Planning Commission Agenda Packet 01-05-1993Z
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, January 5, 1993 - 7 p.m.
Members: Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Cindy Lemm, Richard Carlson, Brian
Stumpf
7:00 pm 1. Call to order.
7:02 pm 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held December 1,
1992.
7:04 pm 3. Election of the 1993 Monticello Planning Commission
Chairperson.
7:06 pm 4. Election of the 1993 Monticello Planning Commission Vice
Chairperson.
7:08 pm 5. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request to replat four (4)
existing townhouse lots into three (3) townhouse lots. Applicant,
Jay Miller.
7:13 pm 6. Public Hearing --Consideration of a preliminary plat request of
Phase 111, Cardinal Hills residential subdivision plat. Applicant,
Value Plus Homes.
7:43 pm 7. Public Hearing --Consideration of a rezoning request fur Phase III
and the balance of the undeveloped portion of the Cardinal Hills
residential subdivision plat from AO (agriculture -open space) to
R-1 (single family residential). Applicant, Value Plus Homes.
7:58 pm 8. Public Hearing --Consideration of a preliminary plat request of
Phase 1, The Evergreens residential subdivision plat. Applicant,
Kent Kjellberg. i.u.- F:,-% oi.t f•-. / pk&
8:28 pm 9. Public Hearing --Consideration of an ordinance amendment to
Chapter 3, General Provisions, of the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance by adding 3-2, "Communication Devices," which would
allow and regulate the operation of satellite dish/communication
devices. Applicant, Monticello Planning Commission.
8:43 pm 10. Review of city ordinance regulating banners and consider calling
u public hearing on an ordinance amendment that would allow
greater use of temporary signs/banners.
9:14 pm 11. Sketch Plan Review --Country Oaks Subdivision.
Planning Commission Agenda
January 5, 1993
_. Page 2
Additional Information Items
9:44 pm 1. Review city ordinance regulating banners and temporary signs.
Council action: No action required, as the request did not come
before them.
9:46 pm 2. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for Tuesday, February 2, 1993, 7 p.m.
9:48 pm 3. Adjournment.
C
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, December 1, 1892 - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Cindy Lemm, Richard
Carlson, Brian Stumpf
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill
The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, at
7:05 p.m. Acting Chair, Cindy Lemm, opened the meeting to officially welcome
Planning Commission Member, Brian Stumpf.
2. A motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Richard Martie to
approve the minutes of the regular meeting held October 7, 1992. Voting in
favor: Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Cindy Lemm, Richard Carlson. Abstaining:
Brian Stumpf.
A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve
the minutes of the special meeting held November 4, 1992. Voting in favor:
Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Cindy Lemm, Richard Carlson. Abstaining: Brian
Stumpf.
A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to approve
the minutes of the regular meeting held November 4, 1992. Voting in favor:
Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Cindy Lemm, Richard Carlson. Abstaining: Brian
Stumpf.
3. Review city ordinance reeulatina banners and temoorery liens.
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.
Page 1 %j,)
Planning Commission Minutes . 12/1/92
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, pari 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.
Pago 2 11
Planning Commission Minutes • 12IV92
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 stats'
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 City's ultimate goal by regulating the
use of portable signs and banners. Staffs response was that the ultimate goal
is to havo a banner and portable sign ordinance in place that can be effectively
administered by City stats:
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
Planning Commission Minutes - 12/1/92
4. There being no further business, a motion was made by Richard Carlson and
seconded by Richard Martie to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned
at 8:21 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Z.
Page 4
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/1/92
5. Public Hearing • Consideration of q reuuest to W1a4 four (4) exixtine
townhouse lots into three (3) townhouse lots. Applicant. Jav Miller.
(G.A. )
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Jay Miller is requesting a replat of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Block 1, Fairway
Courts Addition, into three lots. The new plat will be called Townhouse Replat
Fairway Courts. The new lots will meet the minimum 5,000 sq ft lot
requirement and exceed the minimum building square footage for a 1 -story
townhouse unit. The width of the middle lot will be 28 ft, and the lots on each
side of the middle lot will be 38 R wide. All three lots will now have a depth
of 70 ft to include a deck or patio area, which is usually built to the rear of the
townhouse units.
The original four lots were all 26 ft in width with a depth of 50 ft. The lots as
proposed will exceed the minimum front yard and rear yard setback
requirement of 30 ft and will also meet the minimum 10 -foot side yard setback
requirement.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the replatting request to replat four (4) existing townhouse lots
into three (3) townhouse lots.
2. Deny the replotting request to replat four (4) existing townhouse lots
into three (3) townhouse lots.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The replatting request submitted by Mr. Miller meets the minimum lot area
requirement, the 1 -story square foot size requirement, and the minimum front,
rear, and side yard setback requirements. With the downsizing of the total
number of lots and the inclusion of rear decks and/or patios in the townhouse
owners lot, City staff recommends approval of Mr. Miller's replotting request.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request; Copy of the Fairway
Courts plat; Copy of the proposed Townhouse Replat Fairway Courts plat;
Copy of the minimum requirements for lot area, unit square foot size, and
minimum setback requirements.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/5/93
3. Election of the 1993 Monticello Planning Commission Chairperson.
AND
4. Election of the 1993 Monticello Plannina Commission Vice
Chairperson. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Each year the Planning Commission must appoint one of its members to the
position of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. This process simply requires
the nomination of one or more members followed by a vote of the Commission.
••It z
FAIRWAy
1 ,y•
,
too
�' (\.�..t,✓`.v./�!-+i ( ; yap,
2� r.,.v n w twrr ty re j (' � G i � � • � t n •'Y�'� � • ., o � v� �� c �"%w -
n.r0
yip t�v ,s c sr. : t tai
rz
1{
too
/�,� , � iat J+'d0-• � � � . .wr .+► i 71L�9 tf ii _tt.e — .rw rt •- ,I ,.
to •sr.t.-,atr r�-+.►✓�..t ,i �i .--x•'aDIG}'i - ."
_ L\ (�.5'� � ..� , ,,,t►,�•,Y.'Or '.ayscrr • ••✓�u.aN
Car✓: A.•a'aN • n✓c: tale.
...:. ..__._.....fi:��_ _._........... ... � 130_......_._,....r<aiC:,.�'e.,r.rr!rt'e.c�.Kr✓;. .........w...
TAYLOR LAND SURVEYORS. INC. (S )
ravixnLt% mm wsoia `//
i
TWOI
I _
R .�.../hl.i ✓� R JJ ��•
O• d
.. -,fir
--A681"lar-,r aatoa- .. 37� • ��...n......
Se' a
t e........o N...,• oma.., n z �..a..,..,. e..•...
/ y
y1
Y ... ... • . � of •rf •I �i
`i, •
vk
~fii ~ YVi�I
,4
.r•
ClIVE
�'
�.. MMYfOMf 10400•- _., 1.
