimum of twelve (12) inches in
diameter.
(r) CURBING:
L. All commercial and industrial
off-street parking areas and
driveways Lncommercial areas
shall have a six (6) inch nonsurmountabie
continuous concrete curb around
the perimeter of the parking
area and driveways.
Li. All off-street parking in the
I-1 and I-2 districts shall
have an insurmountable curb
barrier which, if not constructed
of six (6) inch continuous concreto
curbing, shall require prior
approval from the planning Coaiesion
and City Council. Driveways
in the I-1 and I-2 districts
shall have a six (6) inch insurmountable
continuous concrete curb along
its perimeter.
iii. All curb disigne and materials
shall be approved by the City
Engineer.
(E) MAINTENANCE: It shall be the joint and several
responsibility of the lessee and owner of the
principal use, uses, or building to maintain
in a neat and adequate manner, the parking space,
accosawaye striping, landscaping, and required
fancea.
(p) LOCATION: All accessory off-street parking
facilities required by this ordinance shall
be located and restricted as follows:
1. Required accessory oft -street parking shall
be on the ease lot under the same ownership
as the principal use being served, except
under the provisions of Chapter 3, Section 9 (11.
2. Except for single, two family and townhouse
dwellings, head -in parking, directly off
of and adjacent to a public street, with
each stall having its own direct access
to the public street, shall be prohibited.
Planning Agenda - 9/6/ee
Rezoning Request to Rezone a Lot from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to R-2
(S�$ l�e dab Tiro Family Residential►. Ir Rezoned( a Recauest t0 Replat this
iteeldential lot 1.6Eo E1ghi Tilownnorise Lots_ and One Common Area Loi. jr
Replatea( a Coalalv-1, l [tae �- - �t to Allow up to ei�nt Townhouses on an R-2
Single and :Vo Family Resiaentiall Lot. Applicant, Floya tiaihiing. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Floyd Markling has purchased the former Betty Grossnickle property
immediately south of the existing entrance to the Monticello Country Club.
Mr. Markling is proposing to remove all structures on this property and is
requesting to rezone the property from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to R-2
(Single and Two Family Residential). If the rezoning is allowed, he would like
to replat this existing unplatted residential lot into eight townhouse or
condominium lots and one common area lot. If allowed to he replotted, Mr.
Markling is proposing a conditional use request to allow up to eight townhouses
on an R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential) lot.
We currently have in the Par West Development along the easterly portion of the
development, land that is zoned just for townhouses on each of these five
lots. Even though the entire development is zoned R-2 (Single and Two Family
Residential). The development to the north of this subject property the Club
view Terrece Addition, is zoned single family residential, and also is the
Country Club Manor Addition to the northeast of this existing unplatted lot.
However, the property across west County Road 39 adjacent to the freeway and
separated by Country Club Road is property that is zoned R-3 (Medium Density
Residential).
Mr. Markling does meet or exceed all of the minimum lot square footage
requirements for townhouses, which are 5,000 square feet per lot. He also
meets or exceeds the minimum setback requirements, which is 30 feet to the
front and rear and 10 feet on the south side of the property and 20 feet on the
north aide of the property. This property has had a feasibility study done for
water and sewer and actually part of a bid item with the East County Road 39
Project, so water and sewer is available to this residential unplatted lot.
Also as part of the bidding for this proposed project was providing of a water
and sewer stub for the Monticello Country Club to accomodate at some point in
time them hooking up to the city water and city sewer.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the rezoning request to rezone a lot from R-1 (Single Family
Residential) to R-2 (Bingle and Two Family Residential). Approve a
request to replat this residential lot to eight townhouse lots and one
common area lot. Approve conditional use request to allow eight
townhouses on an R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential) lot.
2. Deny the rezoning request to rezone a lot from R-1 (single Family
Residential) to R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential). If rezoning
denied we would also deny the replatting and the conditional use request.
C. STAFF RBOOR F22MATIONt
IL
The developer in requesting the upzoninng from R-1 (Single Family Residential)
to R-2 (Single and TWO Family Residential) toning is consistent with other
1
Planning )Agenda - 9/6/88
zoning in the area. The land area that is represented by this residential
unplatted lot over exceeds the lot area requirements for each townhouse unit,
which is 5,000 square feet. The total land area that would be needed for the
eight townhouses is 40,000 square feet and the total land area that is provided
by this lot is 87,000 square feet.
D. DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed rezoning request, copy of the site plan
for the rezoning request and copy of the setback requirement, lot area
requirement and building area requirements for townhouse development, copy of
zoning district map of vicinity.
-•terf • ��•. �� _ ` / �� •°%- •:, � ...«:. _ I
7
Orm
A Rezoning Request o re- e, +• }'' y ,e '!/.
a lot from R-1 (Sing F Y '� �• � i' //•• !, i
Residential). I! rezo
a tuaat to replat Chia
rL-dential lot into (B) + A
sight townhouse lots and
one common area lot. If rept Mad, ,•/ / "/ //, �\
a Conditional Use Request upl I S e • / 5r'•.
to eight townhouses on an R-]-7-
(Single and Two Family Reaidpntial
lot. Loccorner
of ii part Nof
. I
S.E. corner o! N.E. of N.N. ,I Unplatted Sp � •_ —, i �'•
Property in the City of Monticello. 4r�r
APPLICANTS Floyd Markling. I I w•%/,
;
.......... ........ . HicNw4
i r.+• r � M; r�
1',L :''
W14
SCHOOL
GOLF
COu---
to
VL -
sea %eso4ifts
?Tovo oo�
ip
rLp
I
8
W
COUNTY.-
OAD NO.. ig
--'SITE. PLAW
o
01.
N
W
11. Pole:, towers and other structures for essential servi
12. Necessary mechanical and electrical
appurtenances
13. Television and radio antennas not
exceeding twenty (20) fest above
roof.
16. Wind electrical generators
(F) No axcluded roof equipment or structural
element extending beyond the limited height
of a building may occupy more than tventy-five (25)
percent of the area of such roof not to
exceed ten (10) feet unless Otherwise noted.
(G) MINIMUM PL)OR AREA PER DWELLING UNIT:
1. ONE AND/OR TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS AND
TOWNHOUSES: The minimum floor area
for such type buildings shall be as
follows:
(a) One Story Dwelling - 960 square feet.
(b) Two Story Dwelling - 750 square feet per story.
(c) EXCEPTION: The a4a mus agua4e
dootage o6 a one atony buitdtng
may be Reduced to 864 aquaae
deet i6 a gauge Ea added with
at teaat 336 equate beet. In
w cane, howeve4, Ahatt the minimum
dimmion o6 that gaaage be tecta
than II deet.
2. MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS: Except for
elderly housing, living units classified
as multiple dwellings Shall have the
following minimum floor areas per
unit;
(a) Efficiency Unita 500 square feet
(b) One Bedroom Units 600 square fast
(o) Two Bedroom Units 720 square feet
(d) More Than Two Bedroom Units -An additional 100
square feet for each
additional bedroom
2. ELDERLY (HMO& CITIZEN) HOUSING:
Living units classified as elderly
(senior citizen) housing units shall
have the following minimum floor areas
per unit:
(a) Efficiency Units 440 Square feet
(b) One Bedroom 920 Smart fast
1. Clothes line pole and vire.
2. Recreational equipment and vehicles.
3. Construction and landscaping material currently
being used on the premises.
4. Off-street parking of passenger vehicles
and trucks not exceeding a gross capacity
of nine thousand (9,000) pounds in residential
areae.
5. Propane tanks, fuel oil tanks, and other
similar residential heating 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 mora than 10 cords
shall be stored on any property. A cord
shall be 4- x 4' x V. All wood piles
shall be five (5) feet or more from rear
and side yard property lines and shall
be stored behind the appropriate act back
line in front yards.
7. Solar heating systems.
3-3: Y*D REQUIREMENTS:
[A] PURPOSE: This section identifieo minimum yard
spaces and areaa to be provided for in each
zoning district.
(e] Na lot, yard or other open space shall be reduced
in area or dimension so as to make such lot,
yard or open space less than the minimum required
by this Ordinance, and if the existing yard
or other open space as existing is leas than
the minimum required it shall not be further
reduced. Mia required opon apace provided around
any building or structure shall be included
as a part of any opon space required for another
structure.
(C] All setback distances, as listed in the table
below, shall be measured from the appropriate
lot line, and shall be required minimum distances.
Front Yard Side yard Rear Yard
A-0
$0 30 50
R-1
30 10 30
1 i-;
d9 In 30
R-3
30 20 Jtl
R-4
30 30 30
P. --R
See Chapter 10 for specific regulations.
PZ -N
Sae Chapter 10 for specific regulations.
E-1
30 15 20
E-2
30 10 20
J
IS] LOT AREA PER UNIT:
Single Family 12,000 square feet
Twq-Family 6,000 square feet
('townhouse3.000 w�_- •eats
Mobile Homs 6,000 square feet
Multiple Family 10,000 square feet
for first unit plus
2,000 sq. ft. for
each additional one
bedroom unit, plus
7,000 sq. ft. for
each additional two
bedroom unit.
Elderly Housing 1,000 square feet
(rhe Cot aaea pea unit aequiaement boa
townhouaea, condominimuma and ptanned
unit devetopmenta ehatt be catcutated
on the baaia o6 the totat aaea in the
paoject and ae conttotted by an indi.viduat
and joint owneaahip).
(C)
UTILITY TRANSITION AREAS: All areae in
which sever is not currently available
shall be designated as Utility Transition
Areas. The minimum lot area of any platted
lot in such areas shall be two and ons -half (24)
acres. Any lot platted according to the
'
provisions of this subdivision, may be
replotted provided that public sanitary
sewer will be made available and all conditions
and provisions of this Ordinance ars met.
(01
USEABLE OPEN SPACE: Each multiple family
dwelling site shall contain at least five
hundred (500) square feet of useable open
space as defined in Chapter 2 of this
Ordinance for each dwelling unit contained
thereon.
(E]
EXCEPTIONS: The building height limits
established herein for districta shall
not apply to the following:
1. Belfries
2. Chimneys or flues
]. Church spires
e. Cooling towers
S. Cupolas and domes which do not Contain useable space.
6. Elevator penthouses
7. Flag poles
B. Monuments
g. Parapet walls extending not more than
three (3) feet above the limiting
height of the building
10. Mater towers
In addition, 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.
[P] In residential districts, where the adjacent
structures exceed the minimum setbacks
established in Subsection [C] above, the
minimum setback shall be thirty (30) feet
plus two-thirds (2/3) of the difference.
between thirty (30) feet and the setback
or average setback of adjacent structures
within the same block.
3-4: AREA AND BUILDING SIZE REGULATIONS:
[A] PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum
area and building size requirements to
be provided in each zoning district as
listed in the table below.
DISTRICT IAT AREA LOT WIDTH BUILDING HEIGHT
A-0 2 acres 200 N/A
R-1 12.000 SO 24
R-; 1.2,000 BO 24
R-3 10,000 80 2
R-4 48.000 200 1
PZ -R 12,000 s0 2%
PZ -M 12,000 80 2
B-1 8,000 80 2
B-2 N/A 100 2
8-3 N/A 100 2
B-4 N/A N/A 2
1-1 20,000 100 2
1-2 30,000 100 2
1. The building height limitation in an
R-3, PZ -M , 8-1, 8-2, B-3, B-4, I-1,
and I-2 zoning districts shall be
two (2) stories.
2. In zoning districts R-3, PZ -M, B-1,
5-2, 8-3, 8-4, I-1, and I-2, a (3)
three story building may be allowed
as a conditional use contingent upon
strict application of a requirement
that firs-extinguiahi.ng systems be
installed throughout the building.
(Requi.4ea d coadetConat uat pevn+t
based upon paoc¢dunee at 6o4th in
and itegmWed by Chaptta 22 06 th,ia
oadiaanceI.
10-7-1
CHAPTER 7
"R-2" SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
10-7-a
SECTION:
7-1: Purpose
7-2: Permitted Uses
7-3: Permitted Accessory Uses
7-4: Conditional Uses
7-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the "R-2" Single and Two
Family Residential District is to provide for low
to moderate density one and two unit dwellings and
directly related, complementary uses.
7-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses
in a "R-2" District:
(A) All permitted uses allowed in a "R-1" District.
(81 Two family dwelling units.
7-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted
accessory uses in a "R-2" District:
(A) All accessory uses as allowed in an "R-1" District.
7-6: CONDITIONAL USE: The following are conditional uses
In an "R-2" District: (Requiaea a condittionaC use
penmi.t based upon paoceduaea set 6ouh to and aegu.tated
by Chaptea 22 06 iia Oadinanee).
(A) All condition.! uses. subject to the same conditions,
as allowed in an "R-1" District.
(8] Townhousaa es defined by Chapter 2, Section 2 (TBI
o! thisOrdinance provided that the romriatians
and requirements of Chapter 20 are sailafactorily
completed and met.
(CI Pour family dwelling unit.
(01 Day Care - group nuroary provided that:
1. No overnight facilities are provided for
the children carved. Children are delivered
and removed daily.
2. The front yard depth shall be a minimum
of thirty-five (35) feet.
]. Adequate off-street perking and access
is provided in compliance with Chapter
2, Bection 5 of this Ordinance.
