Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 04-06-1993W! AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 6, 1993. 7 p.m. Members: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart, Brian Stumpf 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to order. 7:02 p.m. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held March 2, 1993. 7:04 p.m. 3. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request to amend the Monticello Zoning Ordinance which would modify the regulations governing signs as follows: 3.1 (C) (b) Modify the ordinance to allow a permit for promotional signage for 2 weeks of every month, or for a total of 168 days each year; 3.9 (C) (h) Modify the ordinance that would state that the promotional signage may bear an advertising message including product and pricing; 3-9 (F) (e) Modify the ordinance to allow for an annual permit fee of $26 to cover advertising signage. Applicant, 9 local businesses. 7:44 p.m. 4. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance request to allow no curbing in an area of future building expansion, a proposed driveway. Applicant, Jim Behl (Custom Canopy). 7:69 p.m. b. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance request to allow less than the 6 -ft green area separation between the property line and back of curb. Applicant, Dan Olson/State Farm Insurance. 8:19 p.m. 6. Public Hearing --Consideration of a conditional use request to allow expansion of an existing medical clinic in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone. Applicant, Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital District. 8:49 p.m. 7. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance request to allow construction of a roof -covered open porch within the side yard setback requirement. Applicant, Richard Carlson. ,Additional Information Items 9:04 p.m. 1. Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of a request to rezone the Oak Ridge residential subdivision from R -PUD (residential planned unit development) to R-1 (single family residential) zoning designation. Applicant, Tony Emmerich. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. Planning Commission Agenda April 6, 1993 Page 2 9:06 p.m. 2. Set the date for a requested special Planning Commission meeting for Monday, April 12, 1993, at 6 p.m. 9:08 pm. 3. Set the date for a requested special Planning Commission meeting for Monday, April 26, 1993, at 6 p.m. 9:10 p.m. 4. Set a tentative date for the neat Monticello Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, Mav 4, 1993, at 7 p.m. 9:12 p.m. 6. Adjournment. DRF MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PARKS COMMMSION Wednesday, February 3, 1993 - 4:30 p.m - Members Present: Dick Frie, Fran Fair, Bruce Thielen, Larry Nolan, Roger Carlson Members Absent: None 2. Review Oak Ridge plat. Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed the Parks Commission that the Planning Commission had reviewed the preliminary plat of the Oak Ridge plat and tabled the matter pending input from the Parks Commission on issues pertaining to the trail and potential park development within the plat area. The Parks Commission reviewed the issues relating to the plat. After review, a motion was made by Larry Nolan and seconded by Roger Carlson to make the following recommendation regarding the plat: 1. Outlot A. A. Public Purpose. It was the view of the Parks Commission that a major portion of Outlot A includes usable upland area that should be preserved for perpetuity for public use. The area should remain relatively undeveloped and could become a low maintenance green space/passive park area to be used primarily by the people living in the Oak Ridge/Meadow Oak/Briar Oakes area. It is further recommended that the area be platted as park land. B. Ogdnt A Configuration. It was recommended that Outlot A be enlarged by extending it into the deep lots along Meadow Oak Drive. By reducing the depth of these lots and thereby enlarging Outlot A. there is greater land area available for passive park area that might include picnic benches and perhaps some playground equipment. C. Troll Access. It is recommended that a trail be developed through Oudot A. The trail should be 8 ft wide. It should be located entirely out of wetland areas. The plat needs to be modified to allow trail access to Outlot A without the trail passing through a wetland area. Page 1 Special Parks Commission Minutes - 2/31933 The trail also shows encroachment into the wetland at Lot 17, Block 5. An easement document (30' wide) needs to be prepared which would allow the trail to run through the eastern corner of Lot 17, Block 5, without the trail passing through the wetland area. A similar easement needs to be prepared to allow a trail to extend from Oakview Court between Lots 15, 16, or 17, thereby providing access to the park area for people living in the Oakview Court area. It is recommended that the asphalt surface be 8 R wide, which would allow operation of light pickup trucks on the trail system. Pprk L,oeation. The storm water plan and wetland mitigation plan should be designed so as to allow space for a small park area on the northern side of the upland area of Outlot A. E. Grading PI req Preservation Plan. Parks Commission was very concerned about the design of the street system and associated projected loss of tree cover in the front yards of Iota on Meadow Oak Drive. A stronger effort needs to be made to design the street system in a manner that would allow greater preservation of trees in the front yards. Perhaps individual lot grading should be allowed on a case-by-case basis to allow for the greatest tree preservation possible. It was further recommended that all clearing activity be conducted prior to May to prevent the onset of oak wilt in the area. All grading activities conducted should limit placement of fill on root systems. Motion carried unanimously. ! R 1 'It l Assistant Administrator O'Neill provided the Parks Commission with the latest update to the droit, and asked that the commission review it. The item was set aside for discussion at an upcoming meeting. Page 2 Special Parks Commission Minutes - 213/93 4. Ice arena update. Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed the Parks Commission of Council action at a previous meeting and noted that Dick Fee, Patty Olsen, Rick Wolfsteller, and Jerry Shannon would be attending an upcoming meeting with the Hockey Association and School District to discuss a potential ice arena development program. The Parks Commission discussed the matter in detail. It was the consensus of the commission to support the concept of development of a general purpose civic centerrice arena; however, at this time, based on survey results, it is the Parka Commission's recommendation that recreation funds be focused in higher priority areas as identified in the survey and as identified in the comprehensive plan now under development. Cardinal Hills park plan update. Discussion of this item was tabled. There being no further discussion, a motion was made by Fran Fair and seconded by Larry Nolan to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Jeff O'Neill Assistant Administrator Page 3 6 I�—. 7 8 4 3 i -- W-1 � mrlr BRIAR OAKLS I ',IAIl. .1 0 6 !OAK RIDGE b ------------ .k l tN iii �O `! kpi f.i ' qwk MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COM USSION Tuesday, February 2, 1893 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Richard Carlson, and Brian Stumpf Member Absent: Jon Bogart Staff Present: Gary Anderson and Jeff O'Neill 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cindy Lemm at 7:06 p.m. 2. A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Brian Stumpf to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held January b, 1993. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Carlson and Jon Bogart absent. 3. Publirq Hearine--Consideration of a reouest to rezone Oak Ridge subdivision from PUD (nlanned unit Development) tp R-1(residential single family) zoning designation. Anolicant. Tony Emmerich. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, requested that the Planning Commission table the rezoning request until issues associated with the preliminary plat of the Oak Ridge subdivision are resolved. It was the consensus of the three Planning Commission members present to table this request. 4. Public Hparine—Consideration of anoroval of a oreliminary plat of the Oak Ridge subdivision. Aonlicant. Tonv Emmerich. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the preliminary plat request indicating that various preliminary plat amendments as suggested by staff have not been completed; therefore, staff requests that the item be tabled and consider this as a work session to discuss the following issues: Wetlands. Wetland Biologist, Frank Svoboda, reviewed the wetland inventory prepared by his firm. He indicated that the plan as proposed is consistent with the interim rules guiding enforcement of the 1991 Wetlands Conservation Act. O'Neill noted that the wetland inventory and impact analysis as prepared by Svboda has been reviewed by the wetland experts on staff with OSM, and they concur that it appears to meet the no net loss requirement. 2. Who should own wotland/natkire area (Outlojl. O'Neill asked the Planning Commission is to dotermfne which one of the following options should be selected for defining ownership(control of the area. Page 1 /, Planning Commission Minutes - 2/2/93 Draw lot lines to the center of the wetland and prepare wetland easements outlining protected wetland areas. Draw lot lines to the center of the wetland but prepare a trail easement. Identify entire area as park or public land. The Planning Commission viewed Outlet A as a positive natural amenity for the area. A positive public purpose would be served by dedicating the land for public use; therefore, the Planning Commission selected alternative C. Street widths. Cul-de-sacs as proposed show 50 ft of right-of-way width, which is consistent with the city ordinance but not the design that has been used with recent developments. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the proposed right-of- way of 50 ft and street surface of 32 ft is adequate given the existing ordinance and the fact that few, if any, other cities require 60 ft of right-of-way and 36 ft road surface under the same circumstance. Another suggestion as made by City staff was to look again at a road alignment, with the road coming in the development from 118 to hook up directly with the existing Oakview Lane road. The suggestion was to consider putting a jog in this road entering in from 118 to hook it up with a new proposed street, with the proposed street just south of Oakview Lane. Incorporate a trail system into the wetland area, the creation of a park area adjacent to the trail system through a portion of it. The trail should connect Meadow Oak Circle to the balance of the development area. This would enable all areas within the plat to have access to street and trail systems, thereby providing connections to the park areas to the north. City staff suggested the Planning Commission consider continuing the public hearing to allow the City's consulting engineer more time to review the plat. Therefore, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Richard Carlson to continue the preliminary plat request of the Oak Ridge subdivision. yMotion carried unanimously with Jon Bogart absent. Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 2IM3 5. Consideration of anoroval Qf the reolat of phase I of the Everereens subdivision. ADDlicant. Kent Kiellberg. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the replat of the phase I of the Evergreens subdivision. The modification consists of removal of a number of lots along the southerly boundary of the plat to make room for the proposed extension of School Boulevard through this plat. Chairperson Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. There being no input from the public, she then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission members. There being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Brian Stumpf to approve the replat of phase I of the Evergreens subdivision. Motion carried unanimously with Jon Bogart absent. 6. A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Richard Martie to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator Pogo 3 a MIIdUTES REGULAR MEETING • MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 2,1883.7 p.m. Members Present: Cindy Lemm, Brian Stumpf, Richard Carlson Members Absent: Richard Martie, Jon Bogart Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cindy Lemm at 7:01 p.m. A motion was made by Brian Stumpf and seconded by Richard Martie to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held February 2, 1993, and the special meeting held February 16, 1993. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Martie and Jon Bogart absent. Review statue of Oak Ridee residential subdivision. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, updated Planning Commission members on the preliminary plat revisions for the Oak Ridge residential subdivision plat. City staff members Roger Mack and John Simola met with the developers to express some concerns that they had with the preliminary plat on the following items: Trail systems. The trail system as proposed across Outlot A was to consist of a hard -surfaced trail going through Outlot A. Staff recommendation was to reduce the trail to a woodchip or a mowed gross trail to cut down on the maintenance of this trail system for Outlot A. The hard -surfaced walking path to be located going southeast from Oakview Court in between Lots lb and 16, thence along County Road 118 right-of-way up to Meadow Oak Circle. There was a small wetland area near the entrance off of 118. The public works stats felt that this small wetland area should be left untouched versus the plan proposed by the developers. Grading plan. The developer stated he is willing to do the best he can to save as many trees as possible with minimal grading on each of the lots in the wooded areas. He stated he is willing to allow the City public works staff to mark the trees which they would like to see saved and do their best efforts to save any of the marked trees. Pago 1 Planning Commission Minutes - 3/2/93 Continued Public Hearing—Con$idemtion of a reapest to rezone the Oak Ridge residential subdivision from R -PUD to R-1 (single familv residential) zoning desienation. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the proposal to rezone the Oak Ridge residential subdivision from R -PUD (residential planned unit development) to R-1 (single family residential) zoning. With the rezoning, the developers would have to meet all the minimum requirements as outlined in the original PUD in regard to road and pedestrian access to park areas. There being no public in attendance, Chairperson Cindy Lemm then closed the public hearing and asked for any further input from the Planning Commission members. There being no further input, a motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Brian Stumpf to approve the rezoning request to rezone the Oak Ridge residential subdivision from R -PUD to R-1 (single family residential) zoning designation. This motion is based on the finding that the plat as now designed is consistent with the goals set forth in the plan approved under the original planned unit development and that the proposed land use under the R-1 zoning designation will result in a reduction in the intensification of the land use and a concurrent reduction in impact on the adjoining properties. Therefore, the proposed subdivision will not result in a decrease in adjoining land values, and it is consistent with the character and geography of the area. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Martie and Jon Bogart absent. ,Additional In�f rmation Items Planning Commission members were informed of the request for a special meeting to consider a simple subdivision request with a variance. The consensus of the Planning Commission members was to set a special meeting date for March 22, 1993, beginning at 8 p.m. Members were informed of the HRA congregate cure facility proposal request near the Monticello Hospital District property. A request to amend the 7/18/93 special Planning Commission meeting minutes to add under item 09 that subject to review by the Public Works Director and Consulting Engineer. A motion was made by Brian Stumpf and seconded by Richard Carlson to amend the 2/18/93 special Planning Commission meeting minutes to reflect City staff review by the Public Works Director and Consulting Engineer under new item q9. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Martie and Jon Bogart absent. Page 2 (� Planning Commission Minutes - 3W3 i �- A motion was made by Brian Stumpf and seconded by Richard Carlson to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously with Richard Martie and Jon Bogart absent. Meeting adjourned at 7:40 pm. Respectfully submitted, Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator Page 3 Planning Commission Agenda - 4/6/93 3. Ppbllc Heq�4ng--ConsidergHgn of a zophw ordinance amendment which would allow a hermit for promotional signage/banner for two weeks out of every month or for a total of 168 days a year. AND Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment that would allow promotional signaae/banner to bear an advertisina message.lncludinq product and pricing. AND Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment that would allow for an annual permit fee of $25 to cover uermittiRg costs associated with promotional signage fees. Anollcant. 9 Local Businesses. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The proposed zoning ordinance amendments have been submitted by a group of nine local businesses that utilize signage as a key component of their advertising efforts. The first request would amend the zoning ordinance by allowing promotional signage or banners promoting an individual product to be in place for a period of 2 weeks out of every month or for a total of 168 days a year. Currently, decorative attention -getting devices such as "promotional banners" are allowed to be displayed for a maximum period of 20 days per year. The second request would allow promotional signage to bear an advertising message, including product and pricing. Currently, decorative attention - getting devices such as banners may bear the name of the business but shall not bear any service, product, price, etc., advertising message. From a technical standpoint, banners identifying Diet Coke, $2.99 for a 12 -pack would be in violation of the ordinance, even under the 10 -day banner time limit. The City has never, to the beat of my knowledge, enforced this provision of the ordinance. The final request would allow for an annual permit fee of $25 to cover the permitting process. Currently, a special permit fee of $6 is charged for each permit that is issued. Please see their application for specific reasons they point to supporting the need for the amendments. RECENT HISTORY Following is a brief review of meetings and conversations relating to this topic that have occurred over the past few months. November 12. 