�
J000 I Ia�o• I xoo
I
I
I
I
--
i
xoo Joao Joao
a I
•- MNWa-f 10400 •- '• g
I _
�;
BL 0 C /
u
f'
• �--iss7w�-w i�too•- -'
,
TAYLOR LAND SURVEYORS. INC. (S )
ravixnLt% mm wsoia `//
3. In rear yards: recreational and laundry drying
equipment arbors and trellises, balconies,
breezeways, open porches, detached outdoor living
rooms, garages, and air conditioning or heating
equipment.
4. Solar systems.
[E] Lots of multiple housing unit structures may be divided
for the purpose of condominium ownership provided that
the principal structure containing the housing units
shall meet the setback distances of the applicable
zoning district.
In addition, each condominium unit shall have the
minimum lot area for the type of housing unit and usable
open space as specified in the area and building size
regulations of this ordinance. Such lot areas may be
controlled by an individual or joint ownership.
(F) In residential districts where the adjacent structures
exceed the minimum setbacks established in
subsection (C) above, the minimum setback shall be
thirty (30) feet plus two-thirds (2/3) of the difference
between thirty (30) feet and the setback or average
setback of adjacent structures within the same block.
3-4: AREA AND BUILDING SIZE REGULATIONS:
[A] PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum area and
building size requirements to be provided in each zoning
district as listed in the table below.
DISTRICT IAT AREA LOT WIDTH BUILDING HEIGHT
A -O 2 acres 200 N/A
R-1 12,000 80 2-142
VU 1
R-3 10� 000 88 2
R-4 48,000 200 1
PZR 12,000 80 2-1/2
PZM 12,000 8o 2
B-1 81000 s0 2
B-2 N/A 100 2
B-3 N/A 100 2
B-4 N/A N/A 2
I-1 20,000 100 2
I-2 30,000 100 2
1. The building height limitation in an R-3, PZN, B-1,
B-2, B-3, B-4, I-1, and I-2 zoning districts shall
be two (2) stories.
C50
NONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/19
[C)
(D)
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.
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
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 districts, if lot is a
corner lot, the side yard setback shall be not lees
than twenty (20) feet from the lot line abutting
the street right-of-way line.
The following shall not be considered as encroachments
on yard setback requiremental
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
lees than two (2) feet from any lot line.
NONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
Front Yard
Side Yard Rear Yard
A-0
50
30
50
R-1
30
10
30
CR -a
.+p
1P
Io 1
R-3
30
20
36
R-4
30
30
30
PZR
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
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 districts, if lot is a
corner lot, the side yard setback shall be not lees
than twenty (20) feet from the lot line abutting
the street right-of-way line.
The following shall not be considered as encroachments
on yard setback requiremental
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
lees than two (2) feet from any lot line.
NONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
�- 2. In zoning districts R-3, PZM, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4,
I-1, and I-2, a three (3) story building may be
allowed as a conditional use contingent upon strict
application of a requirement that fire
extinguishing systems be installed throughout the
building. (Requires a conditional use permit based
upon procedures set forth in and regulated by
Chapter 22 of this ordinance.)
(B)
LOT AREA PER UNIT:
Single Family 12,000 square feet
Two -Family 6,000 square feet
L=Mouse a.Wgg sgnare zees)
Mobile Nome 4,000 square feet
Multiple Family 10,000 square feet
for first unit +
2,000 sq ft for each
additional one bedroom unit, +
3,000 sq ft for each additional
two bedroom unit.
Elderly Housing 1,000 square feet
(The lot area per unit requirement for townhouses,
condominiums, and planned unit developments shall be
calculated on the basis of the total area in the project
and as controlled by an individual and joint ownership.)
(C)
UTILITY TRANSITION AREAS: All areas in which sewer is
not currently available shall be designated as utility
transition areas. The minimum lot area of any platted
lot in such areas shall be two and one-half (2-1/2)
acres. Any lot platted according to the provisions of
this subdivision may be replatted provided that public
sanitary sewer will be made available and all conditions
and provisions of this ordinance are met.
(D)
USABLE OPEN SPACE: Each multiple family dwelling site
shall contain at least five hundred (500) square feet of
usable open space as defined in Chapter 2 of this
ordinance for each dwelling unit contained thereon.
(E)
EXCEPTIONS: The building height limits established
herein for districts shall not apply to the following:
1. Belfries
2. Chimneys or flues
3. Church spires
4. Cooling towers
S. Cupolas and domes which do not contain usable space
6. Elevator penthouses
7. Flag poles
6. Monuments
9. Parapet walls extending not more than three (3)
feat above the limiting height of the building
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/20v
10. Water towers
11. Poles, towers, and other structures for essential
service
12. Necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances
13. Television and radio antennas not exceeding twenty
(20) feet above roof
14. Wind electrical generators
[F] No excluded roof equipment or structural element
extending beyond the limited height of a building may
occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent of the area of
such roof not to exceed ten (10) feet unless otherwise
noted.
[GJ MINIMUM FLOOR AREA PER DWELLING UNIT:
1. ONE AND/OR TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS AND TOWNHOUSES:
The minimum floor area for such type buildings
shall be as follows:
((a) One -Story Dwellina--960 sauare feet
(b) Two -Story Dwelling --740 square feet per Story.
(c) EXCEPTION: The minimum square footage of a
one-story building may be reduced to 864
square feet if a garage is added with at least
400 square feet. In no case, however, shall
the minimum dimension of that garage be less
than 16 feet.
(7/22/91, 0210)
2. MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS: Except for elderly
housing, living units classified as multiple
dwellings shall have the following minimum floor
areas per unit:
(a) Efficiency Units 600 square feet
(b) One Bedroom Unite 600 square feet
(c) Two Bedroom Unite 720 square feet
(d) More than Two
Bedroom Unite An additional 100
square feet for each
additional bedroom
3. ELDERLY (SENIOR CITIZEN) HOUSING:
Living unite classified as elderly (senior citizen)
housing units shall have the following minimum
floor areas per unit:
(a) Efficiency Units 440 square feet
C-5)
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/21
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/5/93
6. Public Hgaring—Consideradon of a nreHminary olal: reauess of Phase
III. Cardinal Hills residential subdivision. Auulicant. Value Plus
Homes. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Value Plus Homes, Inc., of Monticello requests that the Planning Commission
consider recommending approval of the third phase of the Cardinal Hills
residential subdivision, which consists of 20.45 acres. Following is a review of
the preliminary plat, along with discussion of topics that require special
attention by the Planning Commission. Please note that City staff did not
receive a copy of this plat until late on Wednesday; therefore, we've had little
time to review the plat. A formal staff review has not occurred; therefore, it
is possible that additional issues relating to this plat may be brought up
between now and the Planning Commission meeting. Due to the fact that
many of the issues relating to this plat have been resolved via previous sketch
plan review, it appeared possible to review the plat and present it to the
Planning Commission for consideration at the January meeting.
