Planning Commission Minutes 06-10-1980
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 10, 1980 - 7:30 P. M.
Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Dick Martie, Ed Schaffer, John Bondhus.
Loren Klein (ex-officio)
Members Absent: Dave Bauer.
1. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Martie and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes of the May 20, 1980 Regular Meeting.
2. Public Hearing - Monticello Sign Ordinance.
Mr. Bob Ryan, of Howard Dahlgren Associates, explained a letter from John
Uban, dated May 29, 1980, regarding sign ordinance amendments allowing
existing billboards to remain as a non-conforming use.
Mr. Ryan explained a possible ordinance amendment which could be added
to our present ordinance in Section 10-3-9 which would deal with permitted
and prohibited signs, and be added as subsections thereto.
Also, a draft copy of an agreement form which could be used between the
City of Monticello and the property and advertising sign owners was
discussed. This form could give the City a stronger legal standing in
the event that a property or sign owner did not want to remove the sign
when the property was developed with another principal use. It was
suggested that the forms be sent to the owners by certified mail with
return receipt signatures kept on file at City Hall. In that way, the
City could have a document that the property owners received the form.
Basically, the discussion was centered around the existing billboard
signs, that is, signs of over 200 square feet, being allowed to remain
as they are in their present condition as the principal use of the property.
It was further discussed that at the time that the property upon which
the signs are located is further developed and another principal use or
building is developed on that property, that at that time the existing
sign would have to be removed. An ordinance amendment which stated the
above could help prevent non-conforming billboards from being perpetuated
indefinitely.
On a motion by John Bondhus, seconded by Dick Martie, all voted in favor
to suggest the following sign ordinance amendment be added to ordinance
Section 10-3-9:
.
.
.
Planning Commission - 6/10/80
10-3-9:
SIGNS
B. Permitted and Prohibited Signs:
2. Prohibited Signs:
(g). Advertising Signs, in excess of 200 sq. ft., except that
those signs which were 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 July 23, 1980, in the form so desig-
nated by the City Administrator which is signed by the
property owner and the advertising sign owner and notarized,
may continue as a non-conforming use until such time as the
lot of record above is developed, in which case, the non-
conforming advertising sign must be removed within 60 days
after written notice from the Building Official. (Excep-
tions - bus benches or signs which advertise non-profit
organizations).
The Planning Commission also voted to recommend that it be considered
that this be recorded as a deed re?triction on those respective parcels
of property, if it is possible to do that.
The Planning Commission decided that at this meeting they would deal only
with billboards or, that is, signs of over 200 sq. ft., and that signs that
do not conform to the present ordinance would be dealt with after gathering
more information at the next regular Planning Commission meeting, and that,
if necessary, they would be willing to hold a special meeting to discuss
further information.
3.
Public Hearing - Proposed Ordinance Amendment to Allow a Day Care Facility
within an R-2 zone as a conditional use.
The present Monticello Zoning Ordinance allows a day care home with up
to five children as a permitted use in an R-l zone, and allows the same
as a permitted use in an R-3 zone, with a day care facility with more
than five children as a conditional use in an R-3 zone. It was a staff
recommendation that the Planning Commission and Council consider amending
the present ordinance to allow a day care facility unit with more than
five children in an R-2 zone as a conditional use, provided that it meets
all the conditional use criteria as are required in an R-3 zone, as is
discussed in Section 10-8-4-B.
If this ordinance amendment were passed, it would then allow the ABC
Day Care Center to reestablish themselves from the Oakwood School to
the Baptist Church Building. At a recent Planning Commission meeting,
it was recommended to the City Council that the ABC Day Care Center be
allowedto move their facility into the old Baptist Church building, which
is zoned R-2, and that request was approved by the City Council as it was
recommended to them.
- 2 -
.
.
.
Planning Commission - 6/10/80
Hearing no objections. on a motion by Dick Martie and seconded by Ed
Schaffer, all voted in favor to recommend a zoning ordinance amendment
to allow a Day Care Center with more than five children as a conditional
use in an R-2 zone.
4.
Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment to Allow Duplexes in an R-2 Zone
to be Owned by Two Separate Individuals.
Upon a staff request. John Uban of Howard Dahlgren Associates, wrote a
memorandum to Gary Wieber. which outlined how our Planner feels that
the present ordinance could be interpreted to allow a duplex in an R-2
Zone which could be owned by two individual owners.
Mr. Uban stated in his letter "we feel that the zoning ordinance as
written should allow the City to approve the division of lots containing
multiple unit structures, in order that the individual housing units could
be sold. The total structure containing the units would then be subject
to the zoning ordinance requirements. In effect then, the units would be
built to and meet at one or more lot lines without the typical setbacks."
Mr. Uban went on to state that if the City desires to more clearly address
the issue of dividing lots of multiple unit buildings, that possibly the
City should consider a suggested new language be added into a new provision
Subsection E to Section 10-3-3.
On a motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded by John Bondhus, all voted in favor
to recommend a new subsection E, which states the following:
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 individual or joint
ownership.
5. Public Hearing - Subdivision, Rezoning and Conditional Use Requests -
Quintin Lanners.
At the beginning of the meeting, Mr. Quintin Lanners withdrew his request
for a conditional use so this item dealt only with subdivision and rezoning.