1992 On November 12, 1992, Jeff O'Neill, Gary Anderson, and Steve Grittman, representing the City of Monticello, met with Rick Pribyl of Tom Thumb, Dorothy Ritz of Total Mart, and Tom Holt -haus of West Sido Market. The Planning Commission Agenda - 4/8/93 meeting was called due to routine enforcement action of the sign ordinance by Gary Anderson. In response to the enforcement of the sign ordinance, Dorothy Ritz requested that City staff review the sign ordinance and discuss possible changes to the ordinance that would allow display of temporary signs and banners for more than 20 days per year as currently allowed by ordinance. At this meeting, City Planner, Steve Grittman, noted that the City of Monticello ordinance is typical with regard to its treatment of temporary signs and banners. He noted that all the cities he works with do not allow banners or temporary signs exceptby special permit in conjunction with a special event. Cities maintain a prohibition against temporary signs because allowing them to be displayed would relinquish all control of banners. As nice as promotional banners may be, once you allow them, you have no control. The City cannot regulate the type of banner, aesthetics, messages, etc.; therefore, allowing a banner to promote Pepsi that is sold on a weekly special would also allow a downtown merchant to use a banner to advertise his place of business. It would also allow all types of print styles and qualities of banners, some of which ceuld result in visual blight. Grittman suggested that as an alternative, the convenience stores should utilize changeable type on an existing pylon sign system. The message board would be integrated with the total allowable sign area and would not represent an addition to the sign area allowed. At this meeting, O'Neill also reviewed policies followed by other communities. He noted that in the cities that he contacted, in almost all cases banners are prohibited. He noted, however, in Coon Rapids, two temporary signs are allowed so long as the total square footage of each sign does not exceed 12 sq ft. Dorothy Ritz's primary request was to allow a 30 -sq ft temporary sign to be allowed on a full-time basis. She noted that if this would not be possible, it would be reasonable to allow temporary signs to be displayed for a period of two weeks per month. O'Neill and Grittman noted the difficulty in administering this typo of program for allowing temporary signs. Tracking which signs have been up for the maximum period and which signs have not would create an administrative nightmare. It was the consensus at the meeting that Ritz would prepare an outline of her request, and City staff would outline tho pro's and con's of three basic options, which would include 1) no change to the existing ordinance, 2) liberalization of the existing ordinance to allow for more special events, days, or longer special event periods, and 3) allow 30 sq R temporary signs or banners to be placed on display at any business at any time. It was also the consensus of the group to bring this sign issue before the Planning Commission in the form of a workshop. Planning Commission Agenda - 416/93 December 1. 1992 On December 1, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed the existing ordinance regulating temporary banners and signs and was asked to consider calling a public hearing to amend the present ordinance. Information regarding the pro's and con's of liberalizing the regulations governing banners was provided. Lively debate ensued, which can be reviewed in the attached excerpt from the meeting minutes. At the conclusion of this agenda item, it was the consensus of Planning Commission to have City staff research further portable signs and banners in surrounding communities and some metro communities and return to the Planning Commission with a formal list of alternatives. It was noted at that meeting that the Planning Commission would discuss the item again in detail at their next meeting. January b. 1993 As directed by the Planning Commission, City staff prepared additional information relating to the subject matter, a copy of which is attached for your review. Included in the packet is a detailed review of the pro's and con's of liberalizing rules governing use of temporary banners as prepared by City Planner, Steve Grittman. I urge you to review this document closely. Unfortunately, the individuals present at the previous Planning Commission meeting elected not to attend the meeting of January 6. Planning Commission did review the recommendation made by Steve Grittman. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to leave the current sign ordinance in effect until a petition for an ordinance amendment is received. In addition, it was requested that the record reflect the Planning Commission's disappointment that the commercial owners/property managers relating to this topic were absent. In an effort to spare further repetition of comments already made, I would like to direct your attention to the previous material submitted to you on this topic and cut directly to the alternatives. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to modify the ordinanco by allowing a permit for promotional signage/banner for a period of 2 weeks of every month or for a total of 168 days a year; and modify the ordinance to state that the promotional signage may bear an advertising message, including product and pricing; and modify the ordinance to allow for an annual permit fee of $26 to cover advertising signage. Planning Commission Agenda - 4/6/93 Under this alternative, Planning Commission is satisfied that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment would be consistent with the intent of the sign regulations, which is to "encourage the opportunity for effective, orderly communication by reducing confusion and hazards resulting from unnecessary and/or indiscriminate use of communication facilities." The zoning ordinance amendment could also be based on a finding that the proposed amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan; specifically, item q2 on page 48 states that the "zoning ordinance and other measures and procedures will be modified in realistic recognition of the needs of contemporary commercial enterprises and the need to properly control such enterprises at the local community level. Commercial development policy will not be rigid and infleidble and neither shall it be indiscriminately permissive." Planning Commission needs to review the request in terms of this particular policy and determine whether or not the proposed amendments are consistent or inconsistent with this section of the comprehensive plan. If you determine that the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan, then such a finding should be cited in your motion. If the applicants have demonstrated that there is a need for the amendment as outlined in the attached application, then this finding should also be cited in your motion. Under this alternative, the number of permits for temporary signs will increase significantly. The administrative problem of permitting and tracking these requests will be significant. As noted by Steve Grittman, it would be easier for the City to simply increase our sign area allowed or allow banners to be displayed on a permanent basis than it would be to monitor promotional banners as would be required under the proposed ordinance. Finally. the pmendment as pfoogsed dopgpgt glgc g any limits on size or ipcnt.ioq of Oe oromotional banners. No definition is in Place to set limits: therefore. noPeoval would allow businesses to disPlav anv banner of any film for 168 days a year. Motion to approve one or a combination of the proposed zoning ordinance amendments as identified under alternative 01. Motion to deny the proposed zoning ordinance amendments. The denial could be based on a combination of tho following findings: Planning Commission Agenda - 4/6/93 The proposed zoning ordinance amendment is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. On page 38, item #ti, a goal of the community is to develop urban land uses according to a set of uniform standards applicable to the city. Such standards should govern land use, public improvements, health conditions, safety features, aesthetic considerations, and other elementa of urban environment for the purposes of safeguarding the public health, safety, convenience, and general welfare. A strong case could be made that allowing banners and temporary signs to proliferate would be detrimental to the public welfare, as it is impossible to control banner design and content, which would have a negative effect in terms of aesthetics. Furthermore, motorist safety would be diminished by the presentation of cluttered and confusing streetscape. In addition, approval of the proposed ordinance may not be consistent with goal #6 on page 38, "which is to maintain a public image which associates Monticello with excellence in planning and design and structural quality." Although some communities may not strictly enforce their ordinance regulating banners, no other communities have liberalized the use of banners as proposed; therefore, it appears that the standard we have now set is consistent with Monticello's striving for excellence. Therefore, to diminish this standard would not be consistent with this goal. The Planning Commission could make the finding that the proposed zoning ordinance amendments are not consistent with the intent of the regulations governing signs, as the purpose of the sign ordinance states that the sign ordinance is intended "to encourage opportunity for effective, orderly communication by reducing confusion and hazards resulting from unnecessary or indiscriminate use of communication facilities." To allow proliferation of banners as proposed would fly in the face of this general purpose. Perhaps the zoning ordinance amendment could also be denied based on o finding that allowing proliferation of banners and associated increase of sign area and loss of control of sign design, etc., could serve to reduce the overall effectiveness of existing signage and, therefore, result in a negative impact on other properties within the commercial zoning districts. Planning Commission Agenda - 4/6/93 4. Another finding to consider is whether or not the need has been sufficiently demonstrated. A finding could be made that existing sign area allowed is sufficient to advertise both the business and products. Therefore, there is no need to increase sign area allowed by making bannerelpromotional signs allowable 168 days a year. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff is firmly recommending that Planning Commission deny the proposed zoning ordinance amendment request. All evidence indicates that to allow proliferation of banners as proposed is not consistent with the city comprehensive plan or zoning ordinance; therefore, the request should be denied. The purpose of temporary banners and promotional signs is to provide a short-term change in scenery that attracts the attention of the consumer. If the amount of time allowed for banners is increased, the function of the banner as an attention -getting device is diminished. If this ordinance is adopted, one has to ask what a business is going to do to attract attention to itself for a special event when it already is using banners during one-half the year. At some point, the City needs to hold the line on allowing banners. Perhaps a small increase to the existing maximum time allowed for display of banners is warranted; however, staff definitely believes that the amendments as proposed should be denied. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Application for zoning ordinance amendment; City Planner comments; Meeting minutes and agenda excerpts of 11112192, 1211/92, 1/5/93; Excerpts from the comprehensive plan; Excerpts from the sign ordinance and proposed modifications. i'I -1)._C.IC.. DATE: March 22, 1993 ` TO: City of Monticello FROM: Country Kitchen of Monticello Dave Henning, Owner Downtown Standard, 254 West Broadway Don Grewe, Owner Holiday Station Store, 107 West 7th Street Mike Hanson, District Manager Pump IN Munch, 318 West Broadway Jay Clark, B.F. Distributing Tom Thumb, I-94 6 Highway 25 S. Jon Hanson, Owner Total Mart, 398 Central Avenue E. Dorothy Ritz, Marlin Basler, Owners Total Mart, 1200 Highway 25 South Dorothy Ritz, Marlin Besler, Owners Vance's Amoco, I-94 8 Highway 25 S. Vance Florell, Owner Westaide Market Thomas and Rebecca Holthaus, Owners RE: Application for Modification of Signage Ordinance (Application Form Attached) Dear Members of the City Council and the City Planning Commission, We respectfully submit the attached application for modifying the city signing ordinance. Our request pertains to Section 2, Prohibited Signe, Paragraphs b and h, under General Provisions on page 3/41: 1. (b) Modify the ordinance to allow a permit for promotional signage for two weeks out of every month, OR, for a total of 168 days each year. 2. (h) Modify the ordinance to state that the promotional signago MAY bear an advertising message including product and pricing. 3. Modify the ordinance to allow for an annual permit fee of $25.00 to cover advertising signage. Our reasons for requesting these revisions include: 1. Promotional signage has proven to be the most effective advertising medium for competing for business among convenience stores. 2. The summer months are the most critical months for our businesses. 3. Newspaper advertising does not attract vacationers that are on their way to the cabin. 4. Trips to a convenience store or to a restaurant are not often "planned purchases" as is often the case of a trip to the super market to do weekly shopping, for instance. 5. Banners and portable signs are an effective means of attracting repeat business and new customers. 6. A successful business in Monticello is good business for the city and for its residents. Thank your for your time and consideration. Sincerely, I Monticello Businesses and Taxpayers I T_ 1IFN A Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C U R 8 A N PLANNING DESIGN MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff O'Neill FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: 23 December 1992 RE: Monticello - Temporary Sign Regulation FILE NO: 191.07 - 92.10 In response to recent discussions regarding the placement of temporary signs, we have researched some of the rationale behind sign regulations and how they apply to commercial sites individually as well as commercial corridors. The City is being faced with the dilemma of enforcement of illegal temporary signs on one hand, and businesses' appeal for relaxation of regulations on the other. The request for relaxed standards (such as elimination of the time restriction on temporary banners), is based in the concern over the ability to capture additional commercial traffic. There are two issues which need to be considered in this analysis. The most evident one is that of the general impact of adding sign numbers and square footage to the commercial corridor streetscape. The underlying issue, though, is that of.the components of retail site location, and how signs fit in with these components. In considering retail location, it is important to understand how businesses decide where to site themselves. F.W. Dodge, a real estate construction industry publisher, has produced a manual entitled "The Selection of Retail Locations" which lists eight primary considerations. These are: o Accessibility of Site o Compatibility With Area o Site Economics (Coat/Benefit) o Cumulative Attraction With Area Businesses o Competitive Facilities o Growth Potential in the Trade Area o Sign of Trade Area o Business Interception 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595.9636•Fax. 595-9837-- For existing businesses, many of these are either already set or out of their control. The issue of trade area size (and growth) is the primary factor in overall regional business opportunity. The population and income levels of the community yield a set amount of total expendable dollars. If a regulation serves to increase the proportion of that total spent at a particular establishment, the regulation concurrently serves to reduce it at another establishment, albeit unintentionally. The community does not have an additional dollar to spend at the store with the new sign. If the store's proceeds increase, it is only because some other store's proceeds decrease. In summary, the new sign regulation does not create new spending, it merely redistributes it. In looking at the list of site location factors, sign communication would be a part of 'Business Interception^. This is the factor over which an existing business may exercise the greatest amount of control. Toward this end, the business community is lobbying for greater leniency in signage allowances. One can debate whether or not an increase in signage for a particular business relates to an increase in sales for that business. However, we would argue its impact is likely to be minimal. whereas occasional bumps in sales volume may be attributed to specific advertising efforts, the longer term viability of an establishment is controlled much more by the eight factors stated above. This is intuitively apparent if we think about the questions cities are asked by business people in the investigation of a potential business location. These questions always revolve around the location factors, and are virtually never about the City's Sign Ordinance. If the Ordinance were to be amended to allow additional signage, what impact might this have? If a convenience store were to be able to advertise a special on soft drinks, it may increase their traffic temporarily. However, the concurrent decrease occurs down the street at a second convenience store, and they add a sign to counter the first. while the difference between Coke and Pepsi may still increase each store's sales, a third store is now losing to both, so they add a sign as well. Pretty soon, nobody has gained, because everybody's got the same signs out. Add to this mix the auto accessory stores, the fast food restaurants, the gas stations, etc., etc., and all the corridor is left with is a cluttered streetscape, but sales are back to their original levels. In fact, the additional clutter can serve to actually reduce sales, since the streetscape becomes unreadable. This also has obvious ramifications for public safety, and the readability of the necessary traffic control signage. Finally, from a City enforcement standpoint, temporary signs present possibly the greatest amount of headaches and expense. Unfortunately, the greater the amount of temporary signage the City permits, the greater the monitoring requirements became. We believe that the City's sign regulations are generally sufficient and typical of community standards, and as such would recommend minimal changes. In the event that the City is inclined to grant additional signage allowances, we believe that permanent sign increases are much more preferable than temporary signs. Such signs are at least reviewable on a one-time, front-end basis and require no further monitoring for enforcement staff. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this issue further. Planning Commission Agenda - 1/5/93 10. Review of citv ordinance regulating 1lanners and consider calling a public hearing on an ordinance amendment that would allow greater use of temoorary signs/banners. W.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, the Commission reviewed the existing ordinance regulating banners and directed staff to research the matter further. In response to this request, staff directed the City Planner to provide a written memo on the subject. It is the view of staff that this subject does not merit further study unless the Planning Commission or private party actually requests a zoning ordinance amendment. Except for the planner's report, the balance of this report is simply a repeat of the previous supplemental data. Planning Commission is asked to review the existing ordinance regulating temporary banners and signs and consider calling a public hearing to amend the present ordinance. This request is in response to concerns brought forward by Dorothy Ritze, the operator of the Total Mart stores. Please review the attached memo for more background information regarding this topic. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Review the matter and take no action. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission is comfortable with the ordinance as it now exists. Dorothy Ritze would have to submit an application for an ordinance amendment in order for the Planning Commission to consider the matter liuther. Under this alternative, Planning Commission is comfortable with the present ordinance which allows for a total of 20 days per year that a business is allowed to display a temporary sign. Motion to call for a public hearing on an ordinance amendment which would allow greater use of temporary signs by providing for more special events or longer special event periods. U Planning Commission Agenda - 1/5/93 Under this alternative, Planning Commission would be taking the position that the City needs to maintain control over banners and temporary signs; however, there is room for extending the period that banners and temporary signs can be used. Under this alternative, Planning Commission should establish in detail how many additional days should be allowed. City staff would then draft an amendment to the zoning ordinance accordingly. This issue would then be brought before the Planning Commission at a public hearing in January. Motion to call for a public hearing on an ordinance amendment that would allow "full-time use of banners and temporary signs." Under this alternative, Planning Commission is comfortable with allowing banners to be used on a regular basis in addition to the existing signs which are already allowed by ordinance. As noted in the memo, Dorothy Ritze would like to have a 30 sq ft banner to be allowed on site at all times. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission select alternative #1 or alternative #2. As noted in the attached memo, there are no cities that we know of that allow full -tide use of banners in addition to their existing sign systems except for the City of Coon Rapids, which allows temporary signs on a very limited basis. Staff would like to emphasize that as nice as promotional banners may be, once you allow them you have no control. The City cannot regulate the type of banner, aesthetics, or messages; therefore, allowing a banner to promote Pepsi that's sold on a weekly special would also allow a downtown merchant to use a banner to advertise his place of business. It would also allow all types of print styles and qualities of banners, some of which could result in visual blight. Adding signage at a rate of 30 sq ft per property would serve to detract from the effectiveness of the signs already in existence and, therefore, diminish the value of the signs presently in place. The sign ordinance should not be amended because its limitations currently protect individual businesses from what a neighboring business might do. (3) t. C Planning Commission Agenda - 1/5193 Dorothy Ritae also suggested that, as a compromise, perhaps temporary signs could be displayed for a period of two weeks per month. Although this is a nice compromise, administration of this restriction would be very difficult, if not impossible. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Memo from Steve Grittman of Northwest Associated Consultants dated 12/23/92; Memo dated 11/12/92 regarding potential amendments to the section of the sign ordinance relating to banners; Pertinent sections of the ordinance regulating signs; Copy of agenda item from 12/1/92 Planning Commission agenda. v TO: Topic File FROM: Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator DATE: November 12, 1992 / RE: Potential amendments to the section of the sign ordinance relating to banners A meeting was conducted on November 12, 1992, at 9 a.m. Individuals attending included Rick Pribyl of Tom Thumb; Gary Anderson; Dorothy Ritze of Total Man; Tom Holthaus of West Side Market; Steve Grittman, City Planner, and Jeff ONeill. Jeff ONeill reviewed the history behind the reason for calling the meeting. In his review, he stated that Gary Anderson had been doing routine enforcement of the banner section of the sign ordinance. In response to City enforcement action, Dorothy Ritze requested that the City staff review the sign ordinance with her and discuss possible changes to the ordinance that would allow display of temporary signs and banners for more than 20 days per year as currently allowed by ordinance. ONeill noted that since the first meeting, City staff had conducted -research regarding other city ordinances and discussed the matter with the City Planner. Steve Grittman of Northwest Associated Consultants noted that the City of Monticello ordinance is typical with regard to its treatment of temporary signs and banners. All of the cities that he works with do not allow banners or temporary signs except by special permit in conjunction with a special event. Grittman noted that cities maintain this prohibition of temporary signs because allowing them to be displayed would relinquish all control of banners. He noted as nice as promotional banners may be, once you allow them, you have no control. The City cannot regulate the type of banner, aesthetics, message, etc.; therefore, allowing a banner to promote Pepsi that's sold on a weekly special would also allow a downtown merchant to use a banner to advertise his place of business. It would also allow all types of prints, styles, and qualities of banners, some of which could result in visual blight. Grittman suggested that as an alternative, the convenience stores utilize changeable type on an existing pylon sign system. The message board would be integrated with the total allowable sign area and would not represent an addition to the sign area allowed. O'Neill reviewed policies followed by other communities. He noted that in almost all cases, banners aro prohibited. He reviewed the Brooklyn Center, Elk River, Mound, Coon Rapids, and Anoka ordinances. He stated with one exception, banners and temporary signs are prohibited. In Coon Rapids, two temporary signs are allowed so Memo Temporary Signs & Banners November 12, 1992 Page 2 long as the total square footage of each sign does not exceed 12 sq ft. A third sign is also allowed without a permit so long as it is under 12 sq ft in sign area. If the third sign is over 12 sq ft in sign area, then it must be no larger than 32 sq ft and can only be in place for a period of 14 days. Steve Grittmaa also noted that the City can regulate for maintenance and movement. He went on to note that the general purpose of the restriction on banners and signage is to maintain an adequate amount of sign area Adding signage at a dip of 30 sq ft per property would serve to detract from the effectiveness of the signs already in place and, therefore, diminishes the value of the sign system overall. The sign ordinance is intended to protect individual businesses from what the neighbor might do. Dorothy Ritze stated that she would like the City to consider creating a new category of signs which would allow signs to be used for individual product promotions. Grit—an again noted that it would be difficult to single out a product sign versus a sign advertising a business, as the City cannot regulate the content of the sign. Dorothy Ritze's primary request was to allow a 30 sq ft temporary sign to be allowed on a full-time basis. She noted that if this would not be possible, it would be reasonable to allow temporary signs to be displayed for a period of 2 weeks per month. O'Neill and Grittman noted the difficulty in administering this type of program for allowing temporary signs. Tracking which signs have been up for the maximum period and which signs have not would create an administrative nightmare. As the discussion concluded, it was the consensus that Dorothy would prepare an outline of her request, and City staff would outline the pro's and con's of the three basic options, which include 1) no change to the existing ordinance; 2) liberalization of the existing ordinance to allow for more special events, days, or longer special event periods; and 3) allow 30 sq R temporary signs or banners to be placed on display at any business at any time. O'Neill noted that he would be preparing an outline for the agenda item and would contact Steve Grittman if he needed fiuther assistance. After discussion, it was the consensus of the group to bring the sign issue before the Planning Commission in the form of a workshop setting. Notice of the workshop will be provided to convenience store and fast food business operators. The information would be presented at the December meeting of the Planning Commission. use permit. Such permit shall include as n condition thereof a plan for a finished grade which will not adversely affect the surrounding land or the development of the site on which the mining is being conducted, and route of trucks moving to and from the site. 3-9: SIGNS: (AJ PURPOSE: This subdivision is established to protect and promote health, safety, general welfare, and order within the city of Monticello through the establishment of a comprehensive and impartial series of standards, regulations, and procedures governing the type, numbers, size structure, location, height, 'lighting, erection, O use and/or display of devices, signs, or symbols serving as a visual communication media to persons situated within or upon public right-of-ways or properties. AIIOUJIA;, The provisions of this subdivision are intended to V 3-1 —e s b 2 encourage opportunity for effective, orde communication by reducing eon ua on and azards resulting from unnecessary and/or indiscriminate use of �oNs� SSC^t W� communication facilities. j, J? IBJ S lack PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED SIGNS: 1. PERMITTED SIGNS: The following signs are allowed without a permit but shall comply with all other applicable provisions of this subdivision: (a) Public signs (b) Identification signs: There may be one (1) per premise not to exceed two (2) square feet in area. If the sign is freestanding, the total height may not exceed five (3) feet. (c) Integral signs (d) Political campaign signs: Shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet in all other zoning districts. Every campaign sign must contain the name and address of persons responsible for such sign, and that person shall be responsible for its removal. Signs shall remain in place for no longer than five (3) days after the election for which they are intended. All signs shall be confined to private property. The City shall have the right to remove and destroy unsightly signs or remove signs after the five (3) day limit and assess a fee of five dollars ($3.00) per sign for removal. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/37(a M J (e) Holiday Signs: Displayed for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days. (f) Construction Signs: Such signs shall be confined to the site of the construction, alteration, or repair, and shall be removed within two (2) years of the date o; issuance of the first building permit or when the particular project is completed, whichever is sooner as determined by the City Building Inspector or his agent. One (1) sign shall be permitted for each major street the project abuts. No sign may exceed fifty (40) square feet. (g) Individual Property Sale or Rental Signs: Signs must be removed within fourteen (14) days after sale or rental of property. Signs may not measure more than four (4) square feet in "R" districts, nor more than twenty (20) square feet in all other districts. There shall be only one (1) sign per premise. Corner properties, however, may contain two (2) signs, one (1) per frontage. (h) Information/Directional Signs: Shall not be larger than ten (10) square feet and shall conform to the location provisions of the specific district. 2. PROHIBITED SIGNS: The following signs are specifically prohibited by this paragraph. (a) Any sign which obstructs the vision of drivers or pedestrians or detracts from the visibility of any official traffic control device. (b) Any sign which contains or imitates an official traffic sign or signal, except for private, on -premises directional signs. (c) Any sign which moves or rotates. Exempt are time and temperature information and barber poles. (d) Any sign which contains or consists of banners, pennants, ribbons, streamers, strings of light bulbs, spinners, or similar devices, except in case of Subsection (C), Paragraph 4. (e) Portable signs as defined in i below and other attention -getting devices as defined in iii -v below, except as provided for in Subsection (C), Paragraph 4. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/38 Portable signs shall be defined as an advertising device not permanently attached to a building, facade, or pylon. Portable signs include electronic and non -electronic sign boards on wheels, banners, as defined in 11 below, sandwich boards; hanging placards, signs mounted on movable standards. ii. Banners shall be defined as fabric, paper, vinyl, or similar material which carries a specific message and which can be hung on a wall, facade, awning, canopy, suspension cable or wire, etc. iii. Streamers/Pennants shall be defined as flags, triangular pennants, spirals, spinners, etc., attached in series to a single cord or support line which is then strung or suspended from point to point. iv. Inflated devices shall be defined as inflatable devices which may be stationary or airborne (but tethered) which are intended to attract attention to a specific -location or site. V. Searchlights - self defining. (Amendment No. 190) (f) Signs which are attached in any manner to trees, fences, utility poles, or other such permanent supports, except for those signs found on fences (inside) of baseball parks. (g) Advertising signs of 200 square feet or more in place on or before June 23, 1980, and which are the principal use of the lot of record as of the above date and which have an agreement on file with the City on or before August 23, 1960, in the form so designated by the City Administrator, which is signed by the property owners and the advertising sign owners and all signatures notarised, may continue as a non- conforming use until such time as the lot of record above is developed or improved, in which case, the non -conforming advertising sign must be removed within 60 days after y written notice from the Building Official. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 2/39 �3� (h) Advertising signs as defined in Chapter 2 of this ordinance of 199 square feet or less in area, except that those signs which were in place on or before 8/15/75 may continue as a non -conforming sign. (i) No sign shall display any moving parts, nor shall it be illuminated with any flashing or intermittent lights, nor shall it be animated. Exempt are time and temperature information and barber poles. All displays shall be shielded to prevent light to be directed at on -coming traffic in such brilliance as to impair the vision of any driver. No device shall be illuminated in such a manner as to interfere with or obscure an official traffic sign or signal. (j) Roof Signs. (k) Overhanging Signs. (C) GENERAL PROVISIONS: 1. All signs shall comply with Maintenance Section 5- 309 of the 1970 Edition of Volume v of the Uniform Building Code as promulgated by the International Conference of Building Officials. 2. When electrical signs are installed, the installation shall be subject to the City's Electrical Code. 3. No signs other than governmental signs shall be erected or temporarily placed within any street right-of-way or upon any public lands or easements or right-of-ways. 4. The temporary use of portable signs, decorative attention -getting devices, and searchlights shall . ^ require an annual or daily permit. (a) An annual permit for portable signs, as defined herein, shall be granted for a maximum period of twenty (20) days per calender year. The applicant shall determine and specify on the application the days planned for display, 5 L G i.e., twenty consecutive days, ten weekends, to � etc. 11, MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/40 (b) A permit for decorative attention -getting devices shall be issued for a maximum period of ten (10) days with a minimum period of one hundred eighty (180) days between consecutive issuance of such permits for any property or parcel. (c) All portable signs and attention -getting devices must be well maintained and kept in good repair at all times. The Building Official shall order the immediate removal of any device considered to be damaged or in poor condition. Non-compliance shall be just cause for revocation of the permit without refund. (d) All portable signs and attention -getting devices shall be allowed only on the property or site where the business or enterprise is situated. No placement shall be allowed on public rights-of-way. (e) All portable signs and attention -getting devices shall be on ground level except that banners and streamers may be affixed to a building, facade, permanent pylon sign, or other permanent fixture. Airborne inflatable devices shall be tethered on site. (f) Not more than two (2) portable signs shall be displayed at the same time. (g) Not more than two (2) attention -getting devices shall be permitted to be displayed in conjunction with any portable sign. (h) A decorative attention -getting device may bear the name of the business, but shall not bear any service, product, price, etc., advertising message. (i) Permit fees shall be set by the City Council and shall be payable upon application for said permit. (Amendment No. 150) (j) Public banners may be hung from city street light fixtures for a period of up to one (1) year. Design and placement of the public banners shall be consistent with the following standards: NONTICE= ZONING ORDINANCE 7/41q Design and placement of public sign/deccrative banners must first be approved by the City Council and annually thereafter. Prior to Council consideration, applicant shall submit a banner placement plan which shows proposed banner design, size, pole location/elevation, duration, and proposed manner by which the banners shall be hung. Banner placement plan shall also describe financing sources for purchasing and installing public banners. 2. Public banners may be hung from parking lot light fixtures or from other structures on private property only in conjunction with a City Council approved public banner system. Except for requirements outlined in section 4.(j) of this ordinance, said banners are exempt from sign regulations. The City shall not participate in financing any Portion of the cost of public banners placed on private property. City crews may assist with the installation of public banners placed on private property if compensated at actual cost to install banners. 3. Except for Christmas banners, all banners shall contain an element of the City colors and/or City logo. No private advertising may be allowed on any banner hung in conjunction with a public banner system.. 4. Public banners hung from streetacape fixtures shall be no larger than 14" by 45". Banners hung from standard street lights shall be no larger than 28" by W.. 5. Public banners shall not be hung in a position that will cause a substantial obstruction of visibility from the street to advertising, traffic, and directional signs and shall not be hung in a position so as to interrupt corner sight lines. 6. Public banners may be hung only on alternate streetscape fixtures unless otherwise approved by Council. 3/426) 7. eann.ers placed on City fixtures shall become the property of the City. If damaged or in need of repair, banners may be removed by City staff. The public banner system may be discontinued, and all banners, including those on private property,- may be ordered removed at the discretion of the City Council. 8. The bracket system used to hang banners shall be of sufficient strength to withstand strong winds and shall be designed in a manner that allows easy installation and removal of banners. S. All signs shall display in a conspicuous manner the owner's name, permit number, and date of erection. 6. All height restrictions on signs shall include height of sign structure. 7. In any district, any portion of any sign exceeding two (2) square feet shall be set back fifteen (15) feet from any right-of-way line and ten (10) feet from any residential (zoned) property line. 8. Any sign now or hereafter existing which no longer advertises, or identifies a bona fide business conducted, or a service rendered, or a product sold, shall be removed by the owner, agent, or person having the beneficial use and/or control of the building or structure upon which the sign may be found within ten (10) days after written notice from the Building Inspector. 9. The City of Monticello or its agent is authorized and required by this ordinance to enter into an agreement with the United States or any of its agencies or departments to the end that the objective stated in Title 23, United States Code, Section 131, Section 319, or any other applicable federal statute to obtain non -conforming signs along the Great River Road within the city of Monticello. However, the City of Monticello or its agent shall not be required, nor allowed, to expend funds for the acquisition of non -conforming signs or advertising devices under this chapter until federal funds in the amount of 751 or more to his acquisition cost are made available to the City of Monticello for the purpose of carrying out this ordinance. No sign nor advertising device legal under Laws 1971, Chapter 883, shall be required to be removed or relocated until payment, as provided in Laws 1971, Chapter 883, is tendered by the City of Monticello. yr nonrU�*I'll 3/43 %OPic —%;;� Phuming Commission Minutes - 1/W93 10. Review of city ordinance reeulatine banners and pgnsider calline a uublic bearing on the ordinance amendment that would allow greater use of temporary sians/bannecs. No one was present from the public to discuss this item. Steve Grittman explained that for retail business, using an additional sign doesn't influence most business traffic, and it also takes away from the business. Additional signage using banners has two problems—it doesn't affect additional business activity and is an enforcement headache. Grittman suggested that a compromise would be to promote additional permanent signage and not additional temporary signs. The consensus of the Planning Commission members was to leave the current sign ordinance in effect as is until a petition for an ordinance amendment is received. Planning Commission would like the record to reflect that it is disappointed that there were no commercial owner's/property managers in attendance at this meeting. D Planning Commission Agenda - 12/1/92 Review city ordinance regulating banners and temoorary signs. (J.O. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Planning Commission is asked to review the existing ordinance regulating temporary banners and signs and consider calling a public hearing to amend the present ordinance. This request is in response to concerns brought forward by Dorothy Ritze, the operator of the Total Mart stores. Please review the attached memo for more background information regarding this topic. B. ALTERNATNE ACTIONS: Review the matter and take no action. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission is comfortable with the ordinance as it now exists. Dorothy Ritze would have to submit an application for an ordinance amendment in order for the Planning Commission to consider the matter further. Under this alternative, Planning Commission is comfortable with the present ordinance which allows for a total of 20 days per year that a business is allowed to display a temporary sign. 2. Motion to call for a public hearing on an ordinance amendment which would allow greater use of temporary signs by providing for more special events or longer special event periods. Under this alternative, Planning Commission would be taking the position that the City needs to maintain control over banners and temporary signs; however, there is room for extending the period that banners and temporary signs can be used. Under this alternative, Planning Commission should establish in detail how many additional days should be allowed. City staff would then draft an amendment to the zoning ordinance accordingly. This issue would then be brought before the Planning Commission at a public hearing in January. 3. Motion to call for a public hearing on an ordinance amendment that would allow "full-time use of banners and temporary signs." Planning Commission Agenda - 1211/92 Under this alternative, Planning Commission is comfortable with allowing banners to be used on a regular basis in addition to the existing signs which are already allowed by ordinance. As noted in the memo, Dorothy Ritze would like to have a 30 sq ft banner to be allowed on site at all times. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Stag' recommends that the Planning Commission select alternative #1 or alternative #2. As noted in the attached memo, there are no cities that we know of that allow full-time use of banners in addition to their eristing sign systems except for the City of Coon Rapids, which allows temporary signs on a very limited basis. Staff would like to emphasize that as nice as promotional banners may be, once you allow them you have no control. The City cannot regulate the type of banner, aesthetics, or messages; therefore, allowing a banner to promote Pepsi that's sold on a weekly special would also allow a downtown merchant to use a banner to advertise his place of business. It would also allow all types of print styles and qualities of banners, some of which could result in visual blight. Adding signage at a rate of 30 sq ft per property would serve to detract from the effectiveness of the signs already in existence and, therefore, diminish the value of the signs presently in place. The sign 6rdinance should not be amended because its limitations currently protect individual businesses from what a neighboring business might do. Dorothy Ritze also suggested that, as a compromise, perhaps temporary signs could be displayed for a period of two weeks per month. Although this is a nice compromise, administration of this restriction would be very difficult, if not impossible. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Memo regarding potential amendments to the section of the sign ordinance relating to banners; Pertinent sections of the ordinance regulating signs. MEMO TO: Topic File FROM: Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator' L ' DATE: November 12, 1992 / RE: Potential amendments to the section of the sign ordinance relating to banners A meeting was conducted on November 12, 1992, at 9 a.m. Individuals attending included Rick Pribyl of Tom Thumb; Gary Anderson; Dorothy Ritze of Total Mart; Tom Holthaus of West Side Market; Steve Grittman, City Planner, and Jeff ONeill. Jeff ONeill reviewed the history behind the reason for calling the meeting. In his review, he stated that Gary Anderson had been doing routine enforcement of the banner section of the sign ordinance. In response to City enforcement action, Dorothy Ritze requested that the City staff review the sign ordinance with her and discuss possible changes to the ordinance that would allow display of temporary signs and banners for more than 20 days per year as currently allowed by ordinance. ONeill noted that since the first meeting, City staff had conducted research regarding other city ordinances and discussed the matter with the City Planner. Steve Grittman of Northwest Associated Consultants noted that the City of Monticello ordinance is typical with regard to its treatment of temporary signs and banners. All of the cities that he works with do not allow banners or temporary signs except by special permit in conjunction with a special event. Griaman noted that cities maintain this prohibition of temporary signs because allowing them to be displayed would relinquish all control of banners. He noted as nice as promotional banners may be, once you allow them, you have no control. The City cannot regulate the type of banner, aesthetics, message, etc.; therefore, allowing a banner to promote Pepsi that's sold on a weekly special would also allow a downtown merchant to use a banner to advertise his place of business. It would also allow all types of prints, styles, and qualities of banners, some of which could result in visual blight. Grittmnn suggested that as an alternative, the convenience stores utilize changeable type on an existing pylon sign system. The message board would be integrated with the total allowable sign area and would not represent an addition to the sign area allowed. O'Neill reviewed policies followed by other communities. He noted that in almost all cases, banners are prohibited. He reviewed the Brooklyn Center, Elk River, Mound, Coon Rapids, and Anoka ordinances. He stated with one exception, banners and temporary signs are prohibited. In Coon Rapids, two temporary signs are allowed so �3) Memo Temporary Signs & Banners November 12, 1992 Page 2 long as the total square footage of each sign does not exceed 12 sq ft. A third sign is also allowed without a permit so long as it is under 12 sq ft in sign area. If the third sign is over 12 sq ft in sign area, then it must be no larger than 32 sq ft and can only be in place for a period of 14 days. Steve Grittman also noted that the City can regulate for maintenance and movement. He went on to note that the general purpose of the restriction on banners and signage is to maintain an adequate amount of sign area. Adding signage at a clip of 30 sq ft per property would serve to detract from the effectiveness of the signs already in place and, therefore, diminishes the value of the sign system overall. The sign ordinance is intended to protect individual businesses from what the neighbor might do. Dorothy Ritze stated that she would like the City to consider creating a new category of signs which would allow signs to be used for individual product promotions. Grittman again noted that it would be difficult to single out a product sign versus a sign advertising a business, as the City cannot regulate the content of the sign. Dorothy Ritze's primary request was to allow a 30 sq ft temporary sign to be allowed on a full-time basis. She noted that if this would not be possible, it would be reasonable to allow temporary signs to be displayed for a period of 2 weeks per month. ONeill and Grittman noted the difficulty in administering this type of program for allowing temporary signs. Tracking which signs have been up for the maximum period and which signs have not would create an administrative nightmare. As the discussion concluded, it was the consensus that Dorothy would prepare an outline of her request, and City staff would outline the pro's and cons of the three basic options, which include 1) no change to the existing ordinance; 2) liberalization of the existing ordinance to allow for more special events, days, or longer special event periods; and 3) allow 30 sq ft temporary signs or banners to be placed on display at any business at any time. O'Neill noted that he would be preparing an outline for the agenda item and would contact Steve Grittman if he needed thither assistance. After discussion, it was the consensus of the group to bring the sign issue before the Planning Commission in the form of a workshop setting. Notice of the workshop will be provided to convenience store and fast food business operators. The information would be presented at the December meeting of the Planning Commission. �3 � (a) Public signs (b) Identification aigna: There may be one (1) per premise not to exceed two (2) square feet in area. If the sign is freestanding, the total height may not exceed five (S) feet. (c) Integral signs (d) Political campaign signs: Shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet in all other sorting districts. Every campaign sign must contain the name and address of persons responsible for such sign, and that person shall be responsible for its removal. Signs shall remain in place for no longer than five (S) days after the election for which they are intended. All signs shall be confined to private property. The City shall have the right to remove and destroy unsightly signs or remove signs after the five (S) day limit and assess a fee of five dollars ($5.00) per sign for removal. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/37C3 use permit. Such permit shall include as a condition thereof a plan for a finished grade which will not adversely affect the surrounding land or the development of the site on which the mining is being conducted, and route of trucks moving to and from the site. 3-9: SIGNS: (A) PURPOSE: This subdivision is established to protect and promote health, safety, general welfare, and order within the city of Monticello through the establishment of a comprehensive and impartial series of standards, regulations, and procedures governing the type, numbers, T� �S+ J size structure, location, height, lighting, erection, �l0 use and/or display of devices, signs, or symbols serving ;{ — as a visual communication media to persons situated Q S k 52 / T within or upon public right-of-ways or properties. W,// R/IOw:-1t,, The provisions of this subdivision are intended to 0a-1nER$ U encourage opportunity for effective, orde communication by reducing con us{�on —and Mzards a 4resulting from unnecessary and/or indiscriminate use of Coos"Sie Wit communication facilities. •.5 5,,a I? (e) PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED SIGNS: 1. PERMITTED SIGNS: The following signs are allowed without a permit but shall comply with all other 'this applicable provisions of subdivision: (a) Public signs (b) Identification aigna: There may be one (1) per premise not to exceed two (2) square feet in area. If the sign is freestanding, the total height may not exceed five (S) feet. (c) Integral signs (d) Political campaign signs: Shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet in all other sorting districts. Every campaign sign must contain the name and address of persons responsible for such sign, and that person shall be responsible for its removal. Signs shall remain in place for no longer than five (S) days after the election for which they are intended. All signs shall be confined to private property. The City shall have the right to remove and destroy unsightly signs or remove signs after the five (S) day limit and assess a fee of five dollars ($5.00) per sign for removal. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/37C3 (e) Holiday Signs: Displayed for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days. (f) Construction Signs: Such signs shall be confined to the site of the construction, alteration, or repair, and shall be removed within two (2) years of the date og issuance of the first building permit or when the particular project is completed, whichever is sooner as determined by the City Building Inspector or his agent. One (1) sign shall be permitted for each major street the project abuts. No sign may exceed fifty (50) square feet. (g) Individual Property Sale or Rental Signs: Signs must be removed within fourteen (14) days after sale or rental of property. Signs may not measure more than four (4) square feet in "R" districts, nor more than twenty (20) square feet in all other districts. There shall be only one (1) sign per premise. Corner properties, however, may contain two (2) signs, one (1) per frontage. (h) Information/Directional Signs: Shall not be larger than ten (10) square feet and shall conform to the location provisions of the specific district. 2. PROHIBITED SIGNS: The following signs are specifically prohibited by this paragraph. (a) Any sign which obstructs the vision of drivers or pedestrians or detracts from the visibility of any official traffic control device. (b) Any sign which contains or imitates an official traffic sign or signal, except for private, on -premises directional signs. (c) Any sign which moves or rotates. Exempt are time and temperature information and barber poles. (d) Any sign which contains or consists of banners, pennants, ribbons, streamers, strings of light bulbs, spinners, or similar devices, except in case of Subsection (C), Paragraph 4. (a) Portable signs as defined in i below and other attention -getting devices as defined in iii -v below, except as provided for in Subsection (C), Paragraph 4. NONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/36 L., re i. Portable signs shall be defined as an advertising device not permanently attached to a building, facade, or pylon. Portable signs include electronic and non -electronic sign boards on wheels, banners, as defined in ii below, sandwich boards; hanging placards, signs mounted on movable standards. ii. Banners shall be defined as fabric, paper, vinyl, or similar material which carries a specific message and which can be hung an a wall, facade, awning, canopy, suspension cable or wire, etc. iii. Streamers/Pennants shall be defined as flags, triangular pennants, spirals, spinners, etc., attached in series to a single cord or support line which is then strung or suspended from point to point. iv. Inflated devices shall be defined as inflatable devices which may be Q stationary or airborne (but tethered) which are intended to attract attention to a specific location or site. V. Searchlights - self defining. (Amendment No. 190) (f) Signa which are attached in any manner to trees, fences, utility poles, or other such permanent supporta, except for those signs found an fences (inside) of baseball parks. (g) Advertising signs of 200 square feet or more in place on or before June 23, 1980, and which are the principal use of the lot of record as of the above date and which have an agreement on file with the City an or before August 23, 1980, in the farm so designated by the City Administrator, which is signed by the property owners and the advertising sign owners and all signatures notarized, may continue as a non- conforming use until such time as the lot of record above is developed or improved, in which ease, the non -conforming advertising sign must be removed within 60 days after written notice from the Building Official. MONTICELW ZONING ORDINANCE 3/39 0) ` (h) Advertising signs as defined in Chapter 2 of this ordinance of 199 square feet or less in area, except that those signs which were in place on or before 8/15/75 may continue as a non -conforming sign. (i) No sign shall display any moving parts, nor shall it be illuminated with any flashing or intermittent lights, nor shall it be animated. Exempt are time and temperature information and barber poles. All displays shall be shielded to prevent light to be directed at on -coming traffic in such brilliance as to impair the vision of any driver. No device shall be illuminated in such a manner as to interfere with or obscure an official traffic sign or signal. (j) Roof Signs. (k) Overhanging Signs. [C] GENERAL PROVISIONS: 1. All signs shall comply with Maintenance Section 5- 305 of the 1970 Edition of Volume V of the Uniform Building Code as promulgated by the International Conference of Building Officials. 2. When electrical signs are installed, the installation shall be subject to the City's Electrical Code. 3. No signs other than governmental signs shall be erected or temporarily placed within any street right-of-way or upon any public lands or easements \ or right-of-ways. ��c % 4. The temporary use of portable signs, decorative attention -getting devices, and searchlights shall ^ require an annual or daily permit. (a) An annual permit for portable signs, as I` 517 defined herein, shall be granted for a maximum period of twenty ( 20 ) days per calender year. C The applicant shall determine and specify on 0 l�. the application the days planned for display, yt. 1 i.e., twenty consecutive days, ten weekends, IL etc. S�roJ MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/10 �3� L (b) A permit for decorative attention -getting devices shall be issued for a maximum period of ten (10) days with a minimum period of one hundred eighty (180) days between consecutive issuance of such permits for any property or parcel. (c) All portable signs and attention -getting devices must be well maintained and kept in good repair at all times. The Building Official shall order the immediate removal of any device considered to be damaged or in poor condition. Non-compliance shall be just cause for revocation of the permit without refund. (d) All portable signs and attention -getting devices shall be allowed only on the property or site where the business or enterprise is situated. No placement shall be allowed on public rights-of-way. (e) All portable signs and attention -getting devices shall be on ground level except that banners and streamers may be affixed to a building, facade, permanent pylon sign, or other permanent fixture. Airborne inflatable devices shall be tethered on site. (f) Not more than two (T) portable signs shall be displayed at the same time. (g) Not more than two (2) attention -getting devices shall be permitted to be displayed in conjunction with any portable sign. (h) A decorative attention -getting device may bear the name of the business, but shall not bear any service, product, price, etc., advertising message. (i) Permit fees shall be set by the City Council and shall be payable upon application for said permit. (Amendment No. 150) (j) Public banners may be hung from city street light fixtures for a period of up to one (1) year. Design and placement of the public banners shall be consistent with the following standards: XONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/41 3 MONTICELLO ZONING 1. Design and placement of public sign/decorative banners must first be approved by the City Council and annually thereafter. Prior to Council consideration, applicant shall submit a banner placement plan which shows proposed banner design, size, pole location/elevation, duration, and proposed manner by which the banners shall be hung. Banner placement plan shall also describe financing sources for purchasing and installing public banners. 2. Public banners may be hung from parking lot light fixtures or from other structures on private property only in conjunction with a City Council approved public banner system. Except for requirements outlined in section 4.