PARCEL STANDARDS
The lot configurations appear to meet the requirements of the city ordinance
with the exception of Lots 3, 4, and 5, of Block 4. Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 4,
show a lot width that is less than 80 feet. City minimums require a lot width
of 80 feet; therefore, the preliminary plat will need to be adjusted to match the
City minimum.
I have reviewed the plat for compliance with roadway widths and easement
locations and found that they meet minimums.
SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SYSTEMS
The system for providing the development with sanitary sewer and water has
not been included with the Cardinal Hills plat. This information is not
necessary, as it has already been determined that it is feasible to serve this
plat as proposed with sanitary sower and water.
STORM WATER SYSTEM
The project as proposed shows development of a storm water ponding area
along the northern boundary of the property. This facility will serve to
maintain storm water from the third phase. It is expected that the existing
pond developed with the second phase will be connected to the new pond
developed with the third phase.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/5/93
The problem with the preliminary plat is that it does not show the location of
the storm water pipe connecting the two ponds. It is impossible to determine
if lot widths are adequate in areas impacted by the underground pipe. The
preliminary plat should show where the pipe is located and identify necessary
easement. There is also some concern that the grading plan properly
addresses the transition hetween the building pads and the storm pond for
Lots 4-14, Block 2.
There are no wetland areas impacted with this phase of the project.
ROAD SYSTEM
The third phase calls for development of two access roads to School Boulevard,
along with an interior road connection to phases I and 11. This design will
enable adequate traffic flow within the site and will also provide good access
to the collector roads. It should be noted that the segments of Martin Drive
and Starling Drive between Pelican Lane and Elder Lane are about 1,325 feet,
which is the maximum block length allowed.
'f PARK DEVELOPMENT I tDr•�
When the second phaseelity
inal Hillsas developed, the Parks Commission
recommended ceptthe park in the northwest quadrant of the
developmen 3.5 res) and u proposed tot lot (.5 acres) in the southeast
section of the evelopment. The land area of the two park areas amounts to
approximately 1/2 of the standard park dedication area required with this plat.
The developers requested that they pay cash in lieu of land for the unsatisfied
portion of the park dedication requirement.
When the final plat of phase Il of Cardinal Hills was approved by Council,
Council accepted the park land provided with phase 11 as satisfying the park
requirement for the first two phases. However, Council made no commitments
regarding the park requirement associated with development of phases 111
through completion of the project. It is expected that the developers will be
requesting that the City make a final determination as to what the park
dedication requirement will be for the balance of the development. This issue
will he brought to an upcoming meeting of the Parks Commission for their
input. At this time, however, the Planning Commission may want to take a
stab at discussing as to whether or not the park area identified on the plan
provided, along with cash, will be sufficient to satisfy Cho park requirements.
As noted in previous discussion, it was determined that the land needs are not
as great in this area due to the fact that the adjacent school grounds will be
supplying much of the open space needs for the area. In addition, a relatively
large area of land is tied up in wetland and pond areas. Planning Commission
may wish to consider this fact when determining whether or not sufficient land
area is tied up as open space on the existing plat.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/5/93
SIDEWALK
Staff has concerns regarding pedestrian access to the major park and to the
school grounds to the north. It is very likely that the Parks Commission will
be recommending that a sidewalk be extended along the length of School
Boulevard. This sidewalk will likely become an integral part of the City's
sidewalk grid system/trail system. The question is whether or not this
sidewalk should be located on the north side of School Boulevard or on the
south side of School Boulevard. Also, should the sidewalk be installed
simultanous to development of phase III, or should it be deferred until some
point in the future?
Relating to the issue of where to locate the sidewalk is the problem of properly
locating the crosswalk areas. As you know, there are three major facilities
planned for the School District property directly north of the Cardinal Hills
site. All three will likely need an individual crosswalk. The proper location
of these crosswalks needs to be established. Currently, the location of the only
existing crosswalk is at the northwest corner of the park. This is a convenient
location for conveying pedestrians from the eastern side of the development to
the Little Mountain School. The remaining crosswalk locations have not been
established. The major topic of discussion should be identifying where the
crosswalks should be located and whether or not the sidewalk needs to be
o located on the north side or the south side of the property.
Unfortunately, staff has had no time to review this issue with either the
developer or the School District or the City Planner. This important issue
needs to be resolved prior to final plat approval. Planning Commission should
take time to outline the pros and cons of each alternative at the meeting. I
will provide possible alternatives for providing crosswalks and sidewalks
serving the area.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
The grading and drainage plan for the site has already been prepared by the
City Engineer. This plan was done in conjunction with an application for an
Army Corps of Engineers permit obtained by the applicant in conjunction with
the second phase of the development. This aspect, of the plan is, therefore,
non -controversial. sial. However, this plan should again be reviewed in conjunction
with this approval process. Again, time has not allowed staff to complete this
review.
B. ALTFRNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to recommend approval of the Cardinal Hills Third Addition with
conditions.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/5/93
Under this alternative, Planning Commission is satisfied that the
preliminary plat of the proposed third addition meets City minimums
and is designed in the proper manner. A list of conditions will be
defined during the discussion. It is possible that the conditions could
address the park and sidewalk issues.
2. Motion to table or deny a recommendation to approve the preliminary
plat of the proposed Cardinal Hills Third Addition.
This alternative should be selected if the Planning Commission feels it
needs more time to study the plan. As I noted to you, this is a quick
review by one staff person without the aid of the Public Works Director
or City Engineer. I will try to get a copy of this to their office for review
prior to the meeting. However, I can't guarantee that their input will
be available in time for the meeting.
This alternative could also be selected if the developer is not willing to
make adjustments to the preliminary plat or abide by conditions as
requested by the Planning Commission.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
J� Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to conditions as
identified by the Planning Commission. If all the issues relating to this plan
can be ironed out at the meeting, then it might make sense to go ahead and
approve the preliminary plat. On the other hand, if additional time for
research is necessary or if input from City Planner is desired, etc., then this
alternative may not make sense. Between now and meeting time, I will be
attempting to gather additional input for your review to assist you in
identifying changes that need to be made to the preliminary plat prior to it
being presented to the City Council.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the preliminary plat of proposed Cardinal Hills Third Addition.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/5/93
Public Hearing--Considerption of e<rezoning request foF Phase III and
the balance of the undeveloped Portion of the Cardinal Hills
residential subdivision Plat from AO (agriculture-ooen space) to R-1
(single (amity residential). APPHeant. Value Plus Homes. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
In conjunction with the application for preliminary plat approval, Value Plus
Homes, Inc., of Monticello is requesting that the balance of the Cardinal Hills
residential subdivision be rezoned from AO (agriculture -open space) to R-1
(single family residential) zoning designation. This request is different from
the previous rezoning requests relating to Cardinal Hills because this time the
developers are requesting that the entire area be rezoned. Previously, the City
has rezoned only that portion of the development that is being platted.