(SO) STREET FRONTAGE: The proximity of a parcel
of land to one or more streets. An interior
lot has one (() street frontage and a corner
lot has two (2) frontages.
(SPI STRUCTURE: Anything which is built, constructed
or erected; an edifice or building of any
kind; or any piece of work artifically built
up and/or composed or parts joined together
in some definite manner whether or not temporary
in character.
(TA) TEMPORARY SIGN: Any sign which is erected
or displayed for a specified period of time.
i
(TB) TOWNHOUSES: Structures housing three (3)
or more dwelling units of not more than two
(2) stories each and contiguous to each other
only by the sharing of one (() common wail,
such structures to be of the town or row house
type as contrasted to multiple dwelling apartment
structure. No single structure shall contain
in excess o! eight (S) duelling units and
each dwelling unit shall have separate and
individual front and rear entrance.
(TCI TRUCK/HEAVY EQUIPMENT REPAIR: This business
performs mechanical, electrical, structural,
and cosmetic repairs to trucks and heavy equipment.
Allowed: Tune ups and adjustments, replacement
of parts, rebuilding of parts or components,
when installation is available, body repair,
collision Service, and painting, frame straightening
and repair, Steam cleaning and/or sandblasting,
undercoating and rust proofing, radiator repair,
tire repair, wheal alignment and balancing,
washing, cleaning, and polishing.
(UA) UPLAND: Meana all lands at an elevation above
the normal high water mark.
(UB) USE: The purpoae or activity for which the
land or building thereon is designated, arranged,
or intended, or for which it is occupied,
utilised or maintained, and shall include
the performance of such activity as defined
by the performance standards of this Ordinance.
(UC) USEABLE OPEN SPACE: A required ground area
or terrace area on a lot which is graded,
developed, landscaped and equipped and intended
and maintained for either active or passive
recreation or both, available and accessible
to and useable by all persons occupying a
dwelling unit or rooming unit on the lot and
their guests. Such areas shall be grassed
and landscaped or covered only for a recreational
purpose. Roofs, driveways and parking areas shall
not constitute useable open apace.
Planning Agenda - 9/6/88
7. Staple Subdivision Request to Subdivide (1) one Unplatted Lot into (2) Two
Urj)Iattec Lots. Applicant, Toad Holtnaus. (G.A.I
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Tam Holthaus is proposing to replat his existing residential unplatted lot
into a platted residential lot and a platted outlot. The proposed subdivision
of this existing unplatted lot with the new lot that to left for the existing
house on it would meet or exceed the minimum lot square footage requirement.
The outlot that would be created by this simple subdivision request would meet
or exceed the minintm lot requirements also.
If the simple subdivision request is approved, approval should be contingent on
a separate addition being filed for this newly created simple subdivision. In
other words, an actual subdivision plat with one lot and one outlot within it.
B. ALTERNATIVE AMONS:
1. Approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide one unplatted lot into
two unplatted lots.
2. Deny the simple subdivision request to subdivide one unplatted lot into
two unplatted lots.
I. Approve the staple subdivision request to subdivide one unplatted lot into
two platted lots. By platting, the condition to this being platted, we
eliminate the meta and bounds description for this unplatted residential
lot.
C. STAFF RHCONlIEtUTION:
The proposed simple subdivision request for the land area to be subdivided does
meet or exceed the minimum lot area requirements. We do however suggest that
we only allow the simple subdivision to occur with this unplatted lot being
replatted into two platted lots of which would consist of one lot and one
outlot within this new subdivision.
D. t
Copy of the location of the proposed simple subdivision request, copy of the
site plan for the proposed simple subdivision request, copy of the ordinance
section in regards to simple subdivision requests.
C
\,, • SIMPLE SUBDIVISION REQUEST to subdivide
ane unplots.
Locattedtion
lot into tract
two unplattec
scribed
lots• Location is a tract described
�"� •� �- "'•4-••'�\� , • ACL,' _ n Book 231-375, Unplatted Property
�,,'�� "" r •fes' ;-74 'w.�,; ! `+►,• - in the City of Monticello.
Applicant: Tom 8olthaua
�;�,_ •� .� \�r��•. .� 'til • `J, /�`f. ..t„i '��
f ��':g '+tom / \ \� �.� ' ,+� !•��,� . •� -..
`4
- � •��'���.I�' � ` �' \ ti .' - , , /tt t J '!.v ��r�, Vic•'
W.
It,
V,
In addition, 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 areae may be controlled by an individual
or joint ownership.
(P] In residential districts, where the adjacent
structures exceed the minim+,- setbacks
established in Subsection (C) above, the -
minimum setback shall be thirty (30) feet
plus two-thirds (2/3) of the difference.
betvaen thirty (30) feet and the setback
or average setback of adjacent et--uctaroa
within the same bloc -k.
3-4: MEA AND BUILDING BILE REGULATIONS:
(A] PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum
area and building size requirements to
be provided in each zoning district as
listed in the table below.
DISTRICT LOT AREA IAT WIDTH BUILDING HEIGHT
A-0 2 acres 200 N/A
R-1 12,000 80 2y
R-2 12,000 80 2%
R-3 10,000 BO 2
R-4 48,000 200 1
P2 -R 12,000 80 2%
4LV -N 122 — su 2-)
B-1 — 6,0OO BO - I
B-2 N/A 100 2
8-3 N/A 100 2
B-4 N/A H/A 2
1-1 20,000 100 2
1-2 30,000 100 2
The building height limitation in an
R-3, P2 -M , 8-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, 1-1,
and I-2 zoning districts shell be
tvo (2) stories.
2. In zoning districts R-3, P2 -M, 8-1,
8-2, 8-3, 8-4, 1-1, and I-2, a (3)
three story building may be allowed
as a Condition" use contingent upon
strict application of a requirement
that fire -extinguishing systema be
installed throughout the building.
(Rego{ate a COd46Ondt Wt ptUtLt
Wed upon paotldunt4 4ct 6oath in
dnd atguCattd by Chdpt¢t It oQ tUa
o4d4nant¢1.
PROPOSED
LAND SUBDIVISION
+nNr a nn.vAurrrr
!
