Planning Commission Agenda Packet 10-05-1993J.O
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMIBSION
Tuesday, October 6, 1993 - 7 pxL
Members: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Brian
Stumpf
7:00 p.m. 1. Call to order.
7:02 p.m. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held September 7,
1993.
7:04 p.m. 3. ,p Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance request to Section
Z ' 3-6 [D] 9 (), which would allow more than one (1) curb cut per
one hundred twenty-five (126) feet of street frontage.
Applicant, Custom Canopy.
7:19 p.m. 4. Public Hearing --Consideration of preliminary plat approval of
"Monticello Commerce Center 1st Addition." Applicant,
Monticello Industrial Park, Inc.
7:39 p.m. 6. Public Hearing --Consideration of preliminary plat approval of
"Point Minnie." Applicant, Stuart Hoglund.
7:66 p.m. 6. Public Hearing --Consideration of amendment to Chapter 16 of
the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, which would permit use of a
temporary structure not to exceed 700 sq (t that is accessory to
a principal use on an interim basis for a period not to exceed a
specified maximum period of time. The interim use is not
considered to constitute an expansion of a pre-existing legal
non -conforming use where applicable. Applicant, Community
United Methodist Church.
8:25 p.m. 7. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance request to allow a
building addition onto a non -conforming structure in a rear
yard setback requirement. Applicant, Gene Jestus.
8:40 p,m. 8. Public Hearing --Consideration of amendment to Chapter 3-6
[D] 9 (f) of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, which would allow
curb cut widths in commercial and industrial districts to exceed
the width of 24 ft at the discretion of the City Engineer and
Zoning Administrator. Applicant, Monticello Planning
Commission.
Agenda
Monticello Planning Commission
October b, 1993
Page 2
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
8:55 p.m. 1. Request to amend Section 3-3 [C] of the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance by changing the R-1 (single family residential) side
yard setback requirement from ten (10) ft on both side yards to
six (6) ft on one side and ten (10) ft on the other side.
Applicant, Tony Emmerich. Council action: Denied as per
Planning Commission recommendation.
8:57 p.m. 2. Conditional use request to allow open and outdoor storage as
an accessory use in an I-2 (heavy industrial) zone, and a
variance request to allow a forty (40) ft curb cut. Applicant, H -
Window Company. Council action: Approved the conditional
use request as per Planning Commission recommendation.
Approved the variance request to allow a 30 -ft and a 40 -ft curb
cut.
8:59 p.m. 3. A request to amend Chapter 10 of the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance by adding a provision that would increase the
maximum size allowed for private garages accessory to a
residential use in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone.
Applicant, Randy fluff. Council action: Denied as per
Planning Commission recommendation.
9:01 p.m. 4. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for Tuesday, November 2, 1993, 7 p.m.
9:03 p.m. 5. Adjournment.
c
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, November 3, 1983 - 7 p.m.
Members: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Brian
Stumpf
7:00 p.m. 1. Call to order.
7:02 p.m. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held October 5,
1993.
7:04 p.m. 3. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request to amend 3-4 [G]
IN of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance by amending the
current requirement that a 2 -story dwelling contain at least
750 sq ft of floor area per story. The section would be amended
as follows: "Two-story dwellings shall contain a total minimum
floor area of 960 sq ft. The minimum floor area for two-story
dwellings shall not include floor area necessary to
accommodate stairwells." Applicant, Value Plus Homes.
7:29 p.m. 4. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request for a 2 -ft variance
to the 10 -ft side yard setback requirement. Request is in
conjunction with construction of an addition to a single family
dwelling. Location: Block 5, Lot 14, Lower Monticello.
Applicant, Kevin and Mary Hook.
AND 5. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request for a 5 -fl variance
to the side yard setback requirement requested in conjunction
with construction of a detached garage. Location is Block 5,
Lot 14, Lower Monticello. Applicant, Kevin and Mary Hook.
7:58 p.m. 6. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request for a conditional use
permit allowing outside storage. Applicant, Custom Canopy.
8:10 p.m. 7. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request for a conditional use
permit which would allow outside sales, outside storage, and a
consideration of a parking and drive aisle conditional use
permit. Location: Lot 1, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park.
Applicant, Simonson Lumber.
8:43 p.m. 8. Review potentail residential development of Robert Krautbauer
property and identify development goals/parameters,
Additional Information Items:
9:13 p.m. 1. Consideration of a variance request to Section 3-5 [D] 9 0),
which would allow more than one (1) curb cut per one hundred
twenty-five (125) feet of street frontage. Applicant, Custom
Canopy. Council action: no action required as the request did
not come before them.
9:15 p.m. 2.
Consideration of preliminary plat approval of "Monticello
Commerce Center 1st Addition." Applicant, Monticello
Industrial Park, Inc. Council action: approved as per Planning
Commission recommendation.
9:17 p.m. 3.
Consideration of preliminary plat approval of "Point Minnie."
Applicant, Stuart Hoglund. Council action: Approved as per
Planning Commission recommendation.
9:19 P.M. 4.
Consideration of amendment to Chapter 16 of the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance, which would permit use of a temproary
structure not to exceed 700 sq ft that is accessory to a principal
use on an interim basis for a period not to exceed a specified
maximum period of time. The interim use is not considered to
constitute an expansion of a pre-existing legal non -conforming
use where applicable. Applicant, Community United Methodist
Church. Council action: approved as per Planning
Commission recommendation.