Rezoning was encouraged to occur only on an incremental basis to this point
because of the concern over the potential of development of the entire property
under one type of housing style and value ($70,000 starter homes). It was
thought that by preserving the balance of the property under agricultural
zoning status, the City could buy time to review its zoning district regulations
and its housing stock inventory to determine if a new type of zoning district
should be developed and assigned to the cast side of Cardinal Hills, which
would encourage development of higher valued homes at least in a portion of
the Cardinal Hills development area.
1 have reviewed this matter with the City Planner, and he has basically stated
that there are cities that do regulate the housing stock in the community and
that this is done commonly by establishing a zoning district that requires
development of larger lots (16,000 sq ft is common). By requiring a larger lot,
the utility prices increase, and concurrently, the value of the home tends to
increase along with the higher development cost. The Planner also noted that
cities typically initiate this type of specific zoning to assure a mix of housing
types throughout the city and is generally utilized to provide areas for "move
up housing." Grittman noted that in the city of Monticello, there are relatively
large areas of land that remain undeveloped that can be developed to satisfy
the "move up" housing demand. He did not feel that there was an overriding
need to regulate the type of development in the Cardinal Hills area for the
sake of die city as a whole, as there are other areas within the city where
higher -end housing can flourish.
Grittman stressed that even though the house values in Cardinal Hills and
associated tax revenue is relatively low as compared to the costs associated
with providing public services, education, etc., he noted that the added lot sizes
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/5/93
and nearby amenities will add "staying power" to the development and will
likely result in property owners making long-term commitments and
investments in their property. He also noted that there are many intangible
benefits to encouraging development in this area. People that move in will
help support the existing commercial base within the community, and the
added population and employee base will serve to help attract and maintain
industry. Finally, even after rezoning the balance of the property to R-1, the
City still has the option of changing the zoning again if the need is finally
determined.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to approve the rezoning request, which would rezone the balance
of the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision from AO (agriculture -open
space) to R-1 (single family residential).
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission is comfortable with
the proposal to rezone the balance of the property. The approval to
rezone could be based on a finding that the rezoning is consistent with
the comprehensive plan, and the request is consistent with the
geography and character of the area.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission is comfortable with
the development as it has progressed and is comfortable that there is
sufficient land area in and around the city that can be served by public
utilities to satisfy the various housing market demands.
Motion to approve rezoning of phase 111 of the Cardinal Hills residential
subdivision but table or deny approval of the rezoning of the balance of
the property.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission could take the position
that future rezonings require additional study and that the City should
embark on determining precisely whether or not it makes sense to allow
continued development of the entire property under the same housing
program. Under this alternative, City staff would request that the
Planner analyze the situation further.
This alternative should he selected if the Planning Commission is at all
concerned about progress of the development in terms of its long-term
impact on the community as a whole.
Planning Commission Agenda - V5193
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff supports the rezoning as proposed; however, it is our view that there
is some merit to studying the issue further. If the Planning Commission is
confident that the development trend in the area is appropriate, then it should
not hesitate to grant the rezoning request as proposed. If, however, you have
any concerns over the balance of the property developing under a single style
of housing, then it probably makes sense at this time to bring the issue to a
head by tabling the matter and referring it to the City Planner for further
scrutiny.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of a map showing the proposed rezoning area.
C
Y
s \
Consideration of a res ring request
for Phase III and the lance of the _
remaining undeveloped rtion of Ca final
Hills residential aubd vision P11.t f cpm
AO (agriculture -open a ca) io.4W-1
—--T family residential). ¢`
+ APPLICAH2: Value Plus HomeA { �°
r i i 1
r1'y
r�
C
Planning Commission Agenda - ll5/93
8. PgbHq Hearing --Consideration of a ureliminary plat reaueRt of Phgse L
Thq Evergreens residential subdivision plat. Aonlieant. Hent
ems. W.O. )
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City staff requests that a motion be made to continue the public hearing
pending development of complete information on the preliminary plat. Jeff will
provide a verbal report on the status.
10
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/6/93
9. Public Hearing—Consideration of an ordinance amendment to
Chapter S. General Provisions. of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance by
adding "."Communication Devices; which would allow and regulate
the operation of satellite dish/communication devices. Aualicantt
Monticello Planning Commission. W.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The proposed hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment was requested by
the Planning Commission at the previous meeting but originally stems from
a request by a home owner to install a satellite dish. Technically, installation
of a satellite dish is not permissible, as it is not identified as an allowable use
in any zoning district. Therefore, the City roust develop a provision within the
zoning ordinance to allow installation of a satellite dish. Please note that
according to federal law, the City cannot prohibit installation of satellite dishes
in any zoning district within the City; however, the City can regulate the
devices so they are placed in the proper locations within each property. The
proposed ordinance amendment is geared to control placement of devices in
areas in a manner that will cause minimal impact on adjoining properties. It
also includes a provision for a conditional use permit that would be required
for instances where the minimum requirements cannot be met. Please review
the proposed rules and come prepared with comments.
B. ALTERNATIVE, ACTIONS:
Motion to approve or modify and approve the ordinance amendment
which would allow and regulate the operation of satellite dish/
communication devices.
This motion could he made based on the finding that the rules proposed
serve to protect the safety and character of areas in which
communication devices are located.
There is also a demonstrated need for the ordinance regulating
placement of satellite dishes and other communication devices will help
to avoid conflicts with neighbors. Requiring that devices be placed in
the rear yards will help to preserve the aesthetic quality of the
neighborhood as viewed from the street and will preserve
driveway/street sight lines. The rules will also serve to protect property
values in residential areas.
Motion to deny the ordinance amendment which would allow and
regulate the operation of satellite dish/communication devices.
t,
L.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/5/93
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval with modifications as determined by the Planning
Commission.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed amendment; Information outlining the requirement that the
City allow satellite dishes.
12
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
'111E CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, HEREBY ORDAINS
THAT CHAPTER 3 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE BE
AMENDED BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING SECTION PERTAINING TO
COMMUNICATION RECEPTIONIT ANSMISSION DEVICES:
3-12: COMMUNICATION RECEPTION/TRANSMISSION DEVICES:
[A] PERMITTED USES: Satellite dishes, television antennas, radio
antennas and other such communication transmission -reception
devices are permitted accessory uses within all zoning districts
provided that they meet the following conditions:
;,a oJ—
I. Height: A ground -mounted munication device height
shall not exceed fifteen 15 feet unless approved as a
�v Yr conditional use permit by the City. Council pursuant to
Chapter 22 of the zoning ordinance.
2. Yards: The communication device shall not be located
within a front yard setback, a required side yard, or any
side yard abutting a street. Communication devices shall
be located five (5) feet or more from rear lot lines and shall r�
not be located w ♦
within a utility easement. A..�`�` , A
3. Roofs: The mmunication�ice may be placed the &A �
roof of any .elcuctyre on the premises. The
height of the communication device shall not exceed `six
and one-half (6-1/2) feet above the peak of the roof or roof
line unless approved by a certified structural engineer and
subject to a conditional use permit as may be approved by
the City Council pursuant to Chapter 22 of the zoning
ordinance. p * T*11041" 06044aft 1,
4. Neighboring Property Impact: Incases where no building
1wrmit is required, the communication device shall be so
lautted that in the event it falls, it will not fall on adjoining
Property
fi. Building Permits: A building permit shall be required for
the installation of any communication device which
requires a conditional use permit, or for any device which
line a structural surface exposure of greater than nine (8) t►
square feet. Building permit applications shall be J
���.�� nod ��� r,► �' :..