/r
t
4L Ir
SI
_--.—.�-t-•�nwn
.„„IW.r44 atM
l.t �—
OCTOB[N. IO{111
MMU i 1 IMCM • 30 RET
�1
i
'�IDrM hr N6r+M/MS
q Wl�h A hh'Ir•�
r nr Y. siM rrin .. Yrrir
r. • r� r w
rr
ur/
~
t900
1. '. !+w rf. waµr r.•r. r
�nr •. n w
.'i .0,
rrr
_ _ _
--� �
r a .`•'� r- Irr n rl rr.MffM rM~.ir �
rrr ww ay. urp r urWur rl 'a+wrurrrrrr r Irrf rnI
LOT
rr.rrr
n
�
Y Y BLOirr1
!1
M 6«, rr arlfrrl rN 1Y' pf. rrp rr.YrW.r r' rrr
i«a ar ur wI4Yr rs rrrrw, Ni.! {r,1 G ra r si W«ry r{
i I rr1 �
• frlU !rr 11' frit, Iv Irvi
rr rrrY,1'll.l
�Y/Irr
N ^
w
rrr
IW'r Irrr LLlfrfl llr Yr• rylr,
f«� ri rY Jrrf,t ' MMu sr{Iae n Vv.
r .••r
� r '4rr
� ����
�•
i/{
Ir lur M
~
r re arr r, rr• « a«rr «r rrrr
r`
.rrr r� r «rrJr rpurrW� r r..rM.
OUTLOT A
I
SKETCH PIAN
r t{'Tt t itFlVt_Y[lHy
FOR
M=t CLLLO. NOWODn
TOM NDLTHWS
tei�i M 'iM
w
/aN MRp
l./
Planning Agenda - 9/6/88
s. Tabled Request for a Preliminary Plat Review for a Proposed New subdivision
Plat. Bp h ant, Curries Ritze. tG.A.N
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Ritze is back before you with his amended preliminary plat request
including some of the suggestions that the Planning Commission and City Council
members suggested to him. You'll note on the enclosed preliminary plat,
Mr. Ritze is proposing to create an outlot consisting of 17 feet in width in
the area north of this existing lot up near Mr. Reinhold Yager's outbuildings
set within Mr. Ritze's property. The basic change which has come from Planning
Oommission and City Council suggestion is that he has entered into a purchase
agreement with the adjoining property owner to the west William and Ray Douglas
residence for additional footage to meet the minimum lot width requirements an
a public right of way. In exchange for this lot frontage acquired from the
side and rear portion of William and Ray Douglas' residential property has in
return given the same amount of frontage and side property along west River
Street. Mr. Ritze has also created the balance of the area that is not platted
to put into an outlot which is called Outlot C.
The preliminary plat for the proposed Ritze Manor second Addition does meet or
exceed the minimum requirements of the Monticello City Ordinance in regards to
lot width, lot square footage requirements.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
1. Approve the preliminary plat for the proposed new subdivision to be known
as Ritze Manor Second Addition.
2. Deny the preliminary plat for the proposed new subdivision to be know as
Ritze Manor Second Addition.
C. STAPP REODMNENDATIDtNt
The developer has met or exceeded the minimum requirements of the Monticello
City Ordinance for the creation of this simple subdivision plat. Eventhough,
it may not be of the beat design to create only two lots within this huge
platted residential lot, the developer has seemed to work within his financial
moans.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed preliminary plat request and copy of the
preliminary plat for the proposed new subdivision to be known as Ritze Manor
Second Addition.
PgOPOSEO PRELIMINARY PLAT Or RI77E MANOR SECOND ADDITION,
♦Al�r�f0 FOM• CNAftes NIT1f JaWp• 0-1. SPat FAW10 afUgWrIAL
Kray r,rar Kaa
.OKr1?s co, .Ilr aaW
IPI'T '1is -i•�
77
Irrr-iL+� . �}
i : a •.4iii 4I�y,, � t��-'r � .. „ a � � ..1 r}fit
i _ c
It
'.�. � '•~ � ��, Q +�"�. .ter � �� w
LOCATION MAP
sirs
.. , � a ter:•... r !
tt.oru•
.... alor rarrr rq.r/arr Lf.n pM.aKI
LOr 0, BLOCK 1,
wRlE MANW.
wo,6wr COVNrr. amvrsam
StXNE}"ORS !MG
rro wrr . r a av orR.m rc wv um
a M van a —sm.
tJ0 KV WOMfwir.y0 Kw fie
AOR • Ml) M-330Be=.�awslf
;6 `r" i
ra+.+ ..o.• ".a
1. Clothes line pole and vire.
2. Recreational equipment and vehicles.
3. Construction and landscaping material currently
being used on the premises.
6. Off-street parking of passenger vehicles
and trucks not exceeding a gross capacity
of nine thousand (9,000) pounds in residential
areae.
S. propane Lanka, fuel oil tanks, and other
similar residential heating fuel storage
tanks which do not exceed 1,000 gallons
in capacity and shall not be located within
five (S) feet of any property line.
G. wood piles in which wood is stored for
fuel provided that not more than 10 cords
shall be stored on any property. A cord
shall be 0' x 61 x 8-. All wood piles
shall be five (S) feet or more from rear
and side yard property lines and shall
be stored behind the appropriate set back
line in front yards.
7. Solar heating systema.
3-3: YAjtD REQUIREMENTS:
[A] PURPOSE: This section identifies minimus yard
spaces and areas to be provided for in each
toning district.
(8] No lot, yard or other open spats shall be reduced
in area or dimension so as to make such lot,
yard or open space leas than the minimum required
by this Ordinance, and if the existing yard
or other open specs as existing is less than
the minimum required it shall not be further
reduced. Jh required open space provided around
any building or structure shall be included
as a part of any open space required for another
structure.
(C] All setback distances, as listed in the table
below, shall be measured from the appropriate
lot line, and shall be required minimum distances.
front Yard Side yard Haar Yard
A -O
SO 14 50
K-1
au 10 30)
R-2
30 10 JG
1 R-3
30 20 30
L 9.4
30 30 30
VZ -R
hes Chapter 10 for specific regulations.
pZ-N
Be* Chapter 10 for specific regulations.
E-1
30 15 20
E-2
30 10 20
In addition, each condominium unit shall
have the m+„tm„m 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.
(P] In residential districts, where the adjacent
structures exceed the minimum setbacks
established in Subsection (C] above, the
minimum setback shall be thirty (30) feet
plus two-thirds (2/3) of the difference.
between thirty (30) feet and the setback
or average setback of adjacent structures
within the same block.
3-4: AREA AND BUILDING SIZE RLGULATIONS:
(A] PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum
area and building size requirements to
be provided in each zoning district as
listed in the table below.
DISTRICT LOT AREA LOT WIDTH BUILDING HEIGHT
�0 2acres 200 N A
R-1 12.O6C so 2
R-2 12,000 BO 2%
R-3 10,000 80 2
R -a 48,000 200 1
PZ -R 12,000 80 2%
VZ -H 12,000 80 2
0-1 8,000 80 2
8-2 N/A 100 2
e-3 N/A 100 2
8-4 N/A N/A 2
1-1 20,000 100 2
1-2 30,000 100 2
1. The building height limitation in an
R-3,PZ-N, 8-1, B-2, B-3, 8-6, I-1,
and I-2 zoning districts shall be
two (2) stories.