9:21 p.m. 6.
Consideration of a variance request to allow a building addition
onto a non -conforming structure in a rear yard setback
requirement. Applicant, Gene Jestus. Council action: denied
as per Planning Commission recommendation.
9:23 p.m. 6.
Consideration of amendment to Chapter 3-5 ID] 9 () of the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance, which would allow curb cut
widths in commercial and industrial districts to exceed the
width of 24 ft at the discretion of the City Engineer and Zoning
Administrator. Applicant, Monticello Planning Commission.
Council action: approved as per Planning Commission
recommendation.
9:25 p.m. 7.
Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for Tuesday, December 7, 1993 at 7 p.m.
9:27 p.m. 8.
Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, September 7, 1985 - 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson,
Brian Stumpf
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cindy Lemm at 7:00 p.m.
2. A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded Brian Stumpf to approve
the minutes of the regular meeting held August 3, 1993. Motion carried
unanimously.
A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Brian Stumpf to
approve the minutes of the special meeting held August 9, 1993. Motion
carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Brian Stumpf to
approve the minutes of the special meeting held August 23, 1993. Motion
carried unanimously.
3. Public Hearing --A request to amend Segion 3-3 fCj of thq Monticello Zoning
Ordinance by changing the R-1 (single family residential) side vard yetback
requirement from len (10)feet orl both yids vards to sijS (6) feet on one side and
JjW feet on the other side. 60licant. Tonv Emmerich.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained Mr. Emmerich's request
to be allowed to construct garages on the garage side of the house up to within
6 feet of the side property line. Proposed garages when placed on their lots
attached to their houses would have 12 feet of separation, 6 feet on each side
of the property line between the two garage structures. The applicant is
requesting the 4 foot encroachment into the side yard setback which would
allow a 3 -car garage to be attached onto the house with a portion of the house
and garage structure to have more view of the house showing as viewed from
the (tont of the lot in driving by on the street. Mr. O'Neill also outlined the
letter he received from Mr. Stove Grittman, consulting planner, in regard to
the pros and cons for approving an encroachment into the aide yard setback on
the garage side only.
Page 1
V
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/7/93
Cindy Lemm opened the public hearing.
With there being no input from public, Cindy Lemm then closed the public
hearing and opened for input from the Planning Commission members.
Mr. Jon Bogart would like to abstain from voting on above applicant's request,
stating that he has a conflict of interest with this owner/developer. The
Planning Commission member's discussion centered on the closeness of the
structures to the property line, referring to the Meadow Oak Development.
When it was developed, they allowed houses to be constructed to within 5 feet
from the property line as long as there was 15 feet between structures, which
caused some of the problems that exist today out there with the closeness of
the structures to the property line.
There being no further discussion from the Planning Commission members, a
motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Brian Stumpf to deny
the zoning ordinance amendment based on the finding that the zoning
ordinance as presently written is correct, and there is no reason to change it
at this time. Reducing the side yard setback requirement on the garage side
is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and could result in the
depreciation of property values in the R-1 zone. Motion carried unanimously
with Jon Bogart abstaining.
Public Hearing• -A conditional use rpauest to allow ocep and putdoor storage
aft an accessory use in an I-2 (heavy industrials;onp and a variance request to
Pillow a forty (40) foot curb cut. ABplicant. H -Window Company.
Je$'O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the applicant's two conditional
use permit requests and the one variance request in cogjunction with the
expansion of the H -Window Company.
CONDMONAL USE PERIVUT ALLOWING OUTSIDE STORAGE
With the expansion of this facility, a small area on the south portion of the
building will be utilized for outside storage of window glass pallet containers.
At this end of the site, there exists these outside window glass pallet
containers, and over on the north side of the building, exists building materials
stored outside for use in the building of the new windows which currently have
no screening in these two outside storage areas.
Page 2
v
Planning Commission Minutes - 9n193
STALL, AISLE, AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN CONDITIONAL USE PM=
The H -Window Company requests to be allowed not to install curbing in the
parking lot expansion areas.
VARIANCE REQUEST ALLOWING A 40 -FOOT CURB CUT
The site plan shows a 40 -foot curb cut on the most easterly access drive on
Dundas Road on the south side of the building and a 32 -foot curb cut on most
southerly driveway on the west side of the building. The minimum
requirement by ordinance is a 24 -foot curb cut.
Cindy Lemm opened the public hearing.
There being no input from the public, Cindy Lemm closed the public hearing
and opened for discussion among Planning Commission members.
Comments raised by Planning Commission members were as follows: They
would like to research the possibility of allowing larger curb cuts in the
industrial zoning areas in the City of Monticello. A suggestion was made that
instead of approving the variance request, the applicant go through the
ordinance amendment process, as it was hard for the Planning Commission
members to come up with a rationale for granting the variance with there
being no hardship demonstrated.
Mr. Craig Fast, representing H -Window Company, explained to Planning
Commission members that without the driveway curb cut width their
expansion cannot proceed without driving onto Dundas Road to do the
maneuvering to loading/unloading dock areas.
With no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion was
made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve the
conditional use request allowing outside storage and allowing a stall, aisle, and
driveway design conditional use permit. Approval was contingent on the
compliance with the requirements noted by ordinance. The motion was based
on the finding that the outside storage and panting design is in compliance
with the pertinent regulations; therefore, the request should be approved.
