Planning Commission Agenda 12-07-1999
t
1.
2.
-.
-, .
4.
5.
.
6.
,
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, December 7,1999
Members:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
Council Liaison:
Clint Herbst
S tafT:
JefTO'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer
Call to order.
Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held November 2, 1999.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Citizens comments.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an amendment to a Planned
Unit Development within the B-3 Zoning District to allow for an ofT-site auto
sales/storage lot. Applicant: Dave Peterson's Monticello Ford.
Public IIcaring - Requesting a special home occupation permit that requires equipment
other than customarily found in the home. Applicant: Wayne Weber dba N & W
Assembly.
7. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a preliminary plat approval for Klein Farms
6th Addition. Applicant: Dave Klein
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Comprehensive Plan amendment for land west of the
Kjellberg West Mobile Home Park. Applicant: City of Monticello.
9. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request [or an amendment to the R-l and R-2 side
yard setbacks to permit a six foot setback on the garage side. Applicant: Harold Shermer.
10. Consideration of a request for an amended plat for Parkside to allow the elimination of a
pathway in the side yard. Applicant: Harold Shermer.
11. Consideration of OAT comments regarding the proposed amendment to the Sign
Ordinance allowing electronic reader boards.
12.
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to
allow for a deferral of parking lot paving and/or curb requirements in the Business
Districts. Applicant: City of Monticello. (Continued discussion from previous meeting,
no additional report provided).
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, November 2, 1999
Members Present:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten
and Council Liaison Clint Herbst
Staff Present:
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer
1. Call to order: Chair Frie called the meeting to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held October 5. 1999.
ROY POPILEK MOVED TO APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER
5, 1999 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. RICHARD
CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried.
3.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Chair Frie noted the past cooperation from the School District with the City in regard to
sharing and scheduling of ball fields and tennis courts. No further discussion necessary.
Fred Patch, Building Official, requested to add a discussion regarding sideyard setbacks
for garages in the Parkside at Meadow Oaks development (Harold Schermer). This was
added as item 11 on the agenda.
4. Citizens comments: None
5. Consideration of a request for an amendment to a Planned Unit Development within the
B-3 Zoning District to allow for an off-site auto sales/storage lot. Applicant: Dave
Peterson's Monticello Ford.
The applicant is requesting an amendment to their PUD approval granted earlier this year
for the purpose of expanding the area of the PUD creating an additional area of on about
2.2 acres of land west of Sandberg Road which would be utilized for the storage of
automobile inventory, including an enclosed secure storage lot. The applicant is also
requesting an amendment to the approved sign package which would allow a larger
electronic sign, based on comments from the sign installer. The expansion site would
allow for the storage of more than 150 additional cars, plus a secured storage area for
approximately 80 vehicles.
Steve Grittman noted this would be allowed in the district, subject to the improvements
applied to similar uses, such as paving, curbing, and landscaping. The submitted plan
meets required setbacks and screening requirements for commercial areas, but does not
illustrate the landscaping or specify the curbing and paving proposed. A written proposal
describing a commitment to meeting landscaping and screening requirements was
submitted prior to the meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/02/99
The applicant is also requesting a larger electronic sign than the one previously approved
by the City noting the sign contractor stated that the approved sign would not allow for
certain longer messages without flashing. The approved sign was 2 feet high by 12 feet,
8 inches long. The proposed sign would be 5 feet, 1 inch by 18 feet long, an increase
from about 26 square feet to more than 90 square feet. The proposed change would allow
for a longer message on two lines, instead of just one line as currently approved. Steve
Johnson, Monticello Ford, provided yet another proposed sign of 63 sq. ft. on the face
with 2 lines of 12" matrix which is smaller but would be adequate. He requested to work
with staff to come to an agreement on the sign as soon as possible.
.
Because of the multiple uses on this site, and the intensity of the improvement, the City
previously approved a PUD which allowed for more than the allowed signage. This
request would increase the size even more. The proposed amendment allowing electronic
message board signs states that the allowable signage is not to be increased by the use of
such signs, but that the electronic sign is to comprise a portion of the currently allowed
sIgn area.
Mr. Grittman stated that staff does not recommend approval of the increased signage.
This site has been permitted, under the previous approval, a significant increase in
allowable sign number and area. The proposed Ordinance to allow electronic message
board signs states that such signs are not to increase the allowable sign area. Although .
the applicant's new sign contractor states that the revised sign would be convenient from
the standpoint of allowing more flexibility in the messages it transmits, it does not appear
to be necessary to provide effective communication.