2. In zoning districts R-3. PZ -N, 8-1,
8-2, 8-3, 8-4, I-1, and 1-2, a (3)
three story building may be allowed
as a conditional use contingent upon
strict application of a requirement
that firs -extinguishing systema be
installed throughout the building.
(Rcqu,44ee a conditiout use peAn4t
bdaed upon p+eoeeduaee act 6oath in
WW aes"Wed by Chdptea It 06 this
oadinancel.
[B] LOT AREA PER OMIT:
/SSin91e Family_ .12,000 ea
Teo -Family 6,000 square set
Townhouse 5,000 square fast
Mobile Home 4,000 square lest
Multiple Family 10,000 square last
for first unit plus
2,000 sq. ft. for-.
each additional one
bedroom unit, plus
3,000 sq. ft. for
each additional two
bedroom unit.
Elderly Housing 1,000 square feet
(The tot aaea pen unit aequdnemen.t 6o)e
townhou ta, eondom nimuea and planned
unit devetopnenta ahatt be wle tated
on the baaia o6 the totat aaea in the
paoject and as contaotted by an individuat
and joint oaneaahipl.
(c] UTILITY TRANSITION AREAS: All areas in
which sever is not currently available
shall be designated as Utility Transition
Areas. The minimum lot area of any platted
lot in such areas shall be two and one-half (21,)
acres. Any lot platted according to the
provisions of this subdivision, may be
replatted provided that public sanitary
sower will be mads available and all conditions
and provisions of this Ordinance ars mot.
to] USEABLE OPEN SPACE. Each multiple family
dwelling site shall contain at least five
hundred (500) square feet of useable, open
space as defined in Chapter 2 of this
Ordinance for each dwelling unit contained
thereon.
(E] EXCEPTIONS: The building height limits
established herein for districts shall
not apply to the following:
1. Belfries
2. Chimneys or flues
2. Church spires
a. Cooling towers
S. Cupolas and domes which do not contain useable space.
6. Elevator penthouses
7. Flag poles
8. Monuments
9. Parapet valla extending not more than
these (3) feet above the Limiting
height of the building
10. Mater towers
11. poles, towers and other structures for essential servi
12. Necessary mechanical and electrical
appurtenances
13. Television and radio antennas not
exceeding twenty (20) feet above
roof.
14. Mind electrical generators
(F] No excluded roof equipment or structural
element extending beyond the limited height
of a building may occupy more than tvanty-five (25)
percent of the area of such roof not to
exceed ten (10) feet unless otherwise noted.
fiG1 MINIMUM FLOOR AREA DEA DWELLING UNIT:
I. ONE AND/04 TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS AND
TOWNHOUSES: The minimum floor area
for such type buildings shall be as
follows:
(a) One Story Dwelling -.960 square feet -
(b) Two Story Dwelling - 790 square feet per story. 1
(c) EXCEPTION: The alinimuR agudRe /
dootdge od a one atony buV-dcng
may be Reduced to 864 equate
deet :.d a gauge La added with
at least 336 Aquaae deet. IR
IT case, howeveR. ahatt the minimum
dusene con od that gaaage be teaa
than id deet.
2. MULTIPLE DWV=NO UNITS: Except for
elderly housing, living units classified
as multiple dwellings shall have the
following minimum floor areas per
unit;
(a) Efficiency Unita 500 square feet
(b) One Bedroom Units 600 square feet
(o) Two Bedroom Units 120 square feet
(d) Noce Than Two Bedroom Unita -An additional 100
square feet for each
additional bedroom
3. ELDERLY (SEMIOA CITIZEN) ROUSING:
Living units classified as elderly
(senior citizen) dowing unite •lull
have the following minimum floor areas
per unit:
(a) Efficiency Units 440 square fat
(b) One Bedroom 920 Smare feet
Planning Agenda - 9/6/88
ADOMONAL INFORMATION ITWO
1A• Site Plan Review - 28 Unit Subsidized Elderly Apartment Building. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROM:
Staff received the plan late Friday, therefore time did not permit development
of formal site plan review. Staff will prepare site plan review for
presentation at the meeting. In the meantime, please study the attached copy
of the proposed site plan.
Planning Agenda - 9/6/88
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
2A• Proposed Zoning ordinance Amendment Update - Landscaping Requirements. (d.O.)
3A. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment Update - Building Exterior Requirements.
(J.6.1
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission is asked to review its position regarding the two
amendments and consider continued discussion of the subject with the Industrial
Development Committee.
The Industrial Development Committee has not made a formal response to the
proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. However, the Committee did ask
that mmmem. to of the Planning Commission attend the next IDC meting to discuss
the matter. Attached you will find a copy of the information regarding the
amememoents that was sent to IDC members prior to consideration. In the packet
sent to the IDC you will also find comments made by members of the HRA
regarding the proposed amendments. Finally, the amendments presented to the
IDC included changes suggested during the initial Planning Commission review.
As stated, the IDC made no formal recommendation regarding the proposed
amendments. in fact, only the amendment which modifies building requirements
has been discussed. From the comments made, it appears that keeping
development costs as low as possible is a higher priority for the IDC than
adding cost through development of stricter aesthetic standards.
B. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Planning oommmdssion review again the proposed
amendments and develop a policy recommendation accordingly. In addition, it is
recommended that members of the Planning Commission attend the next Industrial
Development Committee Meeting at which time the Planning Commission memmbeto can
present its position. The next IDC meeting is scheduled for 7:00 AM The
hope is that the discussion with the IDC will lead to development of a
ooncensus an this important matter.
C. DATAm
mOopy of IDC Agenda of August 18th, on reviewing the proposod ordinance
amendments to landscaping and building exterior requirements, and copy of the
proposed ordinance amendments.
IDC Agenda - 8/18/88
5. CONTINUED.
One item of IDC interest which isn't on the wish list is a
reserve fund for a labor survey update in year 1993. The
IDC can place in reserve each year $1,000 for a labor survey
or request of the proposed 1993 City Budget the monies for
the labor survey or balance of the cost. Star City recert-
ification requirements call for five year labor survey
updates, video tape updates, fact sheets, and brochures.
Each year the community's mayor signs a letter stating
his community's interest to remain in the Star City program.
The IDC budget doesn't allow to keep current the Star
City requirements because of increase to the Economic
Development Director's salary and the increase in the
banquet cost; and the decrease banquet tickets sold,
a lower percentage of contributions by the City and the
Chamber of Commerce to the IDC compared to the salary
increase. I'm requesting the above listed monies from the
City Budget because of the reasons stated above or the
Council may want to reconsider Monticello's status as a
Star City. I don't believe the City should remain in a
program unless they are willing to meet the requirements.
I see the program as a benefit, however, recognize the
Star City program benefits to communities has changed
since Monticello became a Star City in 1982.