Theconditional use permit is consistent with the character and geography of
the neighborhood, it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and will not
result in the depreciation of adjoining land values. Motion carried
unanimously.
Page 3
0-)-
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/7/93
A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie, to deny
the variance request to allow a 40 -foot curb cut and a 32 -foot curb cut based
on the finding that a hardship is not demonstrated. Planning Commission
members felt sympathetic with the applicant and proposed to call for a public
hearing for a proposed ordinance amendment at the next earliest possible
special Planning Commission meeting date, that being Monday,
September 27, 1993,6:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously with Cindy Lemm
opposing.
ruhlic Heayine—A reouest to amend Chaotgr 10 of the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance by addine a urovision that would increase the maximum size
allovyed for $rivals vara s acgessory t(L a re$idential use in a PZM
(performance zone mixed) zone. Anolicant. Randv Ruff.
Mr. Brian Stumpf stated that he would like to make no comments or decision
on this agenda item. Mr. Jeff ONeill, Assistant Administrator, updated
Planning Commission members on the proposed ordinance amendment to allow
an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square feet. Mr. ONeill outlined the
existing accessory building requirements and the proposed zoning ordinance
amendment allowing larger accessory buildings in the PZM zone.
Accessory Building Size and Setback.
The accessory building is regulated by a maximum of 1,000 square feet or at
least no larger than the principal structure. The accessory shall not occupy
more than 2696 of the rear yard. The existing setback requirements for
accessory structures is a side yard setback of 10 feet and a rear yard setback
of 6 feet. Under the proposed ordinance amendment the setbacks would be
doubled, in this can a 20 foot side yard setback and a 10 foot rear yard
setback.
Design Standards
The minimum building design standard is a 3:12 roof pitch and a minimum of
6 inch soffit. The accessory building must be anchored to a permanent
concrete foundation.
Accessory building shall be designed and finished on all aides with materials
consistent with the principal structure. Mr. Ruff is requesting to be allowed
to construct his entire structure with a metal building siding material and
metal roofing material. The proposed limitations on the height as it exists is
16 feet in height. Mr. Ruff is proposing to have 16 -foot sidewall height with
approximately 22 feet to the peak of the roof.
Page 4 Daz
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/7/93
Activities/Use
The ordinance limits the use of the building for uses accessory to the residence.
No commercial storage, manufacturing, etc. is allowed. Mr. Ruff is proposing
to utilize his building for the storage of his recreational vehicle, boat, motor,
and trailer, and other automobiles.
Cindy Lemur opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ruff commented that he would be able to answer any questions that the
Planning Commission members had of him.
Cindy Lemur closed the public hearing and opened for comments from the
Planning Commission members. Planning Commission members felt
sympathetic to Mr. Ruffs request but were very hesitant to approve accessory
structures under the proposed ordinance in excess of a 1,000 square feet in the
entire PZM zone. In looking at the enclosed map that was submitted with
their agenda, there were several areas in town which an accessory could be
built on, especially on a small lot were a person could end up with a big garage
on a small lot.
With no ftrrther discussion from the Planning Commission members, a motion
was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Jon Bogart, to deny the zoning
ordinanceamendment to allow accessory buildings or garages with a floor area
in excess of 1,000 square feet. The Planning Commission makes a finding that
the proposed zoning ordinance amendment is not consistent with the
geography and character of the PZM zoning district and is not consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. The motion carried unanimously, with Brian Stumpf
abstaining.
8. Adjournment. A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon
Bogart to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
RespecttWly submitted,
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Page 5 9
oZ
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/93
a. Public Hearing -Consideration of a variance request to Section 3-8
IDI 9 (i). which would allow more than one (1) curb cut Per one
hundred twenty-five (128) ft of street frontaee. APDlicant. Custom
Canoay. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Custom Canopy is back before the Planning Commission members with a
request to be allowed to construct an additional driveway curb cut within
125 ft of an existing curb cut. The variance request is prompted by the
difficulties they are experiencing in the existing drive cut is sufficient to
accommodate semi -truck tractor with a trailer behind it to go into the
westerly most portion of their building. But on the easterly most portion of
their building, they are unable to get a semi -truck tractor with a trailer
behind it to maneuver around to get lined up so they can enter into their
building from the south. The request goes back to the design of the original
project, which their engineer in his design felt there was ample room with
one driveway into the property to accommodate a semi -truck tractor with a
trailer behind it to adequately enter in through the existing curb cut
maneuver easterly through the parking lot and into the door opening on the
southeast comer of the manufacturing portion of the building. The
applicant is before you with their request to be allowed to put in additional
driveway curb cut within 67 ft of their southeast property corner. The
applicants have failed to demonstrate a hardship.
B. ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow more than one curb cut per
125 ft of street frontage.
2. Deny the variance request to allow more than one curb cut per 125 ft
of street frontage.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The applicants in this case have failed to demonstrate a hardship other
than monetary for their hardship in not being able to accommodate vehicle
movement within their existing parking lot to allow semi -truck tractor with
a tmiler behind it to get into the drive-through on the southerly most
portion of their building. We feel sympathetic with their request, but we
fail to find a hardship in this case. Perhaps the curb access at Dundas
could be relocated to the center of the property to allow access to both the
east and west garages.
D. SUPPORTING VATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request. Copy of the ordinance
section of the request, and a copy of the site plan.