Ordinance Amendment No.
p Page 2
accompanied by a site plan and structural components data
for the communication device, including details of
anchoring. The City Building Official must approve the
plans before installation.
6. Color/Content: Communication devices shall be of a
neutral color and shall not be painted with scenes or
contain letters or messages which qualify as a sign.
Lightning Protection: Each communication device shall be
grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in
conformance with the applicable stats and local codes.
8. Electrical Code: Communication device electrical
equipment and connection shall be designed and installed
in conformance with the applicable state and local codes.
(13] CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Communication/reception
transmission devices not qualifying as a permitted accessory use
may be allowed through conditional use provisions established by
Chapter 22 of the zoning ordinance.
Adopted this 11th day of January, 1993.
City Administrator
C
Mayor
C9,
DEC -3 1 -9= T HIJ £' 4 e �_� F• ode
BUSINESS LETTER
July 1986 Vol. 3 No. 7
SCC 1P1RSN's'6 r=WRt&3VS:J►Z'SOSQ.o^ ON SA'TELSSE DS$I-1S9
She federal Communications Commission (FCC) has strong dlseent from FCC eommiasicner Kieyfer
Ml --I Wth
releaced the text of its recent ruling imposing Milson. She stated. °(S)ince blamL*t Lars against all
restrictions on the authority of states and localltles antanrss... do not 'differentiate' among types of
to regulate facilia• much as satellite dishes which antennas, trAy are entirely pemiaaible under the
are used to receive and transmit satellite signals. ma:crity's rules."
:he FCC's naw rules, which areprimarily intended to
limit the satherity of Cities to regulate the Site,
location. and placoment of satellite earth Station
an printed In L`A rederal Register for Feb. 14 (pegs
5819).
The FCC's Report and Cedar accompanying the new rales
provides further detail regarding local regulations
which the FCC's ruling IS intended to preempt.
Fawever, because both the FCC's regulations and the
tut of the Report and Order are stated in general
toms, it will be difficult for cities to determine
wtathrr a particular regu:atton is valid or invalid
under the FCC'• riln.
AddStienxa:y, the FCC had not provided a•peeiflc
Process for the enforcement of its rules, indicating
Its expectation that Cities will confers their
regulations to the FCC's standards and that fe0
Involvement in disputes between cities and homeowners
will not be necessary. to feet, the FCC made clew
that state and federal courts will be the primary
forum far ala sppliatica at its raw rules.
Hoover, the rCC'a regular proesduree (whish are
available for all FCC rules), provide a mechanism
hewn as a "potitica for a declaratory ruling" for the
clarification or modification of FCO regulations by
applying them to a particular eltuation. Thus, tar
axmeple. a heeawnn could till a VoUtien requesting
a ruling that a local ordinance which adversely
efts v "Sine of eight" teaspoon lopes.•
"unreasonable :Imitations" an the reaelpt of
programming by satellite. similar coling• could be
eovght regarding the application of the VCC'e rales to
e wide range of loaf situations.
.To tort of ear Report and war makes clear that Lie
nrw rules do roe aply to local tegulatione which "do
not Single out satellite receive -only facilities top
different treatment". However. it So Important to
nova that a local regulation which has a differential
effect. @van though not expressly ditfarentlatiep
between Satellite antennas and other types of
sntannms. would Still, be pVWR%s0.
An example of such an unacceptable regulation,
aecarding to the Report end Oder, 10 one which
Srrpcaes fcatriotlam on ell antennas of a spherical
i stupe, On aha otirr hand. a regulation which limits
the caetfuctiea of ern accoutrerrato- and applies
to al: fixed enteraua (0.9., amateur radio antennae.
tatellito master antenna WctCJ MAV) ) In VW Sams
maivor would not be prerapted under the rCC'S rules.
.his eistination - which would appartntlY Sanction
b:arlat prohlbitlons on al: antennas - provoked a
She alto aarnnxed eat ere 700'a decision may create
a loophole for other local ordinances which may have
the effect of differmtiating, but are not covered by
the Fwrptlea ruling beaaace they do not single out
satellite dishes by name at by their unlq'le
rharactaristiee (e.g., their WWIC34 shape). On the
basis of this analysis, she Suggested that an ord'-%anw
prehibleing all antannos which are more than eight
test tail might pass vaster under the FOC's rules.
My 1x81 ordinance touch "lag out satellite earth
stations by name or an the basis of their unique
OWactaristia may be sub!ect to challenge under the
=,a Anse and could be et-urt dawn If found rot to
Wee the stardards established by the FCC.
first, it must have a "reasonable" and "clearly
datined" health, oafery, or acs%Mtic ob:eative. She
{CC su;PM that s2leas "taloa are readily susceptible
to application by low/ autharitles." At the two
tias. It makes Clear that whether a screening
rtpulromant of SO bashes las opposed to five) Is
ueieaocuibls cannot be determined In the abstract.
Howavar, the Report and Order mggnts that C.ties are
required to-junity", on the Deals of oma or ears of
these objectives. any local regulation which
"differentiates".
Second, a local ordinance which differentiates cannot
uuessx%ably interests with or prevent the receipt of
satellite programming. For a7roaple, the FC"- suggests
that a screening or placement Colo.. backyard)
requirement could fail this port of the toot it era
result is to oboeure "line of sight" roteption. (Lina
of eight reception Is generally obscured when a
physical object Intrudas Into the space between the
dish era VA sotellitah sines a satellite to rarely
positioned duect.y above a dish, objects such an trees
which are near to the dish can be the source of
Interfel nco.
Third, a local raquirement twat impose costs on
satellite dish olalerb which ars "nhcesoiv". txamp:es
of local requlet o to that might be dermad to Impose
excessive coats ora 'high filaq tees or unreasonable
Venrin0 rmaromants".
with reopect to tranealtting antennae. the to--
broadened
0:broadened Its original proceeding Lo extend the same
limitations to apply to receiving antennas on
rogulatien ter aeathatia restore. The no. however.
did not preempt the regulation of transalit'n
mterma far salary or ha.'"M roars.
The FC: at.mawlodged teat transmitting equipme•t� )
although villus.ly similar to recolvirq squlpmant, d:
raise r,oaal health and safety concerns because
DEC - 3 1- 9 2 T H U B.: 4 6 O
SATfa2.=2'$ D28I-IIS9 . .
VA auission of radio frequency radiation. eere"r.
the I= also indicated that further precmpelon might
be necessary at • later date it stats and local health
or safety requirements are shown to interfere with
transmission via satellite.