With regard to the sales lot expansion, staff believes that this expansion of the PUD is
appropriate in general. However, there has been very little detail submitted in support of
the proposal with regard to site improvements, screening size or materials, or
landscaping. Jeff O'Neill provided a picture showing setbacks in regard to the daycare
center located next to the proposed storage lot noting there have been no plans submitted
showing a buffer to the daycare. It is staffs intent to work with dealership regarding this
Issue.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Melody Peterson, co-owner of the Playhouse
Daycare and owner of building, was present to state the concerns of the parents as well as
the daycare as a business owner. They feel they are being completely encircled by car
lots and they feel they are not being visible. Chair Frie advised Ms. Peterson to speak
with Steve Johnson concerning landscaping and buffers. Steve Johnson advised the
members that they are only trying to keep them informed of their future plans and he does
realize that this is very preliminary and would have the appropriate information available
for the Planning Commission meeting in December. Chair Frie closed public hearing.
The consensus of the members was to table any action for further information. At that
time they would address items such as lighting and screening.
.
2
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes. 11/02/99
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE PUD AMENDMENT,
SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. RICHARD CARLSON
SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried.
There was further discussion by Steve Johnson on the need to proceed with the proposed
sign. The size of the proposed sign has changed since the Planning Commission's
previous approval. Robbie Smith requested a copy of the previous minutes relating to the
previous approval of the sign.
CHAIR FRIE MOVED FOR A SPECIAL MEETING TO BE HELD PRIOR TO
THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 22, 1999. RICHARD
CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
CHAIR FRIE MOVED TO AMEND, TABLE AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING TO 5:00 PM ON NOVEMBER 22, 1999. RICHARD CARLSON
SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried.
6.
Consideration of a request for a Preliminary Plat for Klein Farms 6th Addition within the
Monticello Orderly Annexation Area. Applicant: Frank Klein and Dave Klein.
The applicant has submitted an application for preliminary plat for approximately forty
acres south of Klein Farms 4th Addition to consist of 51 single family lots. The
Monticello Orderly Annexation Area Board reviewed the proposal at its October meeting
and made the required findings of contiguity with existing City boundaries, and
consistency with the MOAA land use plan. Both the MOAA and City of Monticello land
use plans call for low density residential development on this property. The applicant has
requested an R-l, Single Family Residential zoning designation. A small wetland has
been delineated in the southeast portion of the property. This wetland is proposed to
remain untouched.
Park issues, pathways, street construction and pedestrian access were also discussed.
The Parks Commission reviewed this plat and recommended approval of the park and
pathway systems. One of their specific recommendations is to include a pathway that
follows the UP A easement. A concept plan for the street extension would be important in
helping to determine the standards for this street. There were also issues with regard to
the lot layout in the northwest comer of the plat and the impacts that the easements will
have on the future development of the neighboring property to the west. Also relating to
layout is the gap between the Amoco easement and the NSP easement.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Tim McDougall, 4774 Diamond Dr., (northwest
comer of Klein Farms 4th Addn) stated his concern with street layout and types of homes
that would be built, as well as the proposed pathways. It was relayed to Mr. McDougall
that the City is preserving this area for future use. Dave Klein, applicant, was also
present to answer any questions. Jeff O'Neill clarified condition #6 stating the grading
3
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/02/99
plan would accommodate the pathway which would be outside of the ROW; the ROW is .
being expanded. Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
There was further discussion regarding a revised preliminary plat which Mr. Klein stated
he would have available prior to the next meeting. It was also stated that preparation of a
finance plan funding lateral and trunk improvements will need to be discussed prior to the
next meeting.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
REZONING TO R-l, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE ZONING
DESIGNATION WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY'S LAND USE PLAN
FOR THE AREA. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried.
Decision 2: Preliminary Plat jor Klein Farms 6th Addition
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE PRELIMINARY
PLAT UNTIL THE DECEMBER 7,1999 MEETING, SUBJECT TO
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE
MOTION. Motion carried.
7.
Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a deferral of
parking lot paving and/or curb requirements in the Business Districts. Applicant: City of
Monticello.
.
Steve Grittman provided an updated draft ordinance noting the current zoning regulations
allow for such a deferral for industrial uses in the industrial districts. A separate text
amendment would be necessary to accommodate these requests in commercially zoned
areas.
The draft ordinance has been written to include both the PZM and A-a Districts as
potential applications. The Planning Commission's interest was in allowing flexibility
for both the Golf Course expansion and those commercial uses which have converted
former residential buildings along Broadway. The new draft would apply the same
standards to these areas as for other applicable sites. The primary concern with this issue
is one of enforcement.
Chair Frie opened public hearing and upon hearing no response, Chair Frie closed the
public hearing. There was discussion among the commissioners stating enforcement
would be very difficult, possibly seeking financial surety in the form of a bond or a letter
of credit would be necessary, or the business should have proof of parking rather than the
City changing the ordinance. It was the consensus of the members to seek more
information regarding financial surety and enforcement options.
.
4
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/02/99
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE AMENDMENT,
SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. ROY POPILEK SECONDED
THE MOTION. Dick Frie opposed. Motion carried 4 to 1.