Does the IDC have any additional input or request?
6. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMDENDMENT
REGULATING TYPE OF EXTERIOR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND.
The concept of amending the Zoning Ordinance as outlined
was initiated by the Planning Commission and presented at
the point meeting of the HRA/City Council/IDC and Planning
Commission. It was the general consensus of the group to
discuss the concept further and develop an amendment accordingly.
The Planning Commission reviewed a first draft derived from the
City of Waconia Zoning Ordinance at the July 12, 1988 meeting.
The Planning Commission was informed that the regulations would
add 20% to the cost of a building comprised entirely of metal.
No formal action taken on the first draft. During the review
of the first draft, the following suggestions were made:
•
The Planning Commiooion thought it appropriate that the
Commission review site plane but felt that a process should
be in place whereby an applicant can appeal the Planning
Commission decision to the City Council.
A
1988 BANQUET MENU
(100 Guest)
OPTION A
OPTION B
OPEN BAR
DELETE
$300.00
CRAFT OF WINE
$4.95 : 17
$ 85.00
---
HORS D'OEUVRES
$2.75 per person
275.00
275.00
DINNER:
FILET W/ MUSHROOM
SIRLOIN STEAK (12-14 os.)
SAUCE (10 on.)
$8.50
$10.95
ORANGE ROUGHY (12 oz.)
BROILED SHRIMP
$7.95
(5) $11.95
1,145.00
BROILED CHICKEN BREAST/VEG
SUB TOTAL
$1,505.00
$5.95
758.00
GRATUITY 12Z
180.00
SUB TOTAL
$1,333.00
GRATUITY 122
160.00
TOTAL
$1,685.00
TOTAL
$1,493.00
PREVIOUS BUDGETS
1987
1986
1985
BUFFET $1.324.75
STEAK LOBSTER
$2.086.85 STEAK AND LOBSTER $2,037.00
93 tickets
113 t%c to
105 tickets
IDC Agenda - 8/18/88
6. CONTINUED.
i
* It was suggested that language restricting wood pole support
of structures be eliminated as this type of internal building
structural design does not necessarilly impact the aesthetic
value of the exterior of the structure.
• Planning Commission directed staff to get additional input
from the body of the IDC and BEA prior to further consider-
ation of the matter.
HRA REVIEW 8/10/88
The HRA reviewed the proposed amendment (first draft) and were
informed that the amendment will result in a 202 to 25Z cost
increase associated with development of a steel building.
Following summarizes the discussion.
r
• Ken Maus stated that Zoning Ordinance Amendments are t:ot within
the domain of the HRA, however he appreciates being provided
the opportunity to give input.
• It was noted that prohibiting buildings made exclusively of
metal may be too restrictive as buildings made entirely
of metal can meet reasonable aesthetic standards if done
properly. It was suggested that 1002 metal buildings be
prohibited only if the design does not meet a reasonable
aesthetic standards. RRA requested that language be added
to the ordinance which defines reasonable aesthetic standards
for 1002 metal buildings.
• The HRA concurred with the Planning Commission that pole
buildings be allowed as long as the exterior of the structure
meats reasonable aesthetic standards.
INPUT FROM AN IDC MEMBER UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING
• Shelly Johnson stated that he would like a quality industrial
park, however, if the IDC's goal is to keep industrial
development's cost at a competitive level, the 202 estimated
increase in construction costs for 2/3 brick frontage on a
metal building doesn't support that goal. If a company can't
construct an entire metal building in Monticello, they can
elsewhere.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION.
1. Table the item, or ignor.
2. Discuss item, maks recommendation to the Planning Commission.
3. Discuss item. make no recommendation to the Planning Commission.
IDC Agenda - 8/18/88
.r
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION.+ 1
Jeff O'Niell and I agree with the HRA. 1002 metal buildings l
should be allowed as long as the exterior facing public view
meets a predefined standard. The challenge will be in developing
suitable language which properly defines the standard.
Recommendation to Planning Commission to revise draft to include
language establishing a reasonable aesthetic standard for
buildings comprised entirely of metal.
D. SUPPORTING DATA.
Proposed Ordinance Amendment Regulating Type of Exterior
Building Construction (Second draft. based on Planning
Commission inital input).
7. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ON
LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND.
Following is a first draft of an amendment to the landscaping
portion of the zoning ordinance as presented to the Planning
Commission at their August 2 meeting which received general
support and agreement. The language changes stem from discussion
conducted at the point meeting of the HRA/Planning Commission/
Industrial Development Committee. Highlighted on the attached
pages are proposed additione/amandmente to the ordinance. The
proposed amendments are designed to accomplish the following:
1) Provide flexibility by allowing landscaping to be expanded/
developed as perimeter of developed area expands.
2) Provides Council with the option of allowing phasing -in
of landscaping over three year time period thus reducing
initial development cost.
The ordinace amendments as proposed do not accomplish the
following:
1) Reduce landscaping requirements or attempt to differentiate
requirements for commercial property versus industrial
property.
2) Ordinance amendment does not establish firm criteria for
deciding which development s will be allowed to phase
Installation of landscaping over a three year period.
The BRA hasn't received or reviewed the said proposed amendment
and Mr. Johnson had no comments on the said proposed amendment.
IDC Agenda - 8/18/88
Inorder to give you the total picture regarding the landscaping,
the entire section of the ordinance is in your packet. Sections
of the ordinance proposed for amendments are underlined.
B. ACTION REQUESTED.
Review proposed ordinance and provide feedback for the Planning
Commission.
C. SUPPORTING DATA.
Proposed ordinance amendment on landscaping requirements.
8. CONSIDERATION TO REVIEW THE FOLLOWING REPORTS:
A. REVOLVING LONA FUND - the subcommittee met Wednesday,
August 17, 1988 and completed the first draft of the
RLF policies. The subcommittee will finalize the first
draft after contacting Dave Nelson, DTED,; contacting
legal advise; and determine administration staff. The
subcommittee agreed to inform the City Council at the 1989
budget meeting of their intent and to request that 1200,000
of the Liquor Store Fund be earmarked for the initial
revolving loan fund pool.
B. RESULTS OF CITY'S ATTITUDE SURVEY - to be presented by
Jeff O'Neill.
C. HRA's PROPOSED BUDGET REQUEST - At the August HRA meeting,
the members unanimously voted to exercise their levy power
and are requesting the City to levy 1/2 mill in -year 1989
for working capital. Estimated taxable levy amount would
be 155,000. The HRA's 1988 mill rate was .068 or 17,750
taxable levy.
(ne c�.,9,c�4,�P��� )
3. In all zoning districts the lot area remaining after
providing for off-street parking, off-street parking,
off-street loading, sidewalks, driveways, building
site and/or other requirements shall be planted and
maintained in grass sodding, shrubs or other
acceptable vegetation or treatment generally used in
landscaping. Fences or trees placed upon utility
easements are subject to removal if required for the
maintenance or improvement of the utility. Trees on
utility easements containing overhead wires shall not
exceed ten (10) feet in height.