The Me San. la ;:n:v ion order follow closely On
the heels of a more even-handed preemption order
regatdinq state and local regulation of radio antennas
used 01 eautOur radio Operators which was adopted an
ap t. 10, 1961, in that ruling - printed in the
Pedcral Register for Rapt. 23 On Ages Sde13-16616 -
the /CC attempted to stripe a balance between the
!adoral interest In interstate Communications and the
state and low Interest in mhing.
Zn that deeisiOA. WCL coma In respo me to a petition
for declaratory ruling filed by the Amateur Radio
Relay Leave, the ICC a6epad a limited preemption of
stats and low regulations `that Operate to preclude
scale" communication in their communities".
Specifically, the LCC rated that "local regulations
whleh Involve placement. screening, or height or
maleness based On health, safety, or aesthetlC
considerations Ouat be crafted to accommodat•
reasonably amateur communications, and to repreeant
the mialaum practicable regulation a aCewpl Lha
local authority's segltieate Purpose.
ROLL R4 PRIDSM .e
"stats and Ica" atoning or other regulations that
difteranttlate batnreah satellite raeaive-only antennas
and oars types at onto" failitias are preempted
unleaa such ropLatlar:
h have a reasonable and clearly defined health.
..afety of srsnetle objective: and
bh do not operate to impose unreaaeable limitations
on, or prevent, reception of satellite delivered
Siva" W racelve-anly anter as or " inghoa alto on
the users of soon antmras that are excessive in light
of the pusohne and installation coal of the
equipment. ugulation of satellite transaitting
antennas to prompted In aha coma mannas axCopt that
sate and local health and safety regulation Is rot
peesrpted.
The above errifle was printed N NA-
TION'S CITIES W81KLYam Ffbrw
ary 24. 1986, published by the National
LeeAwr of Chits.
Please Bend in your local plannir.S and
Zoning neva items. Any local :epi Cases
would to of interest to the other mepbe:1e.
';ARI YOUR LXPSRIINC93.
P . O T
Prow MS P7S7S807A P'SSJ=M
WA%MR3 MAS AVAIT %ear v
Are you trying to tinct take as6dr"Mak", or a Sake
near Marshall or the nearest stream to fish for
brookiea7
Pidhing enthualasta Can new find information on
Kirnesota sakes with public access. oc-----+'tio s end
the nearest city teat provides tourist
intoffition -au an ors map. avallable tree from the
Kirawatou Office of 'hurl®. The 26" K 16" color map
shows over 6,000 lutea, and norms over 1000 at them
eat have public aeenm ard/er unmeu or anmpgrouads.
KLMCOota also has mare than 26.000 allee of rivers
and streams, 103 fishable rivers and stitmta we sewn
on the map. Another feature at the map to
topegrop hsatil Sines depicting see stea's slCustloes.
x1mviete's prix dpal g= fish ere shaven can the back
at the slap for visual refa wza, moans with statistics
an Minnesota's reoord catches for 16 species.
tnlemlttc0 on 110mwmg. muss, the catch and release
program, and how to report record fish is also
provided.
The map was produced by the Minneaata Office at
TOWIm In cooperation with the Department of Barml
9esautca and State Planning Agency, Land Kan6gnant
WNas mush anter. It Is eta that such masa asp
proaaei for the sea entirely by computer graphics.
The amp was designed to be used with the official
Miancoots Stan Higl74y Kap, also available fres tram
the office of ?curiam. To resolve either map.
togotTer with a resort and/or campground directory.
aatact aha K1Meaeta Travel Information Crater, 140
Bremer Building. 419 M. fdobm h., at. Pars. Mw se10d
or call weekdays 206-6029 in the Twin Cities.
100-02-9747 toll tree an Minnesota, or 600-120-1461
toll free nationally.
fiI11MWTA PLANMG ASSOCU71CM NONPROFIT sae.
Vo OM 3 U.S. PMTAGS
2185 White Bear Ave.. Suits 210 PAID
Maplewood, KI 9910Y ST. PAOL,M
PBRMT No. ARA 1
SPR= FA -Q
drel W. 9211.1 ST.
012Ji. ?td �a
gP.!<2L 9
Dr= —_— T M, 1
Did you know?
Ann Houle
Regulation of radio antennas and building heights
May a city regulate the place-
ment. screening. or height of ama-
teur radio snteanas? bray a do
also regulate the placement,
screening, and height of buildings
and other structures?
The answer to both questions is
"maybe." under :tflnrtescra Salutes
462.558. Subd. 2a, a city may regulate
"Without limitation" the site and Soca•
tion of structures. However, the
Federal C'Wisunicatioas Commission
(FCC) has Issued an order pre•empdpg
local tonal ordinances which regulate
amateur radio structures. The FCC
adopted order PR8•i Sept. 16. 1285.
PRB•1 steer. ' .. , local reguladona
Which involve plaeetnetst. saeenutg, or
height of antennas based on health.
safety, or aesthetic considerations
mutt be crafted to accommodate
reasonable amateur comununicitions.
and to represent the minimum praerk•
able regulation to accomplish the local
authority's legitimate purpose." Gafor-
amately, the order does not give Say
specific direction to cities on what type
of regulation may be acceptable. For
example. the FCC am that It Win to
ape* any particular height Undtation
below which a loll government may
not regulate. and will rot suggest the
precise language that must be in city
ordinances. such u mechanisms for
ttppee�cWI exemptions. varlamces. or can-
didorl use permits.
The FCC based its order because of
a request for a ruling on the limb of
local and nate regulatory authority
ova federally licensed radio ficiltiea.
The request came (tom the American
Radio Relay League an behalf of lab
ermteur radio operator members. The
FCC received over 1.600 commonts on
the matter. prVam* from amateur
opentars and groups such as the Red
Cross and the CK lir Patrol. The
National League of Mo. the National
Association of Counties, and some
cider registered opposition. The FCC
Bald that it wanted to make a rusatr
able accommodation between the taro
sides.
The FCC noted that it had previously
recognised the leghtimm and important
state interests reflected in local toning
regulations. but also said there Is a
strong federal Interest in promoting
amateur commmications. In weighing
the two fnterats, the FCC decided a
limited pre-emption policy is war.
ruined, particularly concerning local and
auto regulations which peedude aura.
tear communications.
. V6Ve the FCC did not ofer specific
guidelines to ddes on antenna regub-
tion. it did toy that the commission
does net have the staff or financial
resources to review all state and local
laws that alect amateur operations.
Instead the FCC is relying on local and
state governments to legislate in a
meaner that recognizes the it•nporant
federal Interest at stake and "thereby
avoids mmecassary litigation in this
area." The FCC also suggests that
amateur operators bring PRB-1 to the
attention of cies.