FM TV
Or"104WIMP,
C3
Consideration of alvartance requeet t Section 3(-5(1)19(j)
which would allow tbore than one (1), c ,b cut per one hund ad
twenty-five (125} eat fr6n go. Location Ye t 6,
due ri I Park
Block 2. Oakwood in t e6y of mcaticell
APPLICANT: CustomiCanopy
z
v
.41
I
rte.. /_.._..�..�..�_.._.._.._..�.�.._..-..
FALLiON AVENUE
':J
(d) No curb cut access shall be located less than
forty (40) feet from the intersection of two
(2) or more street right-of-ways. This
distance shall be measured from the
intersection of lot lines.
(e) Except in the case of single family, two-
family, and townhouse dwellings, parking areas
and their aisles shall be developed in
compliance with the following standards:
WALL WALL TO INTERLOCK TO
TO INTERLOCK INTERLOCK
ANGLE MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM
30 48.6' 44.3' 40.3'
45 96.8' 53.4' 50.0'
60 63.0' 99.7' 57.4'
90 64.0' 64.0' 64.0'
Parallel Parking: Twenty-two (22) feet in
length.
(f) No curb cut access shall exceed twenty-four
(24) feet in width.
(g) Curb cut openings and driveways shall be at a
minimum three (3) feet from the side yard
property line in residential districts and
five (5) feet from the side yard lot line in
business or industrial districts.
(h) Driveway access curb openings on a public
street except for single, two-family, and
townhouse dwellings shall not be located less
than forty (40) feet from one another.
(i) The grade elevation of any parking area shall
not exceed five (5) percent.
(�) Each property shall be allowed one (1) curb
cuL per one hundred twenty -Live (125) feet of
street frontage. All property shall be
entitled to at least one (1) curb cut. Single
family uses shall be limited to one (1) curb
cut eecese ner roperty.
(k) SURFACING: All areas intended to be utilised
for parking space and driveways shall be
surfaced with materials suitable to control
dust and drainage.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE x3/25
3
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/6/93
r 4. Consideration of Dreliminary plat of the Monticello Commerce Center let
Addition. ADDllcant. Monticello Industrial Park. Inc. (J.O. )
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Monticello Industrial Park, Inc. requests that the Planning Commission and City
Council grant preliminary plat approval of the Monticello Commerce Park 1st
Addition, which consists of a single two -acre lot located directly north of the Little
Mountain Elementary School site on Fallon Avenue. This parcel is being subdivided
in conjunction with development of a company that produces pet treats.
The plat as proposed meets City code with regard to proper lot dimensions, etc. It
is served by an existing roadway (Fallon Avenue), and has immediate access to both
sewer and water linea. Access to the City storm sewer system is provided at Fallon
Avenue. The site will be graded to allow drainage to flow to the Fallon Avenue
drainageway. It may be necessary to upgrade the drainage system conveying storm
water to the large Swale west of the site. The City Engineer is reviewing this aspect
of the plat. If improvements are necessary, it is likely that the work will be done as
a public improvement with associated expenses being paid by the benefiting property
owners.
It should be noted that this two -acre subdivision is the first division of a large tract
of land owned by Monticello Industrial Park, Inc. (MIPI) that will ultimately be
subdivided into many parcels. City staff does not feel that it is necessary to have a
complete understanding of the design of the entire MIPI area in conjunction with the
subdivision of this single parcel. This single parcel stands on its own, and it appears
that subsequent subdivision of the property will not be hamperod with the approval
of this subdivision as proposed. However, it should he noted that there is a limit to
the degree in which the City can allow the area controlled by MIPI to he subdivided
without the City obtaining necessary drainage easements within the interior of the
site. Do to the fact that the 1st Addition drains completely to Fallon Avenue, and no
drainage goes off-site to the interior of the industrial park area, there is no need to
acquire additional drainage easements.
There are two issues that are relatively significant that the Planning Commission
may wish to address. The first issue relates to the depth of the lot. The proposed lot
depth is 435.6 feet. As you may recall, the City Council allowed rezoning of the
property adjoining Fallon Avenue from BC to 1-1 to a distance of 400 feet. This
means that the 35.6 feet of the proposed lot will he in the BC zone, with the balance
in the 1-1 zone. Typically, lot lines are drawn to match zoning district boundaries
and vice versa. In this situation, a portion of the lot would he in two zoning districts.
The developer requested this configuration to enable maximum use of frontage along
Fallon Avenue in terms of developing as many lots as possible. Charlie Pfeffer will
he in attendance to detail this request farther. The Planning Commission should
note that I informed Pfeffer that the City Planner did not support the concept of
allowing a lot to be located in two zoning districts, and that the Planning Commission
may not agree with the concept as well. Pfeffer indicated that the viability of the
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/93
project does not depend on the additional 35.6 feet in the I-1 zone. At the same time,
he requested that the City seriously consider allowing the overlap.
The second issue relates to the development of a landscape screen or berm between
the Little Mountain Elementary School site and the site of the proposed development.
As you may recall, when Pfeffer requested the rezoning of the MIPI area north of the
school from BC to I-1, he indicated that MIPI would build a four foot high berm and
place pine trees at tight intervals to create a screen separating the proposed I-1 area
from the school district property. Pfeffer indicated to me that MIPI will execute his
plans for the screen even though he did not obtain the full rezoning as requested.