8.
Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance relatin~ to signs to
allow electronic message board signs. Applicant: City of Monticello.
Steve Grittman provided a draft ordinance which would permit signs in the B-3 and B-4
commercial districts only, on the theory that they do not belong in areas near residential
neighborhoods (as would be the case in the B-1, B-2, or PZM districts), nor would they
appear to meet the intent of the Design Guidelines for the CCD. He asked the Planning
Commission to discuss whether the CCD is an appropriate district. As noted, governmental
signs in the residential districts are allowed under a separate section. Steve also provided a
list of regulations for these signs.
The proposed amendment addressed the use of electronic message board signs in commercial
districts, and should not affect the previous amendment. This clause does not impact what
has already been approved, it would be an addition to that. Chair Frie stated that any
expansion of allowable districts would have to come back to the Planning Commission. It
was discussed whether these signs should be allowed in the CCD along the Highway 25
corridor which would include only those properties abutting Highway 25.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
AMENDMENT TO ADD ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD SIGNS AS
PERMITTED SIGN TYPES IN THE B-3 AND B-4 DISTRICTS, AS WELL AS THE
CORRIDOR OF THE HIGHWAY 25 CCD WHICH INCLUDES ONLY THOSE
PARCELS ABUTTING HIGHWAY 25, WITH THE REGULATIONS AS
PROPOSED, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE REGULATIONS WILL AVOID
PROBLEMS OF NUISANCE OR TRAFFIC HAZARD. RICHARD CARLSON
SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried.
9.
Discussion regardim! a comp plan amendment to the OAA area affecting the Kiellberg West
Trailer Park.
Steve Grittman discussed the issue of a possible amendment to the City's comp plan
addressing the land use plan regarding the Kjellberg West Trailer Park area. It was
questioned whether this issue should first come before the MOAA board or the City. Options
discussed were to take the Kjellberg West area out of the expansion area in the comp plan or
keep it at "mid density", but specifically defining this area as townhomes/twin homes only.
There were legal concerns of the members regarding the City changing the land use plan, but
it was stated that the City has the right to change this area to fit the comp plan. It was stated
by the members the need to address the land use issue in this area and to do so prior to any
further development proposals.
5
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/02/99
ROY POPILEK MOVED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE .
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AFFECTING THE OAA AREA AND KJELLBERG
PARK. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried.
10. Discuss updates to the Subdivision Ordinance.
Jeff O'Neill briefly discussed the ordinance requirement on simple subdivision regarding the
applicants requirement to provide a survey at time of application. At this time, the City does
not require the certificate of survey until after the decision of the planning commission to
avoid any unnecessary expense of the survey if the application is not approved. We do
require however, a certified survey prior to its recording for proper documentation. Jeff also
discussed the requirement for the completing of plats within one year as the City's code states
it would lapse if not completed within this time period. This item will be on the December
agenda. Jeff did state that technically this does not have to go before the Planning
Commission, it can be taken directly to City Council even though it is a subdivision
ordinance. The Planning Commission indicated an interest in reviewing the proposed
subdivision ordinance. No action was necessary at this time.
11. Discussion regarding sidevard setbacks for garages in the Parkside at Meadow Oaks
Development. (Harold Schermer).
Fred Patch briefly informed the members of Mr. Harold Schermer's request to reduce .
building setbacks to 5'. Fred reminded the members that a previous request for this a
reduction in setback requirements had failed. Mr. Schermer addressed the members stating
that the setback requirements in the City were mistakenly overlooked when he initially signed
the contract, and that the pathway standards had also changed since that time (1997) and this
has also affected his development. Jeff O'Neill noted that the pathways had changed and that
the City was reimbursing Mr. Schermer for the additional costs. Mr. Schermer also noted
that other changes had occurred since his plans were approved and that he would be meeting
with Jeff 0 'Neill the next day regarding these matters.
The consensus of the Planning Commission was to not recommend an amendment to the
City's Ordinance regarding a reduction in setback requirements.
12. Adiourn
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:00 P.M.
RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried.
Lori Kraemer, Recording Secretary
.
6
.
.
,
Planning Commission Agenda - 12107/99
5.
Consideration of a reQuest for an amendment to a PUD within the B3 zonin!! district to
allow for an off-site auto sales/storaee lot. Applicant: Dave Peterson's Monticello Ford
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission acted to table
action on approval of the proposed amendment pending presentation of additional site data and
also pending additional inf()rmation regarding proposed changes to the sign system. Subsequent
to the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has been able to obtain additional information
regarding the sign system, however the data relating to the balance of the amendment has not
been provided, therefore Planning Commission is asked at this time to consider an amendment
to the PUD that applies only to the sign system.