If cities do impose restrictions on
amnteus radio anunmaa, the courts may
uphold them If they are related to
health and safety considerations. For
exampls, falling Ins from mannas and
towers and the guy wires which bold
them Is more hSardoa than falling fee
from buildings, which would Justify
creating antemau and buU mgs dilar•
a* In an ordirree. Regulations for
purelyaatorall�� may not unrest
the 11 dries decide not to re to oma•
tear tal=VMS mnu at all avoid
dfSeulties with the FCC or lawsuits
tom &=cur operators, there could
Still be problems. V a dry allows anter•
nes of my height, but rstmicts the
height of other structures to 50 feet.
courts might say the ordinance Is
unrumnsble on the ground that no
rational hasfs exiau for allowing tap
a tenrat end towers but not tall build.
tags. Zoning regulations generally must
be uniform and not discriminatory.
For example, a New Jercey court
bend that S city say Impose controls on
Condominiums ealy if It Impowl the
same restric .'ons on conventional
apart^encs in Wsplewcod Village
Tenants Association v.:daplewood Vd-
Lige. 282 A2d 428 (1971). In Sum v.
Vtdnais. 202 N.W. 2d W (1972). a
township ordinance proh'uitatg use of a
mobile home as a dwelling and the
parking of a mobile home except in a
licensed trailer court or at a construe
tion are was enforced only quanst
those using mobile homes as dwel iM.
The court ruled that the township could
not enforce the ordinance only against
some violators and exclude others.
Cities should be aware that the FCC
also Is proposing to pre-empt local and
state toning ord-hatues which diseximi•
rte against utenhe earth -station fad•
Ides such as dithes and antennae which
receive sateilite•delivered program-
ming servi:es. The FCC's proposed
action Came in response to petitions
from various Industry interests sealing
relief from Soul :oning ordinances
which restricf the afm placement. or
lode= of sttellte earth.station fib-
res. The FCC defina discrimination
as, for ew;le, toting regulations
resuicdmg the also of Satellite Was.
therefore giving a city's cable system
an advantage because the toting ordi•
race doesn't infect the community
cabl'a
The F� proposed order wound
pre-empt any discriminatory toning
Ordinance unless it menu two tests.
First, the ordinance must have a
"direct and tangible relationship to
valid, muctaable, decamtrabla. and
clearly articulated health, safety, or
testhetic objectives." Second. the
ordinance mat be "din least restric•
the method available to accomplish
Such obje:.ives." The FCC has already
received comments an the proposed
order, but has not yet trade t detfEkn.
A city wantiig to cover amateur
antenna or Satellite earth -station ftc&
ties in Its toning ordbmct Should have
dear and reasombha objectives to aid
In defending again a possible lawsuit
or FCC urian based a skim that
that tie regulation Is dbairninstory. ■ /may
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/5/93
10. HeyieW of city ordinance regulating banners and consider calling a
public hearing on an o4inance amendment that would allow greater
use of temporary si¢nw%anners. (J.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 Mari stores. Please review the
attached memo for more background information regarding this topic.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. 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.
13
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.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission select alternative #1 or
alternative N2. 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 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
Clio 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.
14
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/5/93
Dorothy Ritze also suggested that, as a compromise, perhaps temporary signs
could be displayed for a period of two weeks per month. Although thio 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
12123/92; Memo dated 1 V12M 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 124/92 Planning Commission
agenda.
JIFN A Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
I C U R B A N PLANNI NG - D E S 1 6 N• MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeff O'Neill
FROM: Stephen Grittman
DATE: 23 December 1992
RE: Monticello - Temporary Sign Regulation
FILE N0: 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 become.
O/D
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.
�p�
MEMO
TO: Topic File
FROM: Jeff O'Neill, Assistwit 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 Mart;
Tom Holthaus of West Side Market; Steve Grittman, City Planner, and Jeff O'Neill.
Jeff O'Neill 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. O Neill
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 aro allowed so
60
Memo
Temporary Signs & Banners
November 12, 1992
Page 2
long as the total square footage of each sign dues 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. 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 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 further 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 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,
size structure, location, height, lighting, erection,
C n 2e s 0 use and/or display of devices, signs, or symbols serving
aa visual communication media to persons situated
Q s K i{ e 2 / C — within or upon public right-of-ways or properties.
Wdl Allow,% h The provisions of this subdivision are intended to
U encourage opportunity for effective, ordesly-
communication by reducing confusion and azards
1 resulting from unnecessary and/or indiscriminate use of
Coys0 Sie"If Wil G communication facilities.
f� g1o4 �? (B) 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 (5) 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. Signa shall
remain in place for no longer than five (5)
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 (5) day limit and
assess a fee of five dollars (=5.00) per sign
for removal.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/37
(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 of 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.
(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 3/36
/O
1. 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
li 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)
vo which are intended to attract attention
to a specific location or site.
V. Searchlights - self defining.
(Amendment No. 150)
(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,
1980, in the form 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 case, the non -conforming advertising
sign must be removed within 80 days after
written notice from the Building Official.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3
/O
-eD f
re,;�VSC
`nod- •,a„` \``
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
E
(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. „
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
11-100 period of twenty (20) days per calender year.
The applicant shall determine and specify on
the application the days planned for display,
i.e., twenty consecutive days, ten weekends,
etc.
(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:
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/41
�o)
MONTICELLO ZONING
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, si-ze, 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.
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".
S. 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.
S. Public banners may be hung only on
alternate streetacape fixtures unless
otherwise approved by Council.
0/0
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.
5. All signs shall display in a conspicuous manner the
owner's name, permit number, and date of erection.
5. 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.
S. 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 27, United States Code,
Section 131, Section 719, 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, not 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 887, 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
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/41
Planning Commission Agenda - 12IV92
Review city ordinance reaulatina banners and temoorary sins. (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. 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 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.
Motion to call for a public hearing on an ordinance amendment that
would allow "full-time use of banners and temporary signs."
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/1/92
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 It banner to be allowed
on site at all times.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission select alternative 01 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 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.
I 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.
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.
p.SUPPORTING DATA:
Memo regarding potential amendments to the section of the sign ordinance
relating to banners; Pertinent sections of the ordinance regulating signs.
I
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/5/93
11. Sketch Plan Review—Country Oaks Subdivision. W.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission is asked to review the attached sketch pian and come
prepared to provide comments to the developer. The feedback provided by the
Planning Commission will assist the developer in preparation of the
preliminary plat.
Following is a memo outlining the review of the sketch plan at staff level. Also
included is a copy of the sketch plan. No formal action is requested with this
item --discussion only.
16
250 East Broadway
P. O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN
55362.9245 MEMO
Phone: (612) 295.2711
Metro: (612) 333.5739
Fax: (612) 295.4404
TO: Rick Wolfsteller, John Simola, Terry Herman, Jon Bogart, Monticello Planning
Commission, Bret Weiss
FROM: Jeff O Neill, Assistant City Administrator
DATE: December 30, 1992
RE: Sketch plan review - Country Oaks residential subdivision
Tuesday, December 19, 1992, City staff, including John Simola, Rick Wolfsteller, and Jeff
O'Neill, met with Jon Bogart and Terry Herman of John Oliver Associates to review the
sketch plan of the Country Oaks subdivision. Following is a summary of the discussion.