(j) of this ordinance, said banners are exempt from sign regulations. The City shall not participate in financing any portion of the cost of public banners placed on private property. City crews may assist with the installation of public banners placed on private property if compensated at actual cost to install banners. 3. Except for Christmas banners, all banners shall contain an element of the City colors and/or City logo. No private advertising may be allowed on any banner hung in conjunction with a public banner system. 4. Public banners hung from streetscape fixtures shall be no larger than 14" by 45". Banners hung from standard street lights shall be no larger than 28" by 80". 5. Public banners shall not be hung in a position that will cause a substantial obstruction of visibility from the street to advertising, traffic, and directional signs and shall not be hung In a position so as to interrupt corner eight lines. 6. Public banners may be hung only on alternate streetacape fixtures unless otherwise approved by Council. 3/42 Banners placed on City fixtures shall become the property of the City. If damaged or in need of repair, banners may be removed by City staff. The public banner system may be discontinued, and all banners, including those on private property,• may be ordered removed at the discretion of the City Council. 8. The bracket system used to hang banners shall be of sufficient strength to withstand strong winds and shall be designed in a manner that allows easy installation and removal of banners. S. All signs shall display in a conspicuous manner the owner's name, permit number, and date of erection. 6. All height restrictions on signs shall include height of sign structure. 7. In any district, any portion of any sign exceeding two (2) square feet shall be set back fifteen (13) feet from any right-of-way line and ten (10) feet from any residential (zoned) property line. 8. Any sign now or hereafter existing which no longer advertises, or identifies a bona fide business conducted, or a service rendered, or a product sold, shall be removed by the owner, agent, or person having the beneficial use and/or control of the building or structure upon which the sign may be found within ten (10) days after written notice from the Building Inspector. 9. The City of Monticello or its agent is authorized and required by this ordinance to enter into an agreement with the United States or any of its agencies or departments to the end that the objective stated in Title 23, United States Code, Section 171, Section 319, or any other applicable federal statute to obtain non -conforming signs along the Great River Road within the city of Monticello. However, the City of Monticello or its agent shall not be required, nor allowed, to expend funds for the acquisition of non -conforming signs or advertising devices under this chapter until federal funds in the amount of 75% or more to his acquisition cost are made available to the City of Monticello for the purpose of carrying out this ordinance. No sign nor advertising device legal under Laws 1971, Chapter 883, shall be required to be removed or relocated until payment, as provided in Laws 1971, Chapter 883, is tendered by the City of Monticello. O 3 MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/47 Planning Commission Minutes - 12/1/92 Review citv ordinance reeulatine banners and temporary siens. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the request to review the existing ordinance regulating temporary banners and signs and to consider calling a public hearing to amend the present ordinance. O'Neill explained that under the current regulations, banners are allowed for 10 consecutive days, then after a 180 -day waiting period, an additional 10 consecutive days is allowed per calendar year. Portable signs are allowed for 20 total days in a calendar year. O'Neill reported that there are no cities that we know of that allow full-time use of banners in addition to their existing sign systems except for the City of Coon Rapids, which allows temporary signs on a very limited basis. He emphasized that as nice as promotional banners may be, once you allow them you have no control. The City cannot regulate the type of banner, aesthetics, or messages; therefore, allowing a banner to promote Pepsi that's sold on a weekly special would also allow a downtown merchant to use a banner to advertise his place of business. It would also allow all types of print styles and qualities of banners, some of which could result in visual blight. Adding signage at a rate of 30 sq ft per property would serve to detract from the effectiveness of the signs already in existence and, therefore, diminish the value of the signs presently in place. Planning Commission should study this issue carefully before making any changes. It may not make sense to amend the ordinance because the rules currently protect individual businesses from what a neighboring business might do. O'Neill outlined the alternatives for the Planning Commission to consider as follows: Review the matter and take no action. Motion to call for a public hearing on an ordinance amendment which would allow greater use of temporary signs by providing more special events or longer special event periods. Motion to call for a public hearing on an ordinance amendment that would allow full-time use of banners and temporary signs. Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then opened the public hearing. Dorothy Ritze, part owner of the Total Mart stores, explained her reasons for requesting an update to the present zoning ordinance to allow additional time per calendar year for the use of banners and temporary signs. Banners and temporary signs are used as a promotional tool to attract the public from the highway, which is a major portion of their business. She also suggested that Planning Commission consider a temporary interim period for the use of banners and portable signs. D3 Planning Commission Minutes - 12/1/92 Kevin Olson, Manager of Westside Market, explained that a convenience store attracts business by drawing the public from the highway for the products in the store. Don Grewe, owner of Downtown Standard, feels that the ordinance is too restrictive in allowing a portable sign for only two weeks per calendar year. Dorothy Ritze explained that the banners the City currently has up puts across an effective message, which the City is using for the promotion of the city of Monticello. Patty Olsen, realtor with Edina Realty, asked if the convenience stores have used up their maximum pylon and wall sign square footage? City staff responded that they have used all of their existing wall and pylon sign square footage allowances. Dorothy Ritze explained that purchasing a reader board or message center type of sign is fine but very expensive, in the neighborhood of $2,700 just to have a small fastbank sign at their business. It is proposed to have one installed at their business. The manager of the Pump N Munch convenience store questioned why additional signage for items such as lottery tickets, a promotional banner, copy machine service, or a specific product inside the store could not also be allowed on their building. Richard Carlson questioned what is the Citys ultimate goal by regulating the use of portable signs and banners. Stafne response was that the ultimate goal is to have a banner and portable sign ordinance in place that can be effectively administered by City staff. Carlson also commented, from a business standpoint, that it makes sense to regulate signage within a commercial business. Too much signage distracts from the overall appearance of the establishment. The consensus of the Planning Commission members was to have City staff research further portable signs and banners in surrounding communities and some metro communities and return to the Planning Commission with a formal list of alternatives. To review the information provided and take no action. Consider the information presented, select the proposed alternatives for an ordinance amendment, and call for a public hearing at the next regularly scheduled meeting in February. Page 3 3 �fOAA P Fllck/N COMMERCIAL POLICIES 1. Commercial development in general and successful retailing functions should occur both in the central business district and the shopping center area contiguous to Intersta . 44. 2. ;and mprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and other measures rocedg•ee will he modified in realistic recognition of the of contemporary commerc a eneerpcissa the need eo rly control such enterprises an the Local community level; rcial development policy will not be rigid and inflexible, either shall it be indiscriminately permissive. 1. Adequate provision should be made for expansion of suitable areas for highway oriented commercial develooment requiring large acreages for use such as motels, auto and implement dealerships, and lumber and building supply yards. These uses should be encouraged to develop in new locations along Interstate 94 at Highway 25. 4. the location of new shopping areas should be justified by an adequate market study (market radius, customer potential, suitable location in the market radius, etc.) and consideration foe the neighborhood, land use, and circulation pattern. S. Commercial areas should be as compact as possible. Compact co®arcial areas are particularly advantageous for retail uses, as they concentrate shopping and parking. A community is benefited by reducing exposure to residential areas and having a better control over parking and traffic needs. Fbc this reason, *strip* and *spot" commercial development should not be permitted. 6. Highway oriented uses along Interstate 94 should be concentrated to the greatest extent possible to as not to waste prime commercial land not spread the uses so as to not be definable as a 'viable commercial area'. 7. Puture commercial areas should be based upon the concept of the integrated business center developed according to a specific site plan and justified by an economic analysis of the area to be served. 6. All major commercial areas shall be pre -zoned based upon the Comprehensive Plan. No areas shall be is -zoned to commercial use unless they are shown to be properly located in accordance with the policies and standards of the Coapcohensive Plan. 9. Boundaries of commercial districts shall be well-defined so as to prevent intrusion into residential areas; residential areas must be properly screened from the associated ill effects of adjacent and nearby Commercial area. -48- 0 C0,,,%PIs, F,C -R RP t' community. The communi y goals are preferences as to: (1) the general type of community that future physical development should help producer and (2) the Character and location of the major physical elements forming the urban environment. Before the Comprehensive Plan can be carried into effect, these community goals must be stated clearly and general agreement on them must be reached. Otherwise, the plan cannot be conceived of as the community's policy concerning physical development. Investigating community attitudes and formulatinq a publicly acceptable statement of broad community goals is a basic part of the planning process. A 'goal' is a desired objective to be reached. 1. To develop and emphasise Monticello as a community that can offer the advantages of being near a metropolitan area for the enjoyment of major cultural, sports, and business assets and yet be completely and distinctly separate from the metropolitan area and its suburbs. E ]hi]h ncourage steady, careful growth by maintaining reasonably standards. 3. To utilize the inherent advantages of the community in terms of location, existing population, school system, available land, etc., to gain the best possible advantage from these assets so as to develop a reputation as a community combining all the desirable elements for living in Minnesota. 0. To develop the City according to an officially adopted Comprehensive Plan for land ume, tranapoctation, and community facilities. while the plan should not be inflexible, neither should it be amended in disc ciminantly. S. To develop urban land uses according to a set of uniform standards applicable to the City. such standards should govern land use, public improvements, health conditions, safety features, aesthetic considerations, and other elements of the urban environment for purposes of safeguarding the public health, safety, convenience, and general welfare. 6. To maintain a public image which associates Monticello with excellence in planning, design, and structural Quality. 7. To coordinate local plans with those of the school district, adjacent and nearby communities, and others, is essential to the well-being of local residents. B. To develop a sound and broad tax base for the City and the school district is essential in order to provide revenue for adequate public facilities and services without creating undue burdens upon property owners. 9. To base all development decisions upon compliance with the City Plan, appropriate planning methods and procedures, and development standards that help to assure the beat possible reoulto within the realm of economic and legal feaaibllity. -38- '3 i. Assign all new building/dwelling address numbers. ii. Approve type of material and color of all building/dweiling address numbers. (#158, 9/14/87) (F) FEES AND LICENSE: 1. FEES: (a) Payment Fees: The permit fee and other fees • and charges set forth in this ordinance shall be collected by the City before the issuance of any permits, and the City Administrator, Building Inspector, or other persons duly MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/50 • authorized to issue such permit for which the payment of a fee is required under the provisions of this subdivision may not issue a permit until such fee shall have been paid. (b) Double Fees: If a person begins work of any kind for which a permit from the City is required without having secured the necessary permits therefore either previous to or on the date of commencement of such work, he shall, when subsequently securing such permit, pay double the fee provided for such permit or is subject to the penalty provisions of this ordinance. (c) Fees Required: Sign applications and subsequent fees will be required for all signs which do not appear in Chapter 3, Section 9 (B) (permitted and prohibited signs). Fees shall not be required for repairs of signs and sign structures. (d) Initial Fees L. The initial fee shall be determined based upon the cost of the sign from a • fee schedule adopted by the City Council. LL. All sign applications must be accompanied by proof of contract and O�� S2 purchase price. C (9) Special Permit Fees: Special permit fees ahall be assessed for all attention seeking devices as described in Section 9, Subsection ` (C), paragraph 4 of this chapter. The fee \y, shall be five dollars ($9.00) for each permit. 3-9 (r) (e): Modify the ordinance to allow for an annual permit fee of 023 to cover advertising signage. CB) (b) A permit for decorative attention -getting devices shall be issued for a maximum period of ten (10) days with a minimum period of one hundred eighty (180) days between consecutive issuance of such permits for any property or parcel. (c) All portable signs and attention -getting devices must be well maintained and kept in good repair at all times. The Building Official shall order the immediate removal of any device considered to be damaged or in poor condition. Non-compliance shall be just cause for revocation of the permit without refund. (d) All portable signs and attention -getting devices shall be allowed only on the property or site where the business or enterprise is situated. No placement shall be allowed on public rights-of-way. (e) All portable signs and attention -getting devices shall be on ground level except that banners and streamers may be affixed to a building, facade, permanent pylon sign, or other permanent fixture. Airborne inflatable devices shall be tethered on site. (f) Not more than two (2) portable signs shall be displayed at the same time. W (ROC E D (g) Not more than two (2) attention -getting }� II7�` J devices shall be permitted to be displayed in conjunction with any portable sign. nL)-/ .�(h) A decorative attention -getting device may bear the name of the business, but shall not bear any service, product, price, etc., advertising message. 3-9 (C) (h): Modify the ordinance to state the the promotional signage MAY bear an advertioing message, including product and pricing. public tanners may be hung from city street On light fu..uree for a period of up to one (1) QS year. Design and placement of the public _ banners shall be consistent with the following 1 / standards: KONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/41 3-9 (C) (b): Modify the ordinance to allow a permit for promotional signage for two weeks out of every month, OR FOR A TOTAL OF 168 days each year. (b) A permit for decorative attention -getting devices shall be issued for a maximum period L o ten (10) days with a minimum period of one hundred eighty (180) days between consecutive issuance of such permits for any property or parcel. e 4:0 00t (c) All portable signs and attention -getting devices must be well maintained and kept in good repair at all times. The Building Official shall order the immediate removal of any device considered to be damaged or in poor condition. Non-compliance shall be just cause for revocation of the permit without refund. (d) All portable signs and attention -getting devices shall be allowed only on the property or site where the business or enterprise is situated. No placement shall be allowed on public rights-of-way. (e) All portable signs and attention -getting devices shall be on ground level except that banners and streamers may be affixed to a building, facade, permanent pylon sign, or other permanent fixture. Airborne inflatable devices shall be tethered on site. (f) Not more than two (2) portable signs shall be displayed at the same time. (g) Not more than two (2) attention -getting devices shall be permitted to be displayed in conjunction with any portable sign. (h) A decorative attention -getting device may bear the name of the business, but shall not bear any service, product, price, etc., advertising message. (i) permit fees shall be set by the City Council and shall be payable upon application for said permit. (Amendment No. 130) (j) public banners may be hung from city street light fixtures for a period of up to one (1) year. Design and placement of the public banners shall be consistent with the following standards: MONT ICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/41 (3, Planning Commission Agenda - 4/6/93 Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance reanest to allow no curbing in an area of future building expansion. a oronosed dlriveway. A D11cant. Jim Bevi (Custom Canouvj. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Jim Beyl, representing Custom Canopy, a proposed new industrial business which will be relocating to the Oakwood Industrial Park, is proposing to construct a driveway to the rear of his property serving as a driveway and also a parking area for the back of his building. Mr. Beyl is proposing to be allowed to install the parking and drive areas without curbing in the areas from the northwest and northeast corners of the building out along the driveway area to Fallon Avenue. Our current zoning ordinance requires hard -surfaced concrete curbing to be installed in all parking/driveway areas, The area of the proposed "no curbing" is to be for future expansion area. To be expanded it would be expanded in a northerly direction in the rear of the existing building. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve the variance request to allow no curbing in the area of future building expansion, a proposed driveway. Selection of this alternative is consistent with previous identical requests by other industrial developments. Planning Commission should select this alternative if it is satisfied that the variance would not "impair the intent" of the ordinance. This alternative interprets the intent of the ordinance to allow limited phasing of drive area development. Motion to deny the variance request to allow no curbing in the area of future building expansion, a proposed driveway. Planning Commission could take the position that circumstances are not significantly unique to grant a variance and that granting of the variance in this case could set a precedent. It could be argued that the building may not ever be added on to in the future and it may be just a way of getting in at the front end of the development with a lesser cost to develop. It could also be argued that not this project but outer future commercial/industrial projects could be requesting similar variances from the curbing requirement at the area where the proposed curbing to be constructed would be an area that a building addition might occur. Planning Commission Agenda - 4/6/93 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the variance request for no curbing in an area of future building expansion be approved as presented, with the approval being subject to the City Engineer's review of the grading and drainage plan. Planning Commission may wish to consider setting a time limit on the variance. Perhaps the motion could include the requirement that the variance be renewed if expansion does not occur within five years. J), SUPPORTING D/LTA: Copy of the location of the proposed variance request; Copy of the site plan for the variance request. OM lrN No A variance request to allow 8 no curbing in area of future expanmion, a proposed driveway. • = APPLICANT: Jim Beyl i ) (Custom Canopy) — . 1':::0•?+�yC! -p��� 1 'd..;•A'. ry._i t 4 � '1'.^i•g`. a v' 1' 'co:•:z,,.• ,.L ;_;. .,:: I.•�+; ri"`.,°'?•,., ..' Y:;.SI,:.L,..;.1•"°�r�,Si!�{r,4T� ..'�.,r:. . r 't��R?':��fl Its;,:' .c}wrd � �..�• ti . ., ... .t S:a .. .. .. ' . -�i't .c'%i" o6'y,..+:, ,!?�i ;�,i:!4: �T�' :•'. . WW" WWWAIIM- fffNVVV ' f� . "".o6nii•i3""—�jj—"'..—"—.`._"..---•�— xaa airiamto �I'ti iiv i�ai7as � G. --T nauvAu � — �,�(41�:f1u''i:ft� cl d C \�,` /tl�urAr.L• �/ IAC tr au =Jin u•R7.P/0SwACPU Cd: A n fS/q N I'Rcf p.0 L� WIN/' N'/1 UMI AAD ICI NI4 101W,e • 1lti I I/: 6", s 1/• Aaq'r !.ct C q I'AMV Aen nt/ulo 'CI •r:,wltl;.+LI 1_ C/ IPM I'•,l'r 1 E d-0C:oi IAfmAw It•mrsry � d � gr4• umnre } h'AUO N AVENUE '' ,i• s� �s'�s' 4� } ,. .. .. .. .. .•.d�<�.ALV.i�.r:;,C....:2:.pit'�il.?�iD�1`a�!1��:`?.'3�'�I'. �•'•�• (q) ALL DRIVEWAY ACCESS OPENINGS shall require a culvert unless the lot is served by storm sewer or is determined unnecessary by the Building Inspector. Size of culvert shall be determined by the Building Inspector but shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) inches in diameter. (r) CURBING: i. All commercial and industrial off-street \ parking areas and driveways in commercial areas shall have a six (6) inch nonsurmountable continuous concrete V curb around the perimeter of the parking area and driveways. ii. All off-street parking in the I-1 and 1-2 districts shall have an insurmountable curb barrier which, if not constructed of six (6) inch continuous concrete curbing, shall require prior approval from the Planning Commission 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 designs and materials shall be approved by the City Engineer. EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (a) Stall Aisle and Driveway Design Conditional Use Permit. (e) STALL AISLE AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Stall aisle and driveway design requirements as noted in (k) Surfacing, (o) Curbing and Landscaping, and (r) Curbing, may be lessened subject to the following conditions: I. Any reduction in requirements requires completion of the conditional use permit process outlined in Chapter 22 of this ordinance. LL. Final approval of parking and driveway drainage plane associated with conditional use permit request shall be provided in writing by the City Engineer. Engineering expenses greater MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/27 U' Planning Commission Agenda - 416/93 F!phliq Bearina--Consideration of q varlance reauest to allpw less jhan the awn area as a separation between the orooeiftline and back of curb. Aonlicant. Dan Olson/State Farm Insurance. (GA.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Olson is proposing to develop an off-street parking lot on the site of his newly -purchased residential property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of 4th Street and Walnut. Olson plans on converting the residence at this location to commercial use. This conversion is allowable at this B4 location. To meet the minimum parking requirements, Mr. Olson is required to have 11 off-street parking spaces. On the enclosed plan you will note Mr. Olson is proposing seven 9 -ft regular parking spaces, three compact spaces, and one handicapped space. With the construction of this number of parking spaces under the design as proposed, the lot would be 1.5 ft short of the width to accommodate the above -noted size and number of parking spaces. Given the proposed use, it is not likely that the parking lot will be completely occupied at all times. Perhaps the parking lot design should be approved showing a 1 -stall deficit, with the understanding with Olson that the City can demand construction of an additional stall if off-street parking becomes a problem. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve a variance request to allow less than the 64 green area separation between the property line and back of curb. The Planning Commission should select this alternative if it is satisfied that the request will not impair the intent of the ordinance or if the situation is significantly unique to warrant issuance of a variance. This type of variance has been granted to others. For instance, Bridge Water Telephone, Marquette Bank, and Maus Foods parking lots encroach on the 5 -ft side yard requirement. Motion to deny the variance request to allow less than the 5 -ft green area separation between the property line and back of curb. In this situation, a variance might not make sense because other parking lot designs could be developed that would not require a variance. Planning Commission could take the position that the circumstances are not significantly unique to grant a variance, and that Planning Commission Agenda - V6/93 granting a variance in this case would reinforce a precedent. It could be argued that the developer did not explore all options to develop the parking lot and meet the minimum parking lot requirements. Motion to approve a variance request to allow 1 stall less than the minimum number of parking spaces but require "proof of parking." Even though the public hearing was published for the development of a parking lot within the 5 -ft green area separation between the property line and back of curb, the intent has been made with the publication of a variance for the development of this parking Iot With the nature of Mr. Olson's business, even including the upstairs rental unit, the likelihood of Mr. Olson's parking lot being hill at any one time is quite unlikely. With this alternative, an agreement could be struck with Olson that would require him to build an additional parking stall in the event parking becomes a problem. The decision to require the added stall would be at the discretion of the City. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow less than the number of parking spaces as required by ordinance. City staff feels the project would be best served by a reduction in the minimum number of parking spaces. This variance granted only if Olson agrees to add a stall if necessary as determined by the City. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed variance request; Copy of the ordinance section on minimum parking spaces and setback requirements; Copy of the site plan for the variance request. 10 A variance request to allow leas than the 5 -ft. green area separation between the property Lino and back of curb. Z APPLICANT: Dan Olson/State Farm Insurance 0? 7NW4V Z 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. Drainage plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and subject to his approval. City staff may waive this requirement if it is determined that the drainage plans do not merit further study by the City Engineer. Staff determination in this regard shall be based on size of parking surface area, simplicity of design plan, and proximity/accessibility to existing storm sewer facilities. EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (e) Stall Aisle and Driveway Design Conditional Use Permit. (#192, 7/9/90) (1) STRIPING: Except for single, two-family, and townhouses, all parking stalls shall be marked with white painted lines not less 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, (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. /-"(-a) CURBING 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 all areae bordering the parking area EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (a) Stall Aisle and Driveway Design Conditional Use Permit. (#192, 7/9/90) (p) REQUIRED SCREENING: All open, non- residential, off-street parking areae of five (S) or more spaces shall be screened and landscaped from abutting or surrounding residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2, of this ordinance. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/26 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. 3. There shall be no off-street parking within fifteen (15) feet of any street surface. 4. The boulevard portion of the street right-of-way shall not be used for parking. 5. SETBACK AREA: Required accessory off-street parking shall not be provided in front yards or in side yards in the case of a corner lot in R-1, R-2, R-3, PZ, and B-1 districts. 6. In the case of single family, two-family, and townhouse dwellings, parking shall be prohibited in any portion of the front yard except designated driveways leading directly into a garage or one (1) open, surfaced space located on the side of a driveway away from the principal use. Said extra space shall be surfaced with concrete or bituminous material. (G] USE OF REQUIRED AREA: Required accessory off-street parking spaces in any district shall not be utilized for open storage, sale, or rental of goods, storage of inoperable vehicles as regulated by Chapter 3, Section 2 (M], of this ordinance, and/or storage of snow. (H] NUMBER OF SPACES REQUIRED: The following minimum number of off-street parking spaces shall be provided and maintained by ownership, easement, and/or lease for and during the life of the respective uses hereinafter set forth. 1. SINGLE FAMILY, TWO-FAMILY, AND TOWNHOUSE UNITS: Two (2) spaces per unit. 2. BOARDING HOUSE, FRATERNITY HOUSE, SORORITY HOUSE: At least two (2) parking spaces for each three (3) persons for whom accommodations are provided for sleeping. 3. MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS: At least two (2) off- street parking spaces per unit with one (1) enclosed •pace per two (2) units. NONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/29 (5� Initial development is, however, required of only one-half (1/2) space per unit, and said number of spaces can continue until such time as the City Council considers a need for additional parking spaces has been demonstrated. 13. DRIVE-IN ESTABLISHMENT: At least one (1) parking space for each fifteen (15) square feet of gross floor area but not less than fifteen (15) spaces. (0190, 5/14/90) 14. OFFICE BUILDINGS, ANIMAL HOSPITALS, AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES: Three (3) spaces plus at least one (1) space for each two hundred (200) square feet of floor area. 15. BOWLING ALLEY: At least five (5) parking spaces for each alley plus additional spaces as may be required herein for related uses contained within the principal structure. 16. MOTOR FUEL STATION: At least four (4) off-street parking spaces plus two (2) off-street parking spaces for each service stall. Those facilities designed for sale of other items• than strictly automotive products, parts, or service shall be required to provide additional parking in compliance with other applicable sections of this ordinance. 17. RETAIL STORE AND SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT: At least one (1) off-street parking space for each two hundred (200) square feet.• 18. RETAIL STORE AND SERVICE BUSINESS WITH FIFTY (50) PERCENT OR MORE OF GROSS FLOOR AREA DEVOTED TO STORAGE, WAREHOUSES, AND/OR INDUSTRY: The number of spaces shall be required by either (a) or (b). (a) At least eight (8) spaces or one (1) space for each two hundred (200) square feet devoted to public sales or service plus one (1) space for each 500 square feet of storage area. (b) At least eight (8) spaces or one space for each employee on the maximum shift. 19. RESTAURANTS, CAFES, PRIVATE CLUBS SERVING FOOD AND/OR DRINKS, BARS, TAVERNS, NIGHTCLUBS, CONVENIENCE FOOD: At least one (1) space for each forty (40) square feet of gross floor area of dining and bar area and one (1) space for each eighty (80) square feet of kitchen area. (0190, 5/14/90) MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/31 4S ---jo T r, K O nk - Planning Commission Agenda - 416/93 Public Hearing --Consideration of a conditional psq permit which Would allow the expansion of an existing cllnig building in a P2* !performance zone mixed) zone, Applicant. Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital District. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you may know, the Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital District purchased the clinic building located directly east of the existing hospital. In conjunction with this purchase, the hospital district is proposing to almost double the size of the facility through development of a 10,000 sq ft addition. The addition will mirror the existing building in appearance and will consist of two floors. In order to expand the clinic facility as proposed in a PZM zone, the hospital district must first obtain a conditional use permit. The site plan calls for development of a driveway and parking area along the east side of the structure. The drive serves additional parking in the rear or river side of the property. The driveway configuration strives to promote the rear of the building as being the primary entrance to the facility. As you know, the existing clinic has parking in the front across Hart Boulevard. According to the City Engineer, execution of the plan is feasible; however, it will require a significant amount of grading and excavation. It is possible that the City will install a storm sewer line at this time in conjunction with development of the parking area. Staff is also exploring the feasibility of installing the line farther to the east between the Soltis and Bondhus property. AREA IMPACTS To the east of the site is residential property owned by Mrs. Kasper. Further east are properties owned by Dan McConnon and Mike Soltis. The construction of a clinic parking lot/drive area along the Kasper property line will have a significant impact on Kasper's property. It is critical that a well - constructed and well-maintained screening fence be placed along the full length of the parking lot/drive arca so as to mitigate the negative impact on the Kasper property. The plan as proposed does show a screening fence; however, it does not indicate the type of fence proposed. It is suggested that the fence be constructed to moot the minimum opacity requirements as noted by ordinance. To the north of the site is the River Street right-of-way, followed by the Mississippi River. It appears that the setback fiom the river is far enough so as to have minimal impact on the river setting. Planning Commission Agenda - 4/6/93 To the west of the site is the existing nursing home. The presence of the parking lot will have an effect on the view to the east from the east wing of the nursing home. It is suggested that berming or landscaping be constructed along the western boundary line of the parking lot in order to buffer the impact of the parking lot on the adjacent nursing home. PARE3NG LOT DESIGN Parkine Stall Reauirement The proposal calls for 71 parking spaces, which is the same number as required by ordinance. Therefore, the plan meets the minimum requirements necessary with the proposed addition. Unfortunately, the total parking requirement for the entire hospital district complex remains 45 stalls short of what is required by ordinance. Development of a 71 -stall parking lot will not serve to improve this situation. Perhaps the hospital district should be encouraged to provide additional parking at this location, which would eliminate the need to develop additional parking on the River Street side of the nursing home. As you may recall, in September 1991, the hospital district requested a conditional use permit which would have allowed development of a 45 -stall parking area directly east of the nursing home at the end of River Street. At that time, the Planning Commission tabled the matter pending input from the City Engineer on the feasibility of developing the additional parking on the east side. After further consideration, the hospital district put their request to expand River Street parking on hold. The Planning Commission, therefore, never made a formal recommendation on the request. The City Engineer has been directed to review the now clinic site plan and determine whether or not it would be feasible to develop additional parking at the clinic location designed to serve parking demand created by other hospital district uses. Obstacles to increasing clinic parking to serve other hospital district uses aro as follows: Adding stalls to tho plan would requiro an extension of the parking lot toward the river, which would further undermine the pleasant river setting in the area and would further obstruct the view of the river firm the nursing home. Access to other hospital district buildings from the clinic lot may not be convenient. There may be problems in allowing users of the clinic parking lot to enter the nursing home from the east Planning Commission Agenda - 4093 i_ wing. Entrance and exiting of the nursing home is designed to occur in the front of the building, which makes the clinic location for nursing home parking stalls undesirable. 3. From a legal standpoint, the City may not have any leverage to require development of additional parking to serve other hospital district uses. Technically, the City lost legal authority to direct parking location and design when the building permit for the recent clinic expansion was granted without the district first obtaining a conditional use permit. In summary, it does not seem fair to the residents on East River Street that they should experience additional traffic for the sake of preserving the river setting for the entity that is generating the additional traffic. If the hospital district wishes to expand and grow at its present site, then perhaps it should prepare overall plans that are designed to have the hospital district deal with the consequences of the expansion without impacting the residential neighborhood to the west. In addition to the clinic expansion, it is very possible that within two years a congregate housing project for seniors may be developed west of the dental clinic. Perhaps the parking stall deficit can be satisfied in conjunction with the senior housing project in a manner and design that will not impact the River Street neighborhood. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve conditional use permit allowing expansion of the clinic facility in the PZM zone subject to the following conditions: 1. Staff review and approval of detailed landscaping plans. 2. Staff review and approval of design and construction of screening fence. 3. Staff review and approval of grading and drainage plan. 4. Hospital district providing easements necessary to construct storm water facility along length of drive area. Planning Commission Agenda - 4/6/93 6. Conditioned upon the hospital district consideration of developing more than 71 stalls at the clinic location and/or consideration of working jointly with the City to design a long-term plan that serves the needs of the hospital district while being sensitive to nearby residential neighborhood concerns. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission is satisfied that the site plan as prepared is consistent with the purpose of the PZM zone and that proper action has been taken to mitigate the negative impacts of this development on adjoining residential areas. The last contingency is not a requirement because it is not enforceable. However, it is added to put the district on notice that development of necessary parking at the River Street location may not be viewed favorably. It is obvious that the area will be experiencing significant intensification of use in the near and long-term future. Given the parking stall deficiency, potential of senior housing, and presence of nearby residences, it would make sense to sit down with the hospital district to jointly outline a fairly specific plan for development of the entire area impacted by hospital district development. Such a plan would benefit the hospital district by enabling it to focus efforts on a development pattern that is likely to be approved and would spare the expense of preparing plans that might be denied. The City would benefit by being able to provide direction early in the process which could spare the need to make tough planningtpolitical decisions later on. Motion to deny conditional use permit as requested. Under this alternative, Planning Commission is not convinced that the hospital district has adequately met the requirements of a conditional use permit in a PZM zone. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATI Staff recommends alternative 01. Copy of site plan; Excerpts from previous conditional use permit applications; Hospital/clinic parking needs analysis; Excerpts from agendalminutes of 1991 parking conditional use permit request. .- C► PD ...--- --------------------------- Planning Commission Minutes - 9/3/91 3. Public Hearinq--A conditional use request to allow development of a hospital parkinq lot in a P2M (performance zone mixed) zone. Applicant, Monticello-Biq Lake Hospital District. Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the public hearing. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital District's plans for developing an additional 45 -stall off-street parking lot. The Monticello -Big Lake Hospital District shares their parking facilities with the Monticello -Big Lake Nursing Home, the health care clinic, and the dental clinic. The total number of spaces needed by these four facilities is 218 spaces. The total number of spaces provided is 209, representing a 9 -stall shortage. With the proposed addition to the east of the hospital building, the total additional parking spaces needed for the first floor would be 18. When the second floor is finished, an additional 16 stalls will be required, bringing the total to 36 stalls needed for the hospital addition when fully completed. The location of the proposed new parking lot is directly south of the dental clinic and west of the service drive entrance to the Monticello -Big Lake Nursing Home. The ingress and egress of this parking lot will be off the extension of East River Street. Landscaping is a concern of adjacent residential property, and the site plan does propose a 6 -foot, 90• opaque cedar fence along the west property line. Mr. Jim Lungwitz, a resident across the street from the proposed new parking lot, explained his concerns as follows. 1) The drainage of the storm water should be addressed to carry the water from the westerly portion of East River Street and water run-off from this parking lot directly to the river. 2) The amount of truck traffic currently using East River Street for loading and unloading at the Monticello -Big Lake Nursing Home/Hospital. With the entrance as proposed near the southwest corner of the parking lot, cars coming out of the driveway will be shining their lights right into his home. The Planning Commission should consider closing the exit near the northeast corner of the proposed parking lot and have a shared entrance/exit near the southeast corner of the proposed parking lot. Chairperson Dan McConnon closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission members. An item brought up by Mr. O'Neill in his presentation was the storm water which currently comes from the Oakwood Industrial Park area underneath the freeway, between the school district and the Bondhua Tool Corporation property, underneath County Road 75, along the easterly edge of the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital parking lot, and then under Hart Boulevard running on John Bondhus's property to the river. Further development of Oakwood Industrial Park and properties south of the industrial park would mean increased flow into the storm sewer. The consulting engineering firm is currently looking at other alternatives for obtaining access for this storm water directly to the river rather than going through the ponds on ' the Bondhus Corporate Office Headquarters property. Planning Commission Minutes - 9/3/91 Concerns of the Planning Commission members involved looking at an alternative site for the parking lot expansion. There were concerns with the increased amount of traffic already to the nursing home, and adding an additional parking lot in this area would add additional traffic to this area, and alternatives should probably be looked at. There should be another place for a parking lot to be constructed between the medical clinic building and the Kasper property to the east. With no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Richard Martie to table the conditional use request to allow development of a hospital parking lot in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone. The applicant is to work with the consulting engineer and bring to the next Planning Commission meeting an alternative proposal for the location of a new parking lot. Motion carried unanimously with Jon Bogart absent. Special Planning Commission Minutes - 9/19/91 Consideration of a conditional use permit which would allow construction of a parking lot in a PZM zone. Applicant, Monticello -Bic Lake Hospital District. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the hospital district's request for the special meeting to further update the Planning Commission members on the progress of the proposed parking lot facilities. Mr. O'Neill updated the Planning Commission members on a conversation that he had with Mr. Rick Holloway, potential developer of the Monticello Health Care Center. Mr. Holloway indicated he is still actively working on the proposed expansion to the health care center and also the possibility of acquiring the adjoining Kasper residential property to the east. Without acquisition of the Kasper property, it would be very difficult to develop the 135 parking spaces needed for the health care center and hospital district additions as planned. However, if the Kasper property is acquired, it is possible that creating the total number of off-street parking spaces needed for the hospital district and the health care center could be accomplished on the top part or the southerly most portion of the lot immediately east of the Kasper lot. Barb Schwientek, Administrator of the Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital and Nursing Home, explained that the hospital district has gone through a lot of planning for this project in that they have scheduled no meetings or classes in the hospital or nursing home facilities to avoid further congestion to the parking situation while the hospital construction is underway. The hospital district has made provisions for their employees and the construction workers in order to accommodate their immediate needs until construction is completed on the hospital addition. Part of this parking situation is reflected by the need for the parking lot as proposed under their conditional use permit request. Planning Commission members were still very uncomfortable with construction of a parking lot off of East River Street. some possibilities that might be considered would be using this location as a temporary parking facility until construction is completed, and the possibility that parking facilities might be created south and east of the existing Monticello Health Center. A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Richard Martie to table the conditional use permit request which would allow construction of a parking lot in a PZM :one. Reason for tabling: Planning Commission members felt there should not be any additional traffic on East River Street if at all possible, and all options have not been fully explored at this time. They further recommended that the hospital district look strongly Into acquiring the Kasper property for development of an off-street parking facility south and east of the Monticello Health Care Center. Motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/91 3. Public Hearing --Consideration of a conditional use request to allow development of a hospital parkinq lot in a PZM jperformance zone mixed) zone. Applicant, Monticello-Biq Lake Communitv Hospital. (J.O.) `Ire A , A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In conjunction with the construction of the addition to the existing hospital facility, the Hospital District is contemplating development of a 45 stall parking lot facility. According to the zoning ordinance, a conditional use permit must be obtained prior to development of parking facilities for adjacent commercial or multiple dwelling establishments provided that screening of abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2-G, of the Zoning Ordinance. In this case, it could be construed that the Hospital District is a commercial or semi- commercial enterprise and requiring a conditional use permit is consistent with the spirit of the zoning ordinance. SITE PLAN REVIEW: Hospital Expansion In July, the Hospital District began construction of an addition to the east wall of the existing hospital facility. According to Hospital Administrator, Barb Schwientek, the purpose of the addition is to add space for an inhouse C.T. scanner and mammography, ultrasound, and radiology work area; laboratory area; outpatient examination and treatment area; and waiting area. This will include 3,500 square feet of remodeling on the first floor of the hospital. The construction will also include an unfinished basement and unfinished second floor area for future expansion. Parkina Needs Analveis - Prior to Hospital Expansion According to the zoning ordinance, the combined health care related uses require 216 parking spaces. This includes 90 spaces needed for the Health Care Center, 60 spaces for the hospital, 34 spaces for the nursing home, and 14 spaces for the dental office. Presently, there are 209 parking spaces which means the total parking currently provided is 9 stalls (or 4%) less than what would normally be required by ordinance. According to Me. Schweintek, parking has increasingly become more of a problem and it appears that, in reality, the parking stall supply is more than 9 stalls short. It is likely that the formula used for calculating parking demand for hospitals is outdated because it is basod on a high percentage of Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/91 patients being treated on an "in-patient" basis. In the past few years, many more patients are being treated on an outpatient basis and there is no formula in the zoning ordinance for addressing parking demands created by this emerging type of hospital use. It could be that outpatient care creates more parking demand than in-patient care. Whatever the case, according to the hospital administration, the need for additional parking space has been demonstrated even without the new addition. Attached for your review is an aerial photo that shows where the parking facilities are located and how many stalls they contain. Parking Needs Analvais - Hospital Expansion For the type of uses described above, it appears that the hospital expansion will create more office use than hospital bed space. Therefore the formula for calculating parking stalls associated with office space uses was used in determining the parking requirement associated with the addition. This formula, when applied to the first floor expansion, results in the need for 18 additional parking stalls. According to Ns. Schwientek, the second floor will not be utilized immediately and no additional parking demand will be created for the time being. It should be noted that this space is as large as the first floor and, someday, will create the need for an additional 18 parking stalls. At a minimum, the new parking area provided should be large enough to handle an additional 36 stalls. This would accommodate the immediate and long term parking demand created by the addition. Parkinq Lot Expansion Desiqn Review According to Els. Schweintek, the parking lot will be used by employees only. No client use of the parking lot will be allowed. The only public use of parking in the area will continue to be that which is associated with the nursing home. Stalls created. The proposed parking lot will create 43 %trw parking spaces which is 9 more than what is needed with the development of the addition. The additional 9 parking stalls will help to ease the overall parking stall deficiency; however, given the present trends, parking will likely continue to be somewhat of a problem. In addition, if the basement annex is ever developed for office use, then additional parking demand will be created that can only be handled with development of a new parking area. U� Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/91 Location. The parking lot is proposed to be located directly north of the existing dental clinic building and west of the service drive serving the nursing home. Parkinq lot access/traffic. Access to the parking area is proposed to come through a residential area via River Street. It is estimated that the additional 45 stalls will result in 120 to 180 additional vehicle trips through the residential area. Please note that in the past some neighbors have been actively opposed to introducing additional traffic in the area. It appears that the added traffic will impact about 15 homes. Attached you will find meeting minutes describing previous testimony associated with developments completed in 1981 and 1984. It is possible that there will be some opposition to the concept of adding additional traffic to River Street. Landscapinq. Of concern is the impact of the parking facility on the residential property to the west of the site. In response to this concern, the site plan calls for the parking lot to be set back 10 feet from the west property line. In addition, the site plan proposes installation of a 6 foot high, 90% opaque cedar fence. Tree and shrub plantings will also be installed to supplement the screening effect provided by the fence. Unfortunately, screening the view of the parking lot will also result in the view of the river being screened from the rear yard of the property located directly west of the proposed parking lot. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. A motion to approve a conditional use permit, subject to the following conditions: a. Provide screening of abutting residential uses and landscaping in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2-G, of the Zoning Ordinance. b. Use of the parking facility is limited to employees of the Hospital District. Development of the basement annex as office or meeting space requires development of at least 9 new parking stalls. Notion to approve based on the finding that: a. The added traffic created by employees using the parking facility is not sufficient to result in a depreciation of adjoining R-1 (single family residential) land values. 3 C� Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/91 b. The parking lot is well screened and landscaped to sufficiently protect and mitigate the negative impact of the parking lot on adjoining properties and, therefore, serves to preserve the residential character of the adjoining neighborhood. C. There is a demonstrated need for such use. 2. A motion to deny conditional use permit and recommend that the parking lot facility be placed in an alternative location. Planning Commission could note the following concerns under this alternative: a. The adjoining land values will depreciate if additional non-residential traffic is introduced to River Street. b. The proposod screening and landscaping does not sufficiently protect the adjoining residential areas. C. The Hospital District has land area available for parking that has direct access to Hart Boulevard. Exploration of this alternative site should be pursued. As you will note, on the comprehensive site plan provided, City staff has outlined an area that could possibly be used for development of a parking area in lieu of the area proposed. This area is located behind the existing health care facility and east of the nursing home. According to Barb Schwientek, this area may ultimately become a parking area at such time that the hospital or health care facility expands further. This potential area for parking was not deemed desirable for development at this time because the coat is higher due to physical constraints that the site presenia and because the parking convenience provided by the alternate site is not as good as the location proposed. from a land use traffic management standpoint, the alternative site would be preferable to the site under consideration because all of the traffic created by the alternative site would have immediate access to Hart Boulevard and no additional traffic would pass through a residential area. a Planning Commission Agenda - 9/3/91 C. STAFF RECO)MNDATION: The Hospital District is sensitive to the needs of the neighborhood and has designed the parking lot accordingly. The landscape plans appear to be sufficient to properly screen the parking lot from the adjoining residential areas. In addition, the Hospital District has indicated that parking will be limited to employee parking only, thereby limiting vehicle trip frequency. It appears that the additional traffic may have a nominal impact on the neighborhood. On the other hand, before development of the nursing home, this neighborhood had no "commercial" traffic. Now, even without the expansion, there are a considerable number of cars that use River Street to get to the nursing home. In addition, all hospital deliveries are made via River Street to the loading berth behind the hospital. It could be that adding additional traffic to the existing load would begin to undermine the adjoining residential property values and generally result in a diminishment of the ability of residents to enjoy their property for residential uses. No firm recommendation is made regarding this decision. If Planning Commission is convinced that the added parking and associated traffic will not create a problem for the neighborhood, then alternative one should be selected. If, on the other hand, the Planning Commission is concerned that a problem may be created, it makes sense to require that the Hospital District further explore the possibility of using an alternative site to handle the growing parking demand. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Health care complex site plan; Aerial photo; Excerpts of minutes from previous meetings; Vicinity maps Parking lot site plan. C 7" ; per.,. ar'•=+.;,:.j'i .