As you recall at the previous meeting, the applicant requested that the sign area for the reader
board be increased from 26 sq. ft. to 70 sq. ft. The applicant made this request based on new
information that he obtained regarding electronic reader boards that essentially indicated that the
sign area needed to be larger in order to have the desired effect. The Planning Commission tabled
this item pending additional information regarding sign size and requested stafno research this
item further. Following is additional information on the topic as part of our research and
discussions with the applicant, it was found that the sign as proposed, according to the sign
company, has a viewing range of approximately 600 ft. which is approximately equal to the front
footage of the Peterson Ford parcel. Therefore, the sign will not be readily readable by motorists
until they travel to the Peterson property, thus the sign will not overwhelm the other signs in the
vicinity.
In our discussions with the applicant we have found that he is willing to reduce the total sign area
of the entire sign system in an amount equal to or greater than the added sign area requested with
the reader board. Therefore, approving the amendment to the CUP relating to increasing the sign
of reader board will not result in an increase of the total sign area proposed. On a re lated point,
the sign ordinance that the Planning Commission recently approved allows installation of reader
boards up to 100 sq. ft. However, it should be noted that the 100 sq. ft. electronic reader board
square footage would need to be drawn from the overall sign area proposed. Similarly, with
regard to the Peterson Ford reader board, approximately 44 sq. feet has been removed from the
system sign area already approved by the Planning Commission. Thus, if the Planning
Commission felt comfortablethatthe total sign area approved previously represents the base level
allowable under code for the site, then it should follow that if the applicant wishes to shift some
of his sign area to the reader board and away from other signs, he should be allowed to do so.
For additional perspective with regard to this sign, the 38 x 20 cabinet will have two lines 12" tall.
The size of this sign is 1/3 of the size of the sign of the Miller Auto Sign in Rogers and the Miller
Auto sign in St. Cloud. In addition, the sign proposed for Dave Peterson Ford is equal to a bank
sign located on 371 in Brainerd, unfortunately I was unable to visit this site to take a look at this
sign. Steve Johnson indicated that he will be providing pictures of a reader board similar to the
reader board proposed.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/07/99
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to approve an amendment to the sign system portion of the PUD. Amendment
approved calls for expanding the reader board area from 26 square feet to 70 square feet,
along with a reduction in other sign area square footage by 44 square feet.
Motion based on the finding that the amendment to the sign portion of the CUP is
justified based on consistency with the comprehensive plan. The amendment proposed
will not result in a sign system that will undermine the intent of regulations governing
signage in the Highway 25 corridor. All other requirements ofthe PUD approval granted
in May 1999 must be met.
2. Motion to deny approval of amendment to the sign system portion of the PlJD.
Motion based on the finding that the sign system as proposed is not consistent with the
intent of the sign regulations in the area and thus inconsistent with the comprehensive
plan and should theref()re be denied.
.
The Planning Commission could take the view that the exchange of wall or pylon sign
area for additional reader board is not a fair one-to-one exchange because the intensity of
signage on a wall sign is less than the intensity of a reader board.
c.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of City Staffthat the sign system amendment be approved. The
main reason supporting this approval is the fact that proposed ordinance amendment
previously adopted by the Planning Commission would allow this type of sign on
Highway 25. If the Planning Commission feels that the sign as proposed at 70 sq. ft. is
in excess of what is desirable along Highway 25, then we should go back and consider
adjusting the current recommendation to the City Council on electronic reader board
development in the B-3 district and take a look at our code to see if perhaps the
amendment should be changed.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Copy of the graphics showing dimensions of the proposed sign next to
dimension of the Miller Auto sign in Rogers in St. Cloud.
Exhibit B - Information from sign company regarding viewing ranges tor a line featuring
12" lettering.
,
"'--
.
Y3
/MI/~ '8""
i3 f to. ; ^ (, .z-..I
v\;.
OJ IJ..J2 'S
.f
. C/0v
if
.
--....:.,;...
~f)
04
~~D~I~'^4
38" X 20' cabinet with 2 lines of 12" tall characters,
.... .. .::. . :: ..... .:... .... ::...
...... .. .. .. .. ..
... ... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. ... .. .. ...... .... ... .. .. ....
.. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ..
... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
... ..... .... .. . ..... .... .... ..
...
...
... .... .... . . . . .... ...... ..... .... . .
.. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ....
:I ... ...... ....... ...... .. ..... M ..
.. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .... .. ....
........ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. M .. ..
........ .... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... . .
7'3" X 28' cabinet with 2 lines of 36/1 tall characters
&Vi/ "~-". ..... BOX 851 SAJ.E\I.IA~':
,'-~" 'ChIC'MI:~~~~2 FilE: JOHNDEZl
. ..... ,$/4'N.{'QRP 132~1252,9400 MONTFORC<
'5 A:
Viewing Ranges
@ 55 mph
t5" 750 feet 9 see
16" 800..feet 9 see
t8" 900 fe~t 21 see 1 0 see
21" 1050 feet 24 see 12 see
24" 1200 feet 14 see
30" 1500 feet 17 see
36" 1800 feet 21 see
Sign Cabinetry
.. ':',..\'
.,
"DOUBLE FACE
TWINPAK
Double face cabinets are furnished in
three popular configurations:
(1) double face in one box to mount
between poles; (2) double face in one
box with weld plates for sliding over a
center pole and welding in place; and
(3) double face twinpaks for mounting
at right angles at comers of buildings
or mounting back to back with a pole
in between. Louvers apply only to
light bulb signs.