Please note that under our present ordinance, we cannot require a full screen as was
contemplated under Pfeffer s initial request. Approval of the plat as proposed under
our current ordinance would allow development of the site with landscaping only as
outlined under our minimum requirements. Unless the Planning Commission
changes the City Ordinance requiring more screening between 1-1 and R zones, the
additional screening will only occur if MIPI follows through on this promise. I have
every reason to believe MIPI will complete the berm and plantings as proposed.
B, ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the preliminary plat as submitted.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission is satisfied with the
preliminary plat as proposed. Staff requests that the Planning Commission
authorize a public hearing for the purpose of realigning the zoning district
boundaries to match the lot depth.
2. Motion to approve the plat, contingent on modifying the lot depth from 435.6
feet to 400 feet.
This alternative should be selected if the Planning Commission is not
comfortable with allowing a lot to overlap into two districts.
3. Motion to deny approval of the preliminary plat as submitted.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The City Planner and staff recommend that the preliminary plat bre modified by
reducing the depth of the lot from 435.6 feet to 400 feet per Alternative #2. It is our
view that it does not make sense to allow a lot to be split into two separate zoning
districts. The zoning district overlap will create another level of complexity when
interpreting the zoning ordinance. It is our view that the decision to limit the depth
of the 1.1 zone to 400 feet was hard and fast, and allowing the plat to extend beyond
that distance seems to circumvent the intent of the establishment of the zoning
district boundary at 400 feet. If Planning Commission selects Alternative 01, staff
requests that the district boundaries be amended accordingly.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the Monticello Commerce Center 1st Addition I'Int; Area map.
X\
�a'}feracs. i�
o1v
BC
�Y � � . ;` � .M •? ! stat �nGn��a-+ "'�.
R,d
2
e -
i!
i
qAt
' 1�S`� Yi .i •�. �. it t i
f � O
f. � t
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/93
s. Congideration of preliminary plat povroval of Point Minnie.
Applicant. Stuart Hoglund. Plat size and location: 9.5 acres
consisting of 4 Iota. 1 of which Includes the site of the Comfort lien
of Monticello. W.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This request for preliminary plat approval of the Point Minnie subdivision
is identical to the request made on July 5, 1990. Both the Planning
Commission and the City Council reviewed and approved the preliminary
plat in 1990. Due to the fact there was a delay that lasted more than one
year between the time of preliminary plat approval and the request for final
plat approval, it is necessary to bring this item back to the Planning
Commission and City Council for reapproval.
As you will note in the attached meeting minutes, there were a number of
items that needed to be cleared up before final plat approval would be
granted. These items have now been taken care of; therefore, it is now
appropriate to consider the preliminary plat of the Point Minnie
subdivision.
I— B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to grant preliminary plat approval of the Point Minnie
subdivision.
2. Motion to deny preliminary plat approval of the Point Minnie
subdivision.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Due to the fact that Stuart Hoglund has addressed the drainage issues
associated with platting of the property by making improvements to the
ditch system along Oakwood Drive and by obtaining necessary drainage
easements from the property impacted by storm water from the site
(Hoglund Transportation), it appears appropriate at this time to grant
preliminary approval of the Point Minnie plat.
1). SUPPORTING DATA:
Meeting minutes of Planning Commission meeting held 7/5/90; Meeting
minutes of Council meeting held 7/9/90; Copy of preliminary plat.
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/5/90
4. Public Hearing --A preliminary plat request for a commercial
subdivision plat. Applicant, Stuart Hoolund.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to
Planning Commission members and the public Mr. Hoglund's
request for a preliminary commercial subdivision plat.
Mr. O'Neill presented a video tape of the entire property
showing existing drainage problems which occur just outside of
this plat. Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public
hearing and opened the meeting for discussion amongst the
Planning Commission members.
Discussion amongst the Planning Commission members centered
around the drainage problems which were highlighted outside of
this preliminary plat by Mr. O'Neill.
With no further input from Planning Commission members, motion
was made by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Richard Carlson, to
approve the preliminary plat of the Minnie Point subdivision
subject to City acquisition of proper drainage easements from
properties impacted by the Minnie Point storm water. Also,
the City is to work with the developer and the other property
owners on the development of culverts consistent with City
standards at locations noted. Motion carried unanimously.
O
Council Minutes - 7/9/90
S. Consideration of a ereliminary Plat request for commercial
subdivision Plat. Applicant, Stuart Hoalund.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill described the Minnie Point
subdivision and noted that the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the preliminary plat subject to City acquisition
of proper drainage easements across properties impacted by
Minnie Point storm water and subject to development of a plan
for conveying storm water along the Oakwood Drive right-of-way
to Highway 39. O'Neill noted that most of the water from the
Minnie Point area currently drains onto the Hoglund
Transportation company property on its way to the freeway
ditch and then into the Walnut Street' storm sewer system.
This has not been a problem in the past, as the Minnie Point
area and Hoglund Transportation property have been under
common ownership. Now that the land is being subdivided with
the intent to sell, it may be prudent to formally identify a
drainage and utility easement across the Hoglund
Transportation property. O'Neill went on to note there appear
to be two possible drainage alignments. Selection of the
alignment is to be determined by the applicant. O'Neill also
noted that a portion of the water produced by the site drains
to the Oakwood Drive ditch. The purpose of this ditch is to
convey water westward to Highway 29. Unfortunately, the ditch
does not serve this purpose, as there are culverts along the
ditch line that are absent or are too small to properly convey
the amount of water that would be produced by this site;
therefore, it may make sense at this time to acknowledge the
problem and develop a plan for opening up this ditch line to
Highway 29. The construction of the ditch improvements may be
deferred until such time that actual construction occurs.