(G) REQUIRED FENCING, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING:
The fencing and screening required by this subsection
shall be subject to Subsection (F) above and shall consist
of either a fence or a landscaped planting plan.
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this policy is
to establish minimum requirements and standards
relative to landscaping,, buffering and screening to
be implemented concurrently with site plans approved
by the City; the standards and criteria shall be used
by City staff, Planning Commission and City Council
in the review and evaluation of such plans and
development proposals.
The objectives of these requirements are to establish
and maintain forestation of the City; to provide
appropriate ground cover vegetation for controlled
soil erosion; to enhance when necessary the natural
environment particularly in instances where the
natural environment is disturbed during the course of
development; and, to establish standards for
utilization of natural materials to achieve desired
screening and buffering.
This policy seta forth minimum requirements of
landscaping, reforestation and technical limitations
to secure that the result is consistent with
reasonable maintenance requirements on a long-term
basis and to secure that the results provided an
aesthetic urban environment.
2. DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLANS: Detailed landscape plans
shall be required in all cases where cite plan
approval is specified by the Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Ordinance. The landscape plan should be
based upon the site plan dosigns submitted for
approval and, to assure clarity, it is required the
plan be produced on a separate sheet from that
containing grading, drainage, and utility plana.
0
(c) LANDSCAPE DATE:
i. Planting schedule (table) containing
` symbols, quantities, common names,
botanical names, sizes of plant
material, root specification Mr.,
B & B, potted, etc.) and special
planting instructions.
ii. Existing trees and schrubbery,
locations, common names and approximate
size.
iii. Planting detail (show all species to
scale at normal mature crown diameter or
spread for local hardiness zone.)
iv. Typical sections in details of fences,
tie walls, planter boxes, totlots,
picnic areas, berms and the like.
V. Typical sections of landscape islands
and planter beds with identification of
materials used.
vi. Details of planting beds and foundation
plantings.
vii. Note indicating how disturbed soil areas
will be restored through the use of
sodding, seeding or other techniques.
viii. Delineation of both sodded an seeded
areas with respective areas in square
feet.
ix. Coverage plan for underground irrigation
system, if any.
X. Exterior lighting plan.
(d) SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Where landscape or man-made
materials are used to provide ordinance or
policy -required screening from adjacent and
neighboring properties, a cross -through section
shall be provided showing the perspective of the
site from the neighboring property at the
property line elevation.
C3
A e-A..,c s p1'A.*11e.,p e )
Detailed landscape plans shall include the following
information: J
i (a) GENERAL:
i. Name and address of developer/owner.
ii. Name and address of architect/designer.
iii. Date of plan preparation.
iv. Dates and description of all revisions.
V. Name of project or development.
vi. Scale of plan (engineering scale only,
at 1 inch equals 50 feet or less).
vii. North point indication.
(b) THE SITE ANALYSIS:
i. Boundary lines of property with
dimensions based upon certified survey.
11. Name and alignment of proposed and ,
existing adjacent on -situ streets.
r iii. Location of existing and proposed
utility rights-cf-way, easements and
lines (water, gas, electric).
iv. Location of existing and proposed
building.
V. Topographic contours of the minimum
interval of 2 feet, extending at least
100 feet beyond the site boundaries.
vi. Location of existing and proposed
1 parking facilities including curbing
detail and traffic island -delineators.
vii. Location of existing and proposed water
bodies.
viii. Location of existing and proposed
sidewalks, trail corridors and fir•
lanes.
ix. Other existing or proposed conditions
which would be expected to affect
landscaping.
X. percentage of gross site area not
covered by structures and pavement.
a
(e) COPIES: The following copies shall be provided
in the following format:
i. Blue prints at full-scale and size as
the site plan.
ii. One 8 1/2" by 11" photopositive
reduction or one 8 1/2" x 11"
reproducible drawing which will provide
legible copies clearly representing all
details and design on the plan.
Otherwise, to assure legibility, 30
copies of the proposed landscape plan,
folded to approximate 9" x 12" shall be
submitted; petitioners may submit both
reduced and larger size legible copies
to assure such plans are available to
Planning Commissioners and Council
Members.
3. ELEIMITS OP LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND MINIMaM NM -SER OF
TREES:
(a) Elements of landscape design may include:
i. Existing topographical and vegetative
features;
ii. Berating
iii. Planting, including the required minimum
number of overstory trees, understory
trees, shrubs, flowers, and ground cover
materials.
(b) The minimum number of major or overstory trees
on any given site shall be as indicated below.
These are the minimum substantial planting, in
addition to other underatory trees, shrubs,
flowers and ground cover deemed appropriate for
a complete quality landscape treatment of the
Oita.
i. Commercial, Industrial, Institutional
sites shall contain at a minimum the
greater of one (l) tree per 1,000 square
feet of groan building floor area, or,
one (1) tree per 90 lineal feet of cite
perimeter. when total P;ooetty area far
exceeds building or developed area, site
Perimeter snail on aerinec an tnat area
wAicn extends 30' Deyond aide and rear
• yard oetback o5 parking areas and or !OI
beyond aide end rear yard cetbaci of
fe`Dofr
primary or accessory structure.
J i
ii. Multi -residential citea shall contain at
a minimum one (1) tree per dwelling
unit.
(c) An equivalent of up to fifty percent (508) of
_ the required number of overstory trees may be
created through the use of overstory trees in
combination with other landscape design
elements as listed in 3 (a) above.
In no case shall the number of overstory trees
be less than fifty percent (508) of the
appropriate formula. The burden shall be upon
the developer to demonstrate by narrative and by
graphics how the equivalent effect is provided.
the equivalent effect shall be subject to
approval by the City Council.
4. MINIMUM SIZE OF PLANTINGS:
(a) Required trees shall be of the following minimum
planting size:
i. Deciduous trees - 2.5 inches diameter as
measured six inches above the ground.
ii. Coniferous trees - 6 feet in height.
(b) A minimum of fifteen (15) percent of the
required minimum number of trees for
multi -residential developments shall be
long-lived hardwood deciduous trees, 3.5 inches J
in diameter as measured six inches off the
ground.
(c) Evergreen shrubs used for screening purposes
including those used in conjunction with berming
shall be a minimum of 24 inches in height.
5. SPECIES:
(a) All trees used in site developments shall be
indigenous to the appropriate hardiness zone and
physical characteristics of the site.
(b) All deciduous trees proposed to satisfy the
minimum requirements of this policy shall be
long-lived hardwood species.