50
.
.
t
-
FILE COPY
q 1-0 ! 2-~
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, MAY 4,1999
Members:
Rod Dragsten, Dick Frie, Roy Popilek and Robbie Smith
Staff:
Steve Grittman, Jeff O'Neill and Fred Patch
Absent:
Richard Carlson and Council Liaison Clint Herbst
1. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and declared a quorum present.
2. Consideration of al?proval of the minutes of the April 6. 1999 regular meeting and the
April 26. 1999 special meeting.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 6, 1999
REGULAR MEETING. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 26, 1999
SPECIAL MEETING. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
..,
J.
Consideration of addin!?: items to the agenda.
No items were added to the agenda.
4. Citizen Comment.
There was no one present under citizen comment.
5.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Unit Development within the B-3 Zoning district and a Preliminarv Plat to allow outdoor
vehicle sales and associated automotive service uses and variances to the Citv's Sign
Ordinance. Applicant: Monticello Ford.
Steve Grittman presented the staff report on this item. The property is located at the
southwest quadrant ofT.H. 25 and 1-94 and is affected by a project that would eliminate
their property access from Oakwood Drive. The site currently contains a Ford dealership
and it is proposed to add other services such as car rental, quick lube service and repair
services. A conditional use permit is required for any Planned Unit Development and
because the applicant is combining a number of pieces of land into one parcel a plat is
required. The applicant is also requesting variances to the City's sign ordinance. Steve
-1-
5v
\
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/99 .
.
Grittman reviewed the variances requested noting that the variances were significantly
over what the ordinance allows.
· "",N umber of signs - The sign ordinance allows one free standing sign. The
applicant is proposing four pylon signs in addition to building and entrance signs.
Sign area - The square footage of the signs proposed by the applicant is 600
square feet while the ordinance allows 300 square feet of area.
Setback - The applicant shows the setbacks at 5 and 7 feet while the ordinance
requires 15 feet.
Prohibited sign - One of the signs the applicant is proposing is an electronic
message board. The City ordinance does not allow electronic message boards in
any zoning district.
.
.
The staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit for the Planned Unit
Development and of the preliminary plat. However, the staff did not recommend
approval of the variances to the sign ordinance. Steve Grittman suggested that if the
Planning Commission felt the sign plan should be approved it may be prudent to look at
doing it as an amendment to the ordinance. In granting a variance the Planning
Commission must find that requirements of the ordinance denied the property owner
reasonable use of the property or created a physical hardship.
Robbie Smith asked about the landscaping requirements for the proposal. Steve Grittman
explained how the number of trees and plantings were determined.
.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Dave Peterson, 13 12 Prairie Creek Lane, stated
that the number of signs requested is not excessive considering the amount of land area of
the parcel. If the property was not being combined into one parcel but remained
individual parcels each parcel would be entitled to one free standing sign. He felt the
number of uses proposed for the site justified the number of signs that were being
requested. Mr. Peterson also stated that plans to change T.H. 25 impacted his business as
the state would not grant a right-in offT.H. 25 and added that signage is critical to his
business. In this case since the business cannot be seen from the freeway, the signage is
very important, especially the electronic message board. Mr. Peterson noted that
currently the business has two free standing signs.
In response to the landscaping concerns, Mr. Peterson stated that a portion of the area is a
display lot and not a parking lot. He believes it is better not to haVe a lot of trees or
plantings in the display area. Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
Robbie Smith noted that the request for additional signs was, in part, because of the
ch~ge in access and asked if the applicant could meet the 15' setback requirements. The t
applicant stated he could comply with that requirement. The Planning Commission
-2-
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/99
.
Grittman reviewed the variances requested noting that the variances were significantly
over what the ordinance allows.
· N umber of signs - The sign ordinance allows one free standing sign. The
applicant is proposing four pylon signs in addition to building and entrance signs.
Sign area - The square footage of the signs proposed by the applicant is 600
square feet while the ordinance allows 300 square feet of area.
Setback - The applicant shows the setbacks at 5 and 7 feet while the ordinance
requires 15 teet.
Prohibited sign - One of the signs the applicant is proposing is an electronic
message board. The City ordinance does not allow electronic message boards in
any zoning district.
.
.
The staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit for the Planned Unit
Development and of the preliminary plat. However, the staff did not recommend
approval of the variances to the sign ordinance. Steve Grittman suggested that if the
Planning Commission felt the sign plan should be approved it may be prudent to look at
doing it as an amendment to the ordinance. In granting a variance the Planning
Commission must find that requirements of the ordinance denied the property owner
reasonable use of the property or created a physical hardship.
.
Robbie Smith asked about the landscaping requirements for the proposal. Steve Grittman
explained how the number of trees and plantings were determined.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Dave Peterson, 13 12 Prairie Creek Lane, stated
that the number of signs requested is not excessive considering the amount of land area of
the parcel. If the property was not being combined into one parcel but remained
individual parcels each parcel would be entitled to one free standing sign. He felt the
number of uses proposed for the sit,e justified the number of signs that were being
requested. Mr. Peterson also stated that plans to change T.H. 25 impacted his business as
the state would not grant a right-in offT.H. 25 and added that signage is critical to his
business. In this case since the business cannot be seen from the freeway, the signage is
very important, especially the electronic message board. Mr. Peterson noted that
currently the business has two free standing signs.
In response to the landscaping c,oncems, Mr. Peterson stated that a portion of the area is a
display lot and not a parking lot. He believes it is better not to have a lot of trees or
plantings in the display area. Chair Frie closed the public hearing.
.
Robbie Smith noted that the request for additional signs was, in part, because of the
change in access and asked if the applicant could meet the 15' setback requirements. The
applicant stated he could comply with that requirement. The Planning Commission
-
-2-
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/99
reviewed the proposal for compliance with parking requirements and pointed out that the
parking lot area would need to be paved and curbed.
The Planning Commission discussed the variances from the sign ordinance. Previously
the Planning commission had discussed whether electronic message boards should be
allowed and how they should be handled within the ordinance. The staff indicated that
the sign ordinance needs some extensive work and they were not at a point to propose any
amendment to the sign ordinance dealing with electronic signs. The applicant
commented that combining the parcels into one severely restricted the amount of signage
he could have for the business. He felt the way the sign ordinance was written was
discriminatory towards large land parcels. Chair Frie responded that the City is required
to apply the ordinance equally against all the parcels in the same zoning district.!.E:obbie
Smith commented that the electronic message board could flash multiple messages and
thus reduce the number of signs needed. Dave Peterson concurred that this approach had
merit and the Planning Commission discussed reasonable restrictions that could be placed
on the use of an electronic message board. These included: I) That it not be a flashing
sign; 2) A time limit be placed on how often the message could change; and 3) That it not
be a motion sign. Steve.Jjrittman added that any amendment to the sign ordinance would
require a public hearinv
.
ROY POPILEK MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL
USE PERMITS FOR A PUD AND FOR OUTDOOR SALES BASED ON A FINDING
THAT THE SITE PLAN MEETS THE INTENT OF THE ZONING DISTRICT AND
ALL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OF THE ORDINANCE ARE COMPLIED
WITH. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
ROY POPILEK AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE APPROVAL OF THE
PLANS BY THE CITY ENGINEER. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE
AMENDED MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY
PLAT BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE B-3 ZONING DISTRICT. ROY
POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
DICK FRIE MOVED TO APPROVE A MODIFIED SIGN PLAN AND VARIANCES
BASED ON THE FINDINGS MADE AT THE HEARING INCLUDING
UNIQUENESS OF THE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS AND THE IMPACT OF THE
ROAD PROJECT ON THE BUSINESS OPERATION.
.
In further discussion Dick Frie explained that rather than use the amendment approach,
'.. ,
...,
-:J-
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/99 .
the variance route would provide a quicker result for the applicant. He noted that the
Planning Commission could approve the request based on an anticipated amendment to
the ordinance but there is the possibility that an ordinance amendment might fail to pass.
The sign plan proposed for approval would include the two existing signs which are
grand fathered in and the use of one electronic message board for a total of three signs.
Dick Frie stated that the restrictions on the property access was the basis for the finding to
grant a variance. Since there was no second to the motion, Dick Frie rescinded his
motion. There was additional discussion on the signage for the building and the free
standing signs.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE SIGN VARIANCES AND A
MODIFIED SIGN PLAN WHICH INCLUDES BUILDING SIGNS AS PROPOSED,
TWO PYLON SIGNS AND ONE ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD BASED ON
THE FINDINGS MADE AT THE HEARING INCLUDING THE SIZE OF
THE PROPERTY RELATIVE TO THE NUMBER OF SIGNS AND THE
NUMBER OF DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND
THE IMPACT OF THE ROAD PROJECT ON T;1:E BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS FOR THE USE OF THE
ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD: I) MESSAGE DISPLAYED FOR A LIMITED
DURATION; 2) NO FLASHING SIGN A~D 3) NO MOTION IN THE ELECTRONIC .