After discussion, a motion was made by Fran Pair, seconded by
Marren Smith, to approve the preliminary plat of the Minnie
Point subdivision subject to City acquisition of necessary
utility and drainage easements across properties Impacted by
Minnie Point subdivision storm water and subject to
development of a plan for improving Oakwood Drive ditch in a
manner that will allow storm drainage to drain to the
Highway 24 or freeway ditch storm drainage areas. Oakwood
Drive storm drain improvements are to be completed during or
before Minnie Point commercial site development. Motion
carried unanimously.
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/93
6. Ppblic Hgaripa—Copsideration of an amendment to Chanter 16 of
the Monticello Zonina Ordinance which would permit use of a
temuorary structure not to exceed 700 sa ft as an accessory use on
an interim basis. ADnllcant. Community United Methodist Church.
(J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you may have read in the newspaper, at the September 13 meeting of
the City Council, representatives from the Community United Methodist
Church presented a request to place a 12' x 52' temporary classroom on the
Methodist Church site. According to church officials, a temporary structure
is needed to help relieve overcrowding problems faced by the growing
congregation. Apparently, there is limited space available for classrooms,
and classes are now being taught in church hallways. They are looking for
land and will be constructing a new facility in the next few years.
In response to the proposal, City staff informed City Council that the
current city ordinance does not allow this type of development. This is
because the church is located in an I-2 zone, making it a lawful but non-
conforming use. The church has "grandfather" rights to continue its current
manner of operation; but under our present ordinance, it cannot he allowed
to expand. Placement of a temporary classroom on site would, in our
estimation, constitute an expansion of the use. In addition, temporary
structures of any kind are not allowed in an 1.2 zone. An amendment to the
ordinance would need to be prepared which would allow this type of
structure to exist.
Council responded by authorizing City staff to work with the City Planner
and City Attorney to determine the necessary zoning ordinance
amendments required to potentially allow the Methodist Church to use a
temporary structure as proposed. The authorization was not necessarily an
approval of the concept or a pre -approval of the zoning ordinance
amendment. It simply authorized City stiff to work with the church to
initiate the process of obtaining the necessary zoning ordinance
amendment(s).
In response, City staff has prepared a zoning ordinance amendment that
would allow temporary structures such as a classroom as proposed to be
used in an 1.2 zone only. Under the proposed ordinance, it would not he
possible to place such a structure in any other zoning district, In addition,
the ordinance singles out non -conforming uses in the 1.2 zone as being
eligible to use a temporary structure. The provision allowing non-
conforming uses in an I.2 zone to have a temporary building supersedes the
general requirements that all non -conforming uses cannot expand.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/93
RdPLICATIONS
On the positive side, the zoning ordinance amendment limits temporary
buildings to the I-2 zone only. Furthermore, the 1-2 zone, being the heavy
industrial zone, would not likely suffer a depreciation in land values. The
nature of this zone is such that temporary structures may not have a
significant negative impact.
It does not appear likely that businesses and industries in the I-2 zone will
likely take advantage of the opportunity to place a temporary structure on
site. To my knowledge, we have never received such a request. One could
imagine, however, the possibility of a company needing a temporary
structure on site to help them through a period of growth where perhaps
they need additional office space.
The ordinance amendment also allows a non -conforming use la church) to
expand on a limited basis through placement of a temporary building on
site. After reviewing other existing uses in the 1-2 district, I could not find
any other non -conforming uses in the other I-2 districts within the city;
therefore, this expansion of a non -conforming use will be limited to the
church.
On the negative side, the ordinance is set up Gj allow a temporary building
to be in place for a "limited" time period; however, it is possible that
"interim" can turn into long-term. Enforcement of the time limit could end
up being a problem. Will the City have the will to deny an extension to the
interim use? And if the interim use extension is denied, will it have the
will to require removal of the temporary structure?
Planning Commission and Council may also be concerned about being
accused of favoritism. Other churches in the community have bought land
to provide space necessary to accommodate their growing congregations; and
in doing so, they have met the basic requirements of the city zoning
ordinance. One has to ask, would the City change the ordinance for other
non -conforming businesses or institutions that wished to expand?
Finally, the proposed ordinance amendment states that the temporary
structure is not considered to constitute an expansion of a pre-existing legal
non -conforming use. This provision is inconsistent with the zoning
ordinance's general goal of converting lawful non -conforming uses to
conforming uses. Planning Commission needs to determine whether or not
it wishes to undermine this general principal by allowing expansion of the
church at this location,
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/93
Under alternative #1 below, Planning Commission will need to designate
the duration of the interim period. How many years does the Planning
Commission feel that a temporary structure should be allowed to be used on
site. According to the Methodist Church representatives, it may be as many
as five years before the new church facility is constructed. This time period
may or may not be longer than the time period that the Planning
Commission would feel is acceptable.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to adopt an ordinance amendment as proposed.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission could make a
finding that the ordinance amendment is consistent with the
geography and character of the 1-2 zoning district and is consistent
with the comprehensive plan. Land values in the 1-2 zoning district
will not be impacted by the zoning ordinance amendment.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission finds that the
positive implications outlined above outweigh the negative
implications with regard to the 1.2 zone and the zoning ordinance in
general.