The first phase will consist of 64 residential lots. Development will occur via the private
improvement process. The second phase will consist of 17 residential lots. It is likely that
the first phase will occur in its entirety in 1993. The second phase is not likely to be
developed for quite some time and may require that the land south of the development now
located in the township he developed first. Staging development in this manner will provide
the avenue for more economical development of the sewer system serving the second phase.
It is projected that the value of the homes sold in this neighborhood will be between $80,000
to $110,000.
TRAIL PLAN/PARK DEDICATION
City staff acknowledged that the park dedication associated with the Country Oaks area has
been satisfied through the original PUD process. The park area for this area consists of
Meadow Oaks Park and the undeveloped Meadow Oaks Park at Outlet A. There is,
therefore, no requirement that the Country Oak Estates provide additional park land.
However, the subdivision should be designed to allow direct access to pathways and
trailways conceived with the original PUD design. This will allow pedestrian access to the
park land provided. It was determined that the sketch plan should be redrawn to show a
Memo
Country Oaks Subdivision
December 30, 1992
Page 2
walkway connecting the northwest corner of the development to the existing trail system.
This could be accomplished by connecting the Country Oaks trail system to the stubbed road
(Red Oak Lane) which intersects with Meadow Lane, or the trail could be connected to the
trail easement located to the west of Lot 1, Block 4, of the Meadow Oaks 3rd Addition.
It was determined that an effort would be made to extend the walkway that runs along the
eastern boundary of the Meadow Oaks subdivision into the Country Oak Estates subdivision.
This may not be feasible, as it may result in the loss of a residential lot.
Bogart indicated that he would outline the location of a walkway along the interior of the
wetland area. The sketch plan will also show how the 17 lots to the south will be connected
via a walkway to the system leading to the north. The first phase of the development will
consist of 64 residential lots.
WATER/SEWER
Jon Bogart indicated that he would provide more information to City staff regarding the
design of the water system. Jon Bogart indicated that the sanitary sewer system as
designed will provide gravity service to the entire development area. Detailed information
should be provided by Bogart to the City Engineer as soon as possible.
STORM SEWER
It was determined that the storm sewer system will need to be designed to maintain the
existing level of drainage onto the adjoining property. A specific design for this system was
not discussed and will need to be prepared in conjunction with preliminary plat approval.
WETLANDS
It was determined that the developer will be preparing a detailed analysis of the site
characteristics in order to fully define the extent of the wetland. The plan does show a
significant effort to avoid the wotland areas, and it appears that areas of impact can be
mitigated under the interim rules. It was noted by staff that wetland impact areas under
the new rules will require a 2 to 1 replacement ratio.
Bogart acknowledged that he will need to get an Army Corps of Engineer permit prior to
obtaining a grading permit and final plat approval. He noted that obtaining a permit takes
60-90 days; therefore, it is a high priority item. Jon Bogart also indicated that he will check
to see if the wetland falls under the protected wetland status as defined by the Department
of Natural Resources.
0
Memo
Country Oaks Subdivision
December 30, 1992
Page 3
Within the interior of the subdivision is a large wetland area. Much of the wetland is
virtually a meadow. During much of the year, the meadow will remain dry. A question
arose as to who should be responsible for maintaining this area. There is a concern that
residents will use the wetland area for storage. Perhaps it will become a dumping ground
for household items. Perhaps over time the wetland might fill with silt and lose its capacity
to store water, etc. O'Neill indicated that he would contact Paul Weingarden, City Attorney,
regarding establishing a mechanism for maintaining this common area. It was suggested
that perhaps an association could be developed that would be responsible for maintaining
the unique wetland characteristics of this area. In the event that the association is not able
to keep the area free of debris or maintain trail systems in this area, then the City could do
the work and assess the cost back to the association. It was generally concluded that
maintaining this open space should not be the responsibility of the City at large but should
be the responsibility of the properties within the general vicinity that benefit from this open
space.
According to Bogart and Terry Herman, the Country Oaks project will not require completion
of an environmental assessment worksheet, as there are fewer than 100 lots involved with
the subdivision.
WRIGHT COUNTY
Jon Bogart indicated that he will be contacting Dave Montebello of the Wright County
Highway Department to determine if the county road access locations are acceptable to the
county.
ROAD DESIGN
The roadway design calls for a standard 60 -foot right-of-way; however, the width of the roads
on the cul-de-sacs can he reduced to 32 feet wide as measured from curb face to curb face.
The balance of the roads shall be 36 feet wide. It was noted that in almost all cases, all
trees will be lost in areas within the 60 -foot right-of-way, and most trees within front yard
setbacks will be lost. It was noted that there is no alternative to clear cutting trees, as the
roadway position is narrowly defined by the constraints of the wetland, and there is no way
to feasibly meander the road to match contours and/or accommodate tree locations. It was
determined that the trees will be disposed of via a chipping process. A method of disposal
of the chips needs to be determined. Perhaps the chips could be used with walkway
development or landscaping of individual properties.
Bogart indicated that he would also make some minor adjustments to the plan to
accommodate the power line extending through the northern section of the site. Perhaps a
portion of the power line could be shifted to match the now lot lines. Bogart would be
contacting NSP to discuss alternatives.
0
Memo
Country Oaks Subdivision
December 30, 1992
Page 4
As the meeting concluded, it was determined that Bogart would make the changes to the
sketch plan to show the walkways and the potential realignment of the power line.
DEVELOPER AGREEMENT CONSIDERATION
Projects that are completed on a private process require full review of water/sewer/road
systems design by the City Engineer. Prior to review of specific plans, the City will need a
cash deposit or letter of credit assuring payment of City review costs. In addition, prior to
approval of the final plat, the City will need a letter of credit or other financial assurance
that funds are available to complete the project and complete any wetland mitigation
commitments.
The City will be responsible for inspection of the project and preparation of as builts. The
City charge for City inspection is $50/hour. Please contact John Simola and Bret Weiss for
the best estimate of inspection -related expenses.
It is important that the City and developer get together soon to discuss all issues relating
to the development agreement.
GRADING
It was generally concluded that grading would be allowed to commence as long as an
approved grading/wetland mitigation plan is in place and as long as funds sufficient to
complete mitigatioi✓restoration are on deposit with the City.
As a final note, I need to remind everyone that the Parks Commission may need to review
the plan in addition to the Planning Commission. Parks Commission review can occur either
before or after the Planning Commission review. The regular meeting of the Parks
Commission is on the third Wednesday of each month. It probably would make sense to
present the sketch plan or preliminary plat to the Parks Commission at their regular
meeting scheduled for Wednesday, January4Q, at 7 p.m. The Parks Commission
recommendation along with other preliminary plat data would be reviewed by the Planning
Commission at their regular meeting schedule for Tuesday, February 2.
/t