SIGN 4) THREE SECOND PAUSE BETWEEN MESSAGES REQUIRED. LED
DISPLA Y REQUIRED. DICK FRIE S,ECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Rod Dragsten suggested that the,€;'ity staff look a revising the sign ordinance.
,
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/99
the variance route would provide a quicker result for the applicant. He noted that the
Planning Commission could approve the request based on an anticipated amendment to
the ordinance but there is the possibility that an ordinance amendment might fail to pass.
The sign plan proposed for approval would include the two existing signs which are
grand fathered in and the use of one electronic message board for a total of three signs.
Dick Frie stated that the restrictions on the property access was the basis for the finding to
grant a variance. Since there was no second to the motion, Dick Frie rescinded his
motion. There was additional discussion on the signage for the building and the free
standing signs.
.
ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE SIGN VARIANCES AND A
MODIFIED SIGN PLAN WHICH INCLUDES BUILDING SIGNS AS PROPOSED,
TWO PYLON SIGNS AND ONE ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD BASED ON
THE FINDINGS MADE AT THE HEARING INCLUDING THE SIZE OF
THE PROPERTY RELATIVE TO THE NUMBER OF SIGNS AND THE
NUMBER OF DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT BUSINESS OPERA nONS AND
THE IMPACT OF THE ROAD PROJECT ON THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS FOR THE USE OF THE
ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD: I) MESSAGE DISPLA YED FOR A LIMITED
DURATION; 2) NO FLASHING SIGN AND 3) NO MOTION IN THE ELECTRONIC
SIGN 4) THREE SECOND PAUSE BETWEEN MESSAGES REQUIRED. LED
DISPLA Y REQUIRED. DICK FRIE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
Rod Dragsten suggested that the City staff look a revising the sign ordinance.
.'
.
-
......
.
-
.
'-
.
.
.
"'"',.
-
~"iJ
.
.
,
Planning Commission Agenda -12/07/99
6.
Consideration of a request for a Special Home Occupation Permit within the R-l
Zoninl! District. Applicant: Wayne Weber. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Wayne Weber has requested the approval of a home occupation permit to operate a
business from his property at 1210 W. River Street. The business involves the receipt of
industrial parts which are then repackaged for distribution to other business locations. Mr.
Weber utilizes a 1,200 square foot detached garage for the storage of materials for his
business, and a forklift to unload delivered materials. These aspects of the business require
that the applicant request a Special Home Occupation Permit, which is a license to operate
an accessory commcrcial usc on the applicant's residential property.
Most of the essential aspects of the Ilome Occupation ordinance, Section 3-11 of the Zoning
Ordinance, would appear to be met (attached as Exhibit A to this report). StafT is unaware
of any neighborhood complaints regarding the operation. The need for the permit became
apparent when the applicant was requesting a building permit which would have allowed an
expansion of the attached garage. The garage was already largerthan allowed by ordinance
(over 1,000 square feet) so expanding the garage is not possible. There is some concern
that vehicles might be used in place of an expanded garage for storage space. The one issue
raised by the ordinance would be the issue of exterior storage. Section 3-11 [D] I.e.
prohibits the exterior storage of equipment or materials with the exception of personal
automobiles. In the past few weeks it has been observed that the applicant has utilized the
driveway for the parking of commercial vehicles (one large truck and one small truck), a
violation of the section cited above. This aspect is a requirement of all Home Occupation
Permits, and should be addressed by the applicant as a part of the issuance of this permit.
A Home Occupation Permit is issued for one year, then may be renewed for up to three years
increments thereafter. The Ordinance specifies that City Staff shall review the renewal
request, and forward the request to the Planning Commission if warranted.
B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Special Home Occupation Permit, subject to
the removal of any exterior storage of commercial vehicles or other materials and
equipment from the site. Interior storage is allowed under a Special Home
Occupation Permit.
2.
Motion to deny the Special Home Occupation Permit, based on a finding that the use
is incompatible with the residential character of the neighborhood.
3. Motion to table action on the special Home Occupation Permit, subject to additional
information.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -12/07/99
c.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Permit. As noted, there has bccn no record of
neighborhood complaints due to the business operation, and it was only due to the
applicant's building permit request that the operation became known to City StafT. Subject
to compliance with the provisions of thc Ordinance, including thc prohibition of exterior
storage, this application should be appropriate for approval.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Home Occupation Ordinance
.
.
.
.
.
6.
Adult uselaccessory activities shall be prohibited at any public show, movie,
caravan, circus, carnival, theatrical, or other performance or exhibition
presented to the general public where minors are admitted.
(01113/92, #217)
3-11: HOME OCCUPATIONS:
[A] Purpose. The purpose of this section is to prevent competition with business
districts and to provide a means through the establishment of specific standards and
procedures by which home occupations can be conducted in residential
neighborhoods without jeopardizing the health, safety, and general welfare of the
surrounding neighborhood. In addition, this section is intended to provide a
mechanism enabling the distinction between permitted home occupations and
special or customarily "more sensitive" home occupations so that permitted home
occupations may be allowed through an administrative process rather than a
legislative hearing process.