•'::t..,y . Planning�Comnisai.n-. - 9/11�22/80 11. Consideration of Rezoning and Conditional Use for a Pr000sed Medical Clinic cast of the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital. The Monticello -Big Lake Hospital, on behalf of the developer of a proposed new clinic, made an application for rezoning of Lots 1 b 13, and the West 33' of Lot 2 of Block 22, Lower Monticello, and the east half of Oak Street lying between Blocks 22 6 23, from R-1 to R -B. In addition to the rezoning request, an application was also made for a conditional use for a medical clinic. This rezoning would then make the present R -B zoning adjacent to the 2ospital large enough to accommodate this proposed medical clinic. This request at this time is only for a conditional use for the proposed medical clinic and the necessary rezoning, and does not include any request for an extension of River Street to serve the parking lot proposed to the North of the new medical clinic building. At this time, the developer of the medical clinic is looking at the feasibility of entering the parking lot proposed to the north of the medical clinic facility directly from Hart Blvd. If this is not feasible, the developer may, at some time in the future, approach the City for an extension of River Street; however, it is not part of the request that River Street be extended at the time of this consideration. Previously, the City received correspondence from the neigh- bors in the Ellison Park area expressing their concerns with the possible extension of River Street to accommodate a parking lot to the rear of the medical clinic. Or. Kasper, a property ower in the area, expressed come concern with the rezoning portion of the request. Dr. Kasper is not opposed to the medical clinic, but did express opposition to the possibility of any retail establish- ment which could be built in conjunction with the medical clinic. for example, a pharmacy. A motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded by John Boadhus was unanimous in its approval to recommend the rezoning and conditional use requests provided that the parking lot at this time not be allowed to open onto any extended River Street until such time as a hearing might be held on that subject, and that the concerned neighbors in the Ellison Park area have an opportunity to speak their concerns. Cil Council minutes - 9/22/80 3. Public Hearing on the Rezoninq_ and Conditional Use for a Proposed medical Clinic East of the Monticello-Biq lake CommunitV Hospital. Monticello -Big lake Community Hospital requested rezoning of Lots 1 G 13, and the West 33' of Lot 2, Block 22, Lover Monticello, and the East Half of Oak Street lying between Blocks 22 G 23, Lover Monticello, from R-1 to R -B. In addition to the rezoning request, the Hospital has also made an application for a conditional use for a proposed medical clinic. It was noted that previously the City of Monticello has received corres- pondence from neighbors in the Ellison Park area expressing concerns with the possible extension of River Street to accommodate a parking lot to the rear of the proposed medical clinic. Presently, the rezoning request and the conditional use request for the Clinic does not propose to use River Street extended to meet their parking lot, but rather to have Parking lot traffic enter and exit onto Hart Boulevard. The developer of the Clinic has indicated that if, for some reason, Hart Boulevard cannot be used for entering the parking lot, they may, in the future, approach the City for possible extension of River Street to the rear of their parking lot. Mr. John Bondhus, area resident near the Hospital, expressed concern about the water drainage problem that now exists in the area that presently drains through his property, causing large flows through his existing trout ponds. Mr. Bondhus was concerned that if the drainage through his property is increased because of future development within the City, future storm sewer outlets would have to be provided to allow for the increased runoff and suggested that the City consider keeping a small area along the vacated Oak Street for a drainage/utility purposes. Mr. Bondhus noted that, although the Clinic requested the easements be eliminated to allow for the development of the Clinic, he suggested that a small area on the cant aide of the property be retained for possible future utilities. Consulting Engineer, John Bedalich, indicated that if drainage became a problem, holding ponds could be constructed between Hart Blvd. and County Road 73, which would help alleviate any excessive flown at one time, and also, if storm sewer outlets are needed to the River, the area at the sewer plant could be used for the underground storm sewer rather than through Oak Street. In regards to the conditional use permit, the planning Commission, at their last meeting, recommended approval of both the rezoning and the conditional use permit for the Clinic provided the developers provide accede to the proposed parking lot from Hart Blvd., rather than opening up and extending River Street. Motion was made by Dan Blon igen, seconded by Phil White and unanimously carried to rezone Lots 1 G 13 and the Went 33' of Lot 2, Block 22, Lover Monticello, and the East Half of Oak Street lying between Blocks 22 and 23, from R-1 to R -B, and also, approve the issuance of a conditional use permit for the proposed medical clinic contingent upon the proposed parking lot using Bart Boulevard an an access and exit point. (See Zoning Ordinance Amendment 9/22/80 186). C(0) Planning Commission Minutes - 4/14/81 4. Public Bearing - Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit Reauest (Re - Bastion) for Medical Facilities Cmaoanv. On September 22, 1980, a public hearing on the rezoning and conditional use for a proposed medical clinic east of the Mouticello-Big Lake Community Hospital was held. Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital had requested rezoning of Lots 1 4 13, and the Wast 33' of Lot 2, Block 22, Lower Monti- cello, and the cast half of Oak Street lying between Block 22 and 23, Lover Monticello, from &-1 to R -B. In addition to their rezoning request, the Hospital had also made an application for a conditional use for a proposed medical clinic. At that meeting, it had been noted that previously, the City of Monticello bad received correspondence from people living in the area of Ellison Park, expressing concern with the possible extension of River Street to accommodate a parking lot at the rear of the proposed medical clinic. At that time, the rezoning request and conditional use for the clinic did not propose to have River Street extended to meet the parking lot, but rather it was designed to have the parking lot traffic enter and exit onto Hart Blvd. At that time, the developer of the Clinic indicated that, if for some reason, Hart Boulevard could not be used exclusively as the entrance and exit point to the parking lot, that they say approach the City for the possible extension of River Street to the rear of the parking lot. Barb Schwimtek, Ezacutive Director of the Monticello -Big Laic Hospital, was present and indicated it is now the developers intention to extend River Street to allow access to the puking lot, thus the rehearing was necessary. Mrs. Irvin Fallin, a resident of the area, presented a letter to the Planning Commission, and outlined some of her concerns. They were as follows: A. A potential of increased traffic flow which will increase the traffic danger to the children. B. A potential of further increased traffic if the parking lot is used by Hospital customers rather than just employees as originally proposed. C. A potential of lowering the asset value of their property as they now have a quiet, low -traffic area and this could possibly change. D. It could provide an idea, now remote area for additional problems to occur at night, including drug ussage. E. It could create a great location for dreg racing. Further, a petition was presented by several of the neighbors in the area, which basically outlined the same concerns as the letter presented by Mrs. &&Ilia. Fred Topel objected if access were going to be used to bring the ambulance into the Hospital on River Street. Bud Jenna objected to increased traffic in the area. Fred Topel was concerned as to who would pay the cost of the assessments for the extension of Riva Street (this cost would be borne by the abutting property owners, who in this cams, is entirely the Hospital District). Lovell Severson questloonsd whether or not a years delay could be instituted before opening � pea ng up Rivas Street to ase if it was Tully meenury. Barb EchwLmtek pointed out that not passing on this issue would jeopardise the proposed clinic. A motion was card• by Ed Schaffer and seconded by Dick Martis to recommend opening giver Street with better police protection in that area to be provided. All voted in favor. Council Minutes - 4/27/81 I Conaideration of Amendment of Conditional Use Permit on parkinv tot Acceee-Medical Facilities Comoanv. , Medical Facilities Company, developers of the proposed medical clinic east of the Monticello -Big lake Hospital, requested that their Con- ditional Use permit be amended to allow access to their proposed Parking lot off of River Street at the rear of the proposed clinic. Previously, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for the development of the clinic with the provision that the access to the parking lot on sight would be off of Hart Boulevard. This provision was inserted a a result of in -put from neighbors in the Ellison Park area along River Street, who expressed concern with the possible extension of River Street to accommodate the parking lot at the rear of the propsed medical clinic. Since that time, the developers of the clinic have indicated that the proposed grade from the lower parking lot to Hut Boulevard may on occasions be difficult to maneuver and as a result the ambulance nay have to use River Street if weather conditions are unfavorable. In addition, the developer has indicated that if the clinic is expanded in the future and additional puking space is needed for patients, the lower puking lot would be used and as a result should have an alternate route other than Hart Boulevard. Barb Schwientak, Hospital Administrator, indicated that the intent of opening River Street would be for emergency use only by ambulance when necessary and also for employees to use the rear parking lot, but that in the future, patients may also use the lower parking lot as the clinic expands and requires more parking space. Concerns were expressed by neighbors along River Street in the Ellison Park ares that any extension of River Street to the medical clinic would result in increased traffic and safety problems. Mr. Irwin Rollin, property owner near Ellison Park along River Street, asked that the city prepare some type of plan that would control traffic and safety problems in the area such as lower speed limits, more frequent police patrols, etc. Mr. Tom McKee, clinic developer, indicated that they would be willing to work with the city and residences as much as po+eible to control any problem that could arise by the extension o: River Street, by increasing lighting in their parking lot if necessary, along with possibly closing off their parking lot at a certain time each evening, if necessary. After consideration of the testimony, motion was made by fair, seconded by Maus, and asked to be carried to adopt a resolution ordering the city engineer to prepare a feasibility report on the extension of River Street to the proposed medical clinic with the report also to include any sever line repairs, if necessary. (Sao Resolution 1981-16) in addition, a motion was made by Maus, seconded by fair, to approve amending the Conditional Use Permit for the Medical facilities Company allowing access from River Street to the proposed parking lot with a 1 year ties limit at which time the situation would be reviewed to see if problems have arisen. Voting in favor was Maus. Pair, Crimean, and Blonigea. Opposed: White. Motion was also sada by White, seconded by pair, and unanimously carried to have the City Administrator study and work on a pldn for providing safety and traffic regulations, eta, for the River Street area near Ellison Park such as speed limit signs, increased parceling services. etc. , Planning Commission Agenda - 11/14/8 3. Public Hearing - A Condition&l Use Request to Allow a Nursing- Home in a R -B Zone - Applicant, Honticello-Biq Lake Community Hospital Dis- trict. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUNDi As the bond issue has passed for allowing the new nursing home to be built, the nursing home project is only allowed as a conditional use in a R -B zone. The nursing home will be located behind the existing Monticello -Big Lake Hospital with the building extending to the rear of the property on the 20 ft. intothe right-of-way of the platted River Street. No sewer relocation will be necessary at this time to allow for the construction of the new nursing home. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONSs 1. Approve a conditional use request to allow the nursing home in an R -B Zone. 2. Deny the conditional use request to allow the nursing home in an R -B Zone. C. STAFF HECOMMENDATIONs The staff recommends approval of the conditional use request to allow the nursing home in an R -B Zone. The nursing home is compatible with the existing property surrounding it and will blend in quite well. D. SUPPORTING DATAs , A copy of the location of the proposed site plan of the new Monticello - Big Lake Nursing Homo. a I Conditional Use Rqu mt to allow a nursing home in an t -H Zona. pont cello -Big Lake :vmmunity Hospital&, t �• 0. J; •J I17 IS Planning Commission Minutes - 11/14/84 3. Public Hearing - A Conditional Use Request to Allow a Rersinq Home in an R -B Zone - Applicant. Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital District. Barb Schvientak, Hospital Administrator, was present to show the proposed location of the now Monticello -Big Lake Nuraing Home to be built directly in back of the existing Monticello -Big Lake Hospital. Ms. Schwientak indicated to Commission members the building would be a Z -level building with the lower most level to match up with the existing lover level of the hospital. Acting Chairman, Richard Carlson, opened the public hearing for public input. Mr. Robert Jameson questioned as to how close the new proposed nursing home would be from the high water mark of the Mississippi River. Ms. Schvientsk indicated to Br. Jameson that soil borings had been taken and that the closest point of the proposed nursing home to be built would be approximately 7-8 feet above the existing elevation of where it is at, thus L necessitating additional fill to be hauled in. The soil borings were taken from the existing soil, and water was found to be 7 feet below the surface at that point. Commission member, William Fair, questioned Zoning Administrator Anderson if the street vacation had anything to do with the proposed Conditional use as presented. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Commission members that the street vacation was acted on by the Monticello City Council at their Tueadsy. November 13, meeting, and a motion was made by the City Council to not grant the street vacation at this time but instructed Consulting 6nginser, John Sadalich, and Public Works Director, John Simola, and City Administrator, Thomas Sidam, to work with the Administration and Board of the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital to establish some sort of width for the right-of-way of River Street. The main concern of the City was to protect our interceptor sewer line which awns directly in the canter of the platted River Street. Motion by 6d Schaffer, seconded by William Fair, to approve the Conditional use request to allow a nursing hams in an R -B Zone. Motion carried unanimously. Council Minutes - 11/26/84 10. Consideration of Conditional Dse Request to Allow a sursing Home in an R -B Zone - Applicant, Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital District. The Monticello -Big fake Community Hospital District requested a conditional use parmit to be allowed to start construction ' of their new nursing home to be located on the north side o1 the present hospital. Motion was made by Blonigan, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve the conditional use permit for a nursing home in an R -B Zone by the Monticello -Big fake Community Hospital District. 4:0 r IA t l •% ir p• � r PARMO LOT LO APPUAT UW WMX I wr 1 MCMMILL O • BIO LAKO COMAIUNI V WMWAL p, MONTMMLLO. MOM NYA i r r 1 �\ t l •% ir p• � r PARMO LOT LO APPUAT UW WMX I wr 1 MCMMILL O • BIO LAKO COMAIUNI V WMWAL p, MONTMMLLO. MOM NYA -•_ •', .j}, ,. .•A'+.� - .. -. ..±i'ik� is •�.:. y x%de to .dam s _ � �, ~ � � i'C_"� r � •.. ,.. HOSPITALICLINIC PARIMG ANALYSIS t Total demand before 1991 hospital addition 218 Increased demand with addition 36 Total demand 264 Current parking available 209 Deficit 46 Clinic expansion parking demand 71 Stalls proposed Deficit C 71 Unchaneed 101 Planning Commission Agenda - 4/6193 7. Public Hearing --Consideration of a varj@npe reggest to R11opv construction of a roof-coverpd open porch within the side yard setback reauirement. Anpllcant. Richard CarlsM. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Carlson is proposing to be allowed to construct a roof -covered open porch within the minimum 20 -ft required side yard setback. In looking at the site plan, Mr. Carlson is proposing to be allowed to construct the roof -covered open porch up to within 19 ft of his side lot line, therefore requesting a 1 -ft variance. When the house was constructed on this lot, it was placed pretty much in the center of the lot; therefore, any future development to the west of any significant width would require a structure to be built within the side yard setback requirement. A few years ago, a similar variance request to allow construction of an open porch was granted for an older home on 4th Street; therefore, a precedent has been set with would allow a small encroachment into the setback area. In 1985, Mr. Carlson, through the public hearing process, requested a variance to allow the construction of the garage within 6 ft of the side yard setback requirement. His request was approved at that time. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve the variance request to allow construction of a roof - covered open porch within the side yard setback requirement. Planning Comnssion should select this alternative if they are satisfied that this situation is significantly unique to warrent the issuance of a variance. It could be argued that a variance is appropriate because of the granting of a previous variance on 4th Street. In addition, the porch addition would encroach less into the setback requirement than the proviously-approved garage setback variance request~ Motion to deny the variance request to allow construction of a roof - covered open porch within the aide yard setback requirement. Planning Commission could take the position that the circumstances are not signifleantly unique to grant a variance, and that granting a variance in this case could set a precedent. It could be argued that it might be difficult but possible to construct a 5 -ft wide roof -covered open porch and still be up to and within the side yard setback requirement. Planning Commission Agenda - 4/6/93 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a roof -covered open porch to be constructed within the side yard setback requirement. The need for the variance stems from the manner in which the house was located on the lot. It's unfortunate that the house was placed about in the center of the lot and any development to the west of any significant width would require an encroachment within the side yard setback requirement. To construct a porch with a lesser width would not be too practical, as typically within porches are chairs which are placed for seating purposes and to accommodate movement within an area less than b R around chairs placed on this porch would make it difficult to get the best use out of the open porch; therefore, a variance is needed in order for Carlson to enjoy full use of his property. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed variance request; Copy of the ordinance section in regard to the setback requirements; Copy of the proposed site plan. 16 is less than the minimum required, it shall not be further reduced. No 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 Rear Yard A-0 50 30 50 R-1 30 10 30 R-2 30 10 30 R-3 30 20 30 R-4 ' 30 30 30 P8R See Chapter 10 for specific regulations. PZM See Chapter 10 for specific regulations. B-1 30 13 20 B-2 30 10 20 B-3 30 10 30 B-4 0 0 0 I-1 40 30 40 I-2 50 30 50 1. In R-1, R-2, B-1, and B-2 districts where adjacent structures, excluding accessory buildings within same block, have front yard setbacks different from those required, the front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the adjacent structures. If there is only one (1) adjacent structure, the front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the required setback and the setback of the adjacent structure. In no case shall the minimum front yard setback exceed thirty (30) feet, except as provided in subsection (F) below. 2. In R-1, R-2, B-1, and B-2 diatriets, if lot is n corner lot, the side yard aetback shall be not less than twenty (20) Leet from the lot line abutting the street right-of-way line. (D) The following shall not be considered as encroachments on yard setback requirements: 1. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sill, pilaster, lintels, ornamental features, cornices, eaves, gutters, and the like, provided they do not project more than two (2) feet into a yard. 2. Terraces, steps, or similar features, provided they do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure or to a distance lose than two (2) feet from any lot line. XONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/18 d t I I Lor Ur4w I I �! i tpvSE I bfe-I MOO �- - - - - - - - - c it Ar