2. Motion to deny approval of the ordinance amendment as proposed.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission could make a
finding that the proposed amendment is not consistent with the
geography and character of the 1-2 zone, it is not consistent with the
comprehensive plan, and could result in a depreciation of land values.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission views introduction of
temporary structures in the 1-2 zone as creating a problem in the 1.2
zone.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
From a pure city planning standpoint, City staff recommends denial of the
zoning ordinance amendment. There does not appear to be a demonstrated
need justifying temporary structures in the 1-2 zone. Without this special
situation, would the City have considered allowing temporary structures in
the 1.2 zone? Furthermore, it undermines the important general principal
that non -conforming uses should be converted over time to conforming uses.
Finally, there is no assurance that a temporary structure will be removed
after being placed on a site for "X" number of years. Adoption of the
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/93
ordinance amendment may create an enforcement problem. Under the new
ordinance, the City will be required to "track" temporary structures and
enforce removal when necessary.
On the other hand, despite concerns noted above, it does appear that the
ordinance amendment as drafted will not result in a proliferation of
temporary structures throughout the city, nor allow other non -conforming
uses to expand. Therefore, approval of the ordinance amendment merits
serious consideration.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed ordinance amendment.
M
14
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
t
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS THAT
ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 10-16.3 RELATING TO PERMITTED
ACCESSORY USES IN THE I-2 ZONE BE AMENDED BY ADDING THE
FOLLOWING LANGUAGE:
16-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory
uses in an "I-2" district:
[B] One temporary structure as an interim use not to exceed 700 square
feet that is accessory to a p fincipal use on an interim basis for a time
period not to exceed years. The interim use is not considered
to constitute an expansion of a pre-existing legal non -conforming use
where applicable.
Adopted by the City Council this 11th day of October, 1893.
City Administrator
C
Mayor
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/6/93
7. Public Hearing—Consideration of$ variance reaues4 to allow a
building addition onto a non-conforminst structure in a rear vard
setback reauirement. Aanlicant. Gene Jestus. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Jestus is before you with a request to be allowed to construct an
addition onto his existing garage. The Jestus property is a corner lot with
the shortest side or front yard being Broadway. The entrance to the garage
is off of the adjoining side street. His existing garage is a lawful non-
conforming structure having been built and so situated on his lot prior to
the adoption of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Jestus' existing garage is
approximately 14 ft from the property line where the minimum requirement
is 30 ft by today's ordinance. Mr. Jestus is unable to substantiate a
hardship for his variance request. It is unfortunate that when the garage
was constructed, it was constructed within a setback requirement by today's
zoning ordinance standards. The ordinance is clear in its requirements
limiting the expansion or enlargement of non -conforming structures.
Approval of this variance request would be inconsistent with the ordinance.
On the other hand, a precedent has been set that may apply.
Approximately two years ago, we did grant a variance request on the
adjoining property south of Mr. Jestus'property.As you may recall, Tony
Banyai was granted a variance which allowed construction of a new garage
in the rear yard setback.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Approve the variance request to allow a building addition onto a non-
conforming structure in a rear yard setback requirement.
Deny the variance request to allow a building addition onto a non-
conforming structure in a rear yard setback requirement.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The object by zoning standards is to bring legal non -conforming structures
into conforming if at all possible. It is unfortunate that Mr. Jestus garage
was constructed where it was on the lot and does happen to fall within a
rear yard setback by today's zoning ordinance requirement. From a pure
planning standpoint, it appears that a denial is appropriate. On the other
hand, a precedent has been set immediately next door. How can the City
41
C1
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/93
deny the request when a similar request was made and approved only two
years ago? Before denying the request, Planning Commission will need to
analyze the situation closely to determine what factors set one request apart
from the other.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request; Copy of the zoning
ordinance section pertaining to this request; Copy of the site plan.
10
Consideration of a variance request to allow a building
addition onto a non -conforming structure in a rear yard
setback requirement. Location is Block 13, Lot 1. except
south 125 ft., and all Lots 13, 14, 15, Lower Monticello
Addition in the city of Monticello.
APPLICANT: Gene Jestus
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.
1. In R-1, R-2, B-1, and B-2 districts where adjacent
structures, excluding accessory buildings within
Game 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 districts, if lot is a
corner lot, the Gide yard setback shall be not less
than twenty (20) feet from the lot line abutting
the street right-of-way line.
(D) The following shall not be considered as encroachments
on yard setback requirementes
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
less than two (2) feet from any lot line.
NONTICZLW ZONING ORDINANCE 3/18
Front Yard
Side Yard Rear Yard
A -O
SO
30
50
30
10
30
R-2
30
10
R-3
30
20
R-4
30
30
30
PSR
See Chapter
10 for
specific regulations.
PZN
See Chapter
10 for
specific regulations.
B-1
30
15
20
B-2
30
10
20
B-3
30
10
30
B-4
0
0
0
1-1
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
Game 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 districts, if lot is a
corner lot, the Gide yard setback shall be not less
than twenty (20) feet from the lot line abutting
the street right-of-way line.
(D) The following shall not be considered as encroachments
on yard setback requirementes
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
less than two (2) feet from any lot line.