- 3 -
.
.
.
Planning Commission - 6/10/80
This public hearing item dealt with two topics - Item A - a subdivision
request; and Item B - rezoning requests.
Mr. Quintin Lanners is proposing to subdivide the present Don Christopher
property, located directly west of Balboul Estates, into nine lots. Of
these nine lots, his request is to rezone Lot 1 to R-3 and Lots 2 thru 9
to R-2. His request for rezoning lots 2 thru 9 would be based on his
desire to build duplexes on each of the lots which would be individually
owned by the people who reside within the unit, rather than to have them
owned by one owner and have rental units. These duplex units would be
the same as those which were recommended for approval at the last Planning
Commission meeting for another lot owned by Mr. Lanners in another area of
Monticello, and also would be done at the recommendation of our City Planner.
The square footage of Lots 2 thru 9 range in size from 10,175 square feet,
which meets the minimum lot size required in an R-2 zone, to 29,100 square
feet, which is approximately three times the size of the minimum lot size
allowed in an R-2 zone.
At the time of the meeting, a comment back from Howard Dahlgren Associates
was to recommend this subdivision and rezoning request because of the
reasonable transition.
Mr. John Badalich, of OSM, at the time of the meeting had not submitted
a comment, however, his comments should be forthcoming before the next
City Council meeting.
On a motion by Ed Schaffer and a second by John Bondhus, it was unanimously
approved to recommend approval of the subdivision request and to recommend
approval of the rezoning requests, as requested.
6.
Review of the Home Occupations Ordinance.
At a previous Planning Commission Meeting, the Planning Commission dis-
cussed the possibility of changing the definition of a home occupation
to include more items, and also to make all home occupations conditional
uses rather than some be conditional uses and others be permitted uses.
On a motion by Dick Martie and second by John Bondhus, all voted in favor
to advertise for a public hearing at which it would be discussed to change
the home occupations ordinance to include all the uses as conditional uses.
7.
Discussion of Lawful, Non-Confoming Uses within Certain Zoning Districts.
Recently, there have been several complaints come in to City Hall about
people who were grandfathered in with their businesses at the time the
zoning was made to the entire City. One of those items which is receiving
a lot of attention at this time is trucking firms who have parking spaces
at their residences. Apparently, those people who own trucks which are
larger than allowed in residential zones are parking those vehicles in the
residential zones and it is causing concern to the surrounding and abutting
neighbors. After considerable discussion among the Planning Commission
- 4 -
.
.
.
Planning Commission - 6/10/80
members, it was unanimously decided to recommend better law enforcement
in those areas.
8.
Discussion of a Letter from the Department of Interior on the Monticello
Island.
Approximately four years ago, Howard Dahlgren Associates sent a letter
to the Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, regarding a
question about the use of Monticello Island, which is located just below
the Highway 25 Bridge. At this time, the Bureau of Land Management is
in the process of determining land use planning, and would like to know
if the City has any plans for using the island. At one time it was
discussed that possibly a small bridge could be built from Bridge Park
to the island, and it could be used as a park annex, or a wilderness
addition to the existing bridge park.
On a motion by Ed Schaffer and seconded by Dick Martie, a unanimous
decision was voted to recommend no development of the island - to leave
it as it is.
9.
A Variance Request for a Business Development to Not Have Landscaping and
Parking Requirements Met.
Bob Peterson, of Scott's, Inc. of Grand Forks, N.D., was present to make
a request that he be able to continue to operate his brokerage firm from
behind the Monticello Ford building, yet still on the Monticello Ford
property, with a few variances that would be necessary. They are as
follows:
A. A second principal use on a particular lot.
B. No landscaping requirements.
C. No hardsurfacin9 requirements.
His request was based on the operation of his business only being from
July 28 through October 20; however, those dates can vary from 10 days
either way. At the present time, they feel they cannot justify a per-
manent building of their own because of the limited time spent in
Monticello during that short shipping season.
They feel that the facility they now have is able to handle their needs,
which are:
A. Easy access on and off the highway.
B. Room for one to eight semi trucks at anyone time, which stay from
15 minutes to one hour, or possibly longer.
- 5 -
.
.
.
Planning Commission - 6/10/80
In Mr. Peterson's request, he is asking that they be allowed a permanent
variance from those three items which were listed.
On a motion by Dick Martie and seconded by Ed Schaffer, it was unanimously
approved to recommend that the three variance requests from Scott's be
granted on a one year basis with notation be made that they be able to
come in at the end of each one year period and request renewal of those
variances.
10. A Variance Request for a Setback for a Pylon Sign - Jim Maus.
Jim Maus was present at the Planning Commission meeting and requested
that he be allowed to put a new pylon sign on the present Stor-A-Way
property and be allowed to erect that sign as close as possible to the
property line. Monticello's present ordinance requires that Pylon signs
use the same setbacks as a building unless they are granted a variance
to do so. In the past, all pylon sign setback requests have been
granted as requested, and that in mind, on a motion by Ed Schaffer
and second by John Bondhus, it was a unanimous vote to recommend
granting a variance to allow the pylon sign to be erected as close
as possible to the property line on the east side of the Stor-A-Way
property without any overhang into the right-of-way.
LDK/ns
- 6 -