(c) The complement of trees fulfilling the
requirements of this policy shall be not lean
than 25 percent deciduous and not less than 25
percent coniferous.
9
6. SODDING AND GROUND COVER: All areas not otherwise
improved in accordance with approved site plans shall
be sodded. Exceptions to this criterion may be
recommended by the Planning Commission and approved
y by the City Council as following:
(a) Seeding of future expansion areas as shown on
approved plans.
(b) undisturbed area containing existing viable
natural vegetation which can be maintained free
of foreign and noxious plant materials.
(c) Areas designated as open space or future
expansion area properly planted and maintained
with prairie grass.
(d) Use of mulch materials such as bark, rock mulch
over 4 mil poly and wood chips in support of
schrubs and foundation plantings.
7. SLOPES AND BERM:
(a) Pinal slope grades steeper than the ratio of
3.5:1 will not be permitted without special
approval treatment such as terracing or
retaining walls.
(b) Berming used to provide required effective
screening of parking lots and other open areas
shall have slope ratio of 3:1.
8. WOODLAND AND PRESERVATION POLICY AND CREDIT:
(a) It is the policy*of the City of Monticello to
preserve the natural forest.and woodland areas
throughout the City, and with respect to
specific site development to retain, as far as
practicable, substantial tree stands which
should be incorporated into the site.
(b) Credit for the retention of existing trees which
are of acceptable species, size and location may
be given to satisfy the minimum number
requirements set forth in this policy and in the
City Ordinances.
(c) Where conventional multi-reeidential projects
clearly demonstrate affirmative design efforts
toward the presorvation and enhancement of
desirable natural site characteristics, up to
500 square feet per dwelling unit may be
subtracted from the minimum area requirements,
no as to allow up to not more than one dwelling
unit per acre.
(-/)"cht - les V"(4 .'-r 16 e) C
(d) Where commercial, industrial and institutional
uses clearly demonstrate affirmative design
efforts toward the preservation and enhancement
of desirable natural site characteristics,
ordinance required paved parking spaces may be
reduced and installation deferred until such
time as the need for the full complement of
parking. The need shall be determined in
conformance with the "proof of parking" plan so
approved by the City.
9. USE OF LANDSCAPING FOR SCREMNG: where natural
materials such as trees or hedges are approved in
lieu of required screening by means of wall or
fences, the density and species of such plantings
shall be such to achieve 90 percent opacity
year -around.
10. USE OF LANDSCAPING FOR SCREENING - INTERSTATE HIGHWAY
EXPOSURE:
(a) The City of Monticello recognizes the value of
Interstate Highway exposure to commercial and
industrial developers. The City also wishes to
avoid the undesirable monotony of fully exposed
building sides and rears, and wishes to provide
natual visual variety to the travelers on the
Interstate. Natural visual variety will
alleviate the boredom for travelers and will
project a clean and pleasant image of the City
of Monticello. Commercial and industrial
developers of lots/parcels having substantial
exposure to the Interstate shall be required to
landscape/screen to provide 60% opacity
year -around, at least 80% of said screening to
be of natural materials.
(b) Residential development on lots/parcels having
substantial exposure to the Interstate shall be
required to landscape/screen to provide 90
percent opacity year -around, at least 75% of
said screening to be of natural materials.
(c) All landscape/screening plana for lots and
parcels having substantial exposure to the
Interstate Highway must give design
consideration to the differences in elevation
between the Interstate and the parcel subject to
development, understanding that parcels lower
than the Interstate necessarily require taller
screening to be effective in providing visual
variety and the required percentage of opacity.
L
11. PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING: To avoid the undesirable
monotony, heat and wind associated with large parking
lots, such lots shall have a minimum of one internal
landscaped area/island-delineator in addition to any
required traffic safety island, for each additional
4,000 square feet of off-street parking space after
the first 4,000 square feet; such islands shall be
equal in size to a single parking space and shall be
bounded by concrete cubing. Trees may be installed
in approved traffic safety islands used to delineate
parking spaces from driving aisles and in other
area. The internal landscaped island(s) required
above may be deleted if the aggregate area and trees
of individual requirement.
12. AGREDM.f AND BOND:
(a) An agreement will be signed between the City and
the owner which states that in exchange for
issuance of a building permit the owner will
construct, install, and maintain all items shown
on the approved plan and that he will replace
and/or correct any deficiencies or defaults that
occur in the plan for a period of one complete
year or two complete growing seasons subsequent
to the installation of the landscaping plan. A
landscaping performance bond will be submitted
along with the agreement at this time. mop,_
petition by developer, the City Council may
allow oi installation of required
O
Qnasin7-in
landscaping over a period of three years in
orcer to reduce initial development Costs. Terms
/ Qw„/.••a
or the pnased installation or landscapinq to be
incorporated into the agreement.
(b) After one complete year or two growing seasons
if all the commitments are met, then steps may
be taken to release both the bond and contract
agreement.
According to ordinance the developer/owner is
responsible for maintaining the landscaping in a
neat end proper fashion.
Further, the sc:eening is expected to remain
effective continually, so nay plant material
which dies or ceases to function as a screen
shall be replaced or reinforced immediately to
conform to City Ordinance.
13. A required screening fence shall be constructed of
masonry, brick, wood or ateel. Such fence shall
provide a solid screening effect and not exceed eight
(8) feet in height or be leas than six (6) feet in
height. The design and materials used in constructing
a required screening fence shall be subject to the
approval of the Planning Commission based upon a
recommendation by the City Engineer and Building
Inspector.
L/ 040
(H) CLARE: Any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking
area, sign or other structure, shall be arranged as to
deflect light away from any adjoining residential zone or
J
from the public streets. Direct or sky -reflected glare,
where from flood -lights or from high temperature processes
such as combustion or welding shall not be directed into
any adjoining property. The source of lights shall be
hooded or controlled in some manner so as not to cast
light on adjacent property. Hare incandescent light bulbs
shall not be permitted in view of adjacent property or
public right-of-way. Any light or combination of lights
which cast light on a public street shall not exceed one
(1) foot candle (meter reading) as measured from the
center line of said street. Any light or combination of
lights which cast light on residential property shall not
exceed 0.4 foot candles (meter reading) as measured from
said property.
(I) SMOKE: The emission of smoke by any use shall be in
compliance with and regulated by the State of Minnesota
Pollution Control Standards, Minnesota Regulation APC
1-15.
(J) DOST AND OTHER PARTICMATED MATTER: The emission of dust,
fly ash, or other particulated matter by any use shall be
in compiance with the regulated by the State of Minnesota
Pollution Control Standards, Minnesota Regulation APC
(R) NOISE:
1. All noise shall be muffled so as not to be
objectionable due to intermittence, beat frequency or
shrillness and as measured at any property line,
shall not exceed the following intensity in relation
to sound frequency