NONTICZLW ZONING ORDINANCE 3/18
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/6/93
e. Ppblic Hearing—Consideration of amendment to Chanter 3-5 IDI 9 (f)
of the Monticello Zonine Ordinance which would allow curb cut
widths in commercial and industrial districts to exceed a width of
24 feet at the discretion of the City Eneineer and Zoninq
Administrator. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall, at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, H -
Window Company requested a variance to the 24 -ft curb width requirement.
The variance request was turned down due to the fact that a hardship was
not demonstrated; however, the Planning Commission requested that a
public hearing be held on the possibility of liberalizing our curb cut
requirement in industrial zones. City staff moved forward by calling a
public hearing and by researching the matter further. As a result of our
research, we found that the Planning Commission's hunch that the 24 -ft
curb requirement is overly restrictive is correct. According to the City
Planner, among other cities it is common to have the City Engineer he
authorized to allow wider curb cuts where appropriate. The proposed
zoning ordinance amendment prepared for Planning Commission review
simply adds a sentence to the existing language which provides the City
Engineer, in conjunction with the Zoning Administrator, to allow curb cuts
in excess of 24 ft.
As noted during our discussion with H -Window Company, it is very difficult
to provide safe and convenient ingress and egress for large trucks when
curb cut widths are limited to 24 ft. From a public safety and site usability
standpoint, it would appear that allowing wider curb cuts makes sense.
Obviously under the ordinance amendment, the City Engineer and Zoning
Administrator are given considerable authority in determining what is an
acceptable and unacceptable curb cut width. Planning Commission may not
be comfortable with providing such discretionary power. Perhaps the
ordinance should include a maximum. The danger of providing a maximum
is that this number could become the standard.
The zoning ordinance amendment also includes a provision that allows a
developer to appeal a decision made by the City Engineer and Zoning
Administrator. Please note that the amendment applies both to comipercial
and industrial areas. According to the City Planner, the need for wider
curb cuts applies to both areas.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/5/93
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to approve the ordinance amendment which would allow curb
cut widths in commercial and industrial districts to exceed a width of
24 ft at the discretion of the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission could make a finding
that the wider curb cuts are necessary to allow adequate access to
commercial and industrial sites and, therefore, enable reasonable use
of commercial and industrial property. Planning Commission is
comfortable with providing the City Engineer and City staff with the
latitude to determine the appropriate curb cut widths.
Under this alternative, the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator
would carefully scrutinize requests for curb cuts wider than 24 ft and
determine if the need for such curb cut widths are justified. Factors
that will be considered include the type of vehicles using the access
point, proximity to intersections, turning radius needs, etc.
2. Motion to deny the ordinance amendment which would allow curb cut
widths in commercial and industrial districts to exceed a width of
24 ft at the discretion of the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission is satisfied that the
existing ordinance is satisfactory and that there is no need to update
the ordinance.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends approval of the zoning ordinance amendment as
submitted. It is our view that the existing ordinance is too restrictive and
will continue to result in variance requests. Allowing wider curb cut widths
in commercial and industrial zones will enhance the usability of commercial
and industrial property without sacrificing public safety or usability of the
public right-of-way. Staff is not overly concerned that the City Engineer
and Zoning Administrator are given too much discretionary power when
reviewing curb cut width requests in excess of 24 ft. It is our view that the
City Engineer and staff have the expertise that will enable them to make
good decisions in this area.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed zoning ordinance amendment.
12
OLD LPr JGUAGF
(d)
No curb cut access shall be located less than
forty (40) feet from the intersection of two
(2) or more street right-of-ways. This
distance shall be measured from the
intersection of lot lines.
(e)
Except in the case of single family, two-
family, and townhouse dwellings, parking areas
and their aisles shall be developed in
compliance with the following standards:
WALL WALL TO INTERLOCK TO
TO INTERLOCK INTERLOCK
ANGLE MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM
30 148.6' 44.5' 40.3'
45 56.8' 53.4' 50.0'
60 62.0' 59.7' 57.4'
90 64.0' 64.0' 64.0'
Parallel Parking: Twenty-two (22) feet in
length.
/ (f)
No curb cut access shall exceed twenty-four
feet
(24) in width.
(g)
Curb cut openings and driveways shall be at a
minimum three (3) feet from the side yard
property line in residential districts and
five (5) feet from the side yard lot line in
business or industrial districts.
(h) Driveway access curb openings on a public
street except for single, two-family, and
townhouse dwellings shall not be located less
than forty (40) foot from one another.
(i) The grade elevation of any parking area shall
not exceed five (5) percent.
(j) Each property shall be allowed one (1) curb
cut per one hundred twonty-five (125) feet of
street frontage. All property shall be
entitled to at least one (1) curb cut. Single
family uses shall be limited to one (1) curb
cut access per property.
(k) SURFACING: All areas intended to be utilized
for parking space and driveways shall be
surfaced with matorials suitable to control
dust and drainago.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/25
MOO LA-AJ6U46 i5
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS THAT
ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 10.9-5 [D] 9 (f) RELATING TO CURB
CUT ACCESS BE AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
(f) No curb cut access shall exceed twenty-four (24) feet in width with
the following exception: Curb cut access in industrial and commercial
zoning districts may exceed twenty-four (24) feet with the approval of
the City Engineer and the Zoning Administrator. Denial by the City
Engineer and Zoning Administrator of curb cut access in excess of
twenty-four (24) feet may Ike appealed following the procedures
outlined in Chapter 23 of the zoning ordinance.
Adopted by the Monticello City Council on October 11, 1893.
City Administrator
14
Mayor
ff