[B] Aoplication. Subject to the non-conforming use provision of this section, all
occupations conducted in the home shall comply with the provisions of this section.
This section shall not be construed, however, to apply to home occupations
accessory to farming.
[C] Procedures and Permits.
1.
Permitted Home Occupation. Any permitted home occupation as defined in
this section shall require a "permitted home occupation permit." Such
permits shall be issued subject to the conditions of this section, other
applicable city code provisions, and state law. This permit may be issued by
the Zoning Administrator or his agent based upon proof of compliance with
the provisions of this section.
Application for the permitted home occupation permit shall be accompanied
by a fee as adopted by the Council.
If the Administrator denies a permitted home occupation permit to an
applicant, the applicant may appeal the decision to the City Council acting as
the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, which shall make the final decision.
The permit shall remain in force and effect until such time as there has been a
change in conditions or until such time as the provisions of this section have
been reached. At such time as the City has reason to believe that either event
has taken place, a public hearing shall be held before the Planning
Commission. The Council shall make a final decision on whether or not the
permit holder is entitled to the permit.
2.
Special Home Occupation. Any home occupation which does not meet the
specific requirements for a permitted home occupation as defined in this
section shall require a "special home occupation permit" which shall be
applied for, reviewed, and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 22 of the zoning ordinance.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
(p ,43/56
.
.
.
"--
[D]
3. Declaration of Conditions. The Planning Commission and the Council may
impose such conditions of the granting of a "special home occupation permit"
as may be necessary to carry out the purpose and provisions of this section.
4.
Effect of Permit. A "special home occupation permit" may be issued for a
period of one (I) year after which the permit may be reissued for periods of
up to three (3) years each. Each application for permit renewal will be
reviewed by City staff. City staff will determine whether or not it is
necessary to process permit renewal in accordance with the procedural
requirements of the initial special home occupation permit. Staff
determination will be made based upon the manner of operation observed by
staff and based upon the level of complaints made about the home
occupation.
5. Transferability. Permits shall not run with the land and shall not be
transferable.
6.
Lapse of Special Home Occupation Permit by Non-Use. Whenever within
one (I) year after granting a permit the use as permitted by the permit shall
not have been initiated, then such permit shall become null and void unless
a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been
granted by the Council. Such extension shall be requested in writing and
filed with the Zoning Administrator at least thirty (30) days before the
expiration of the original permit. There shall be no charge for the filing of
such petition. The request for extension shall state facts showing a good faith
attempt to initiate the use. Such petition shall be presented to the Planning
Commission for a recommendation and to the Council for a decision.
7. Reconsideration. Whenever an application for a permit has been considered
and denied by the Council, a similar application for a permit affecting
substantially the same property shall not be considered again by the Planning
Commission or Council for at least six (6) months from the date of its denial
unless a decision to reconsider such matter is made by not less than four-
fifths (4/5) vote of the full Council.
8. Renewal of Permits. An applicant shall not have a vested right to a permit
renewal by reason of having obtained a previous permit. In applying for and
accepting a permit, the permit holder agrees that his monetary investment in
the home occupation will be fully amortized over the life of the permit and
that a permit renewal will not be needed to amortize the investment. Each
application for the renewal of a permit will be reviewed without taking into
consideration that a previous permit has been granted. The previous granting
or renewal of a permit shall not constitute a precedent or basis for the renewal
of a permit.
Reauirements: General Provisions. All home occupations shall comply with the
following general provisions and, according to definition, the applicable
requirement provisions.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/57
.
.
.
,.
1. General Provisions.
a.
No home occupation shall produce light glare, noise, odor, or
vibration that will in any way have an objectionable effect upon
adjacent or nearby property.
b. No equipment shall be used in the home occupation which will create
electrical interference to surrounding properties.
c. Any home occupation shall be clearly incidental and secondary to the
residential use of the premises, should not change the residential
character thereof and shall result in no incompatibility or disturbance
to the surrounding residential uses.
d. No home occupation shall require internal or external alterations or
involve construction features not customarily found in dwellings
except where required to comply with local and state fire and police
recommendations.
e. There shall be no exterior storage of equipment or materials used in
the home occupation, except personal automobiles used in the home
occupation may be parked on the site.
f. The home occupation shall meet all applicable fire and building
codes.
g.
There shall be no exterior display or exterior signs or interior display
or interior signs which are visible from outside the dwelling with the
exception of an identification sign which is limited to identifying the
name of the resident only.
h. All home occupations shall comply with the provisions of the city
code.
1. No home occupation shall be conducted between the hours of 10 p.m.
and 7 a.m. unless said occupation is contained entirely within the
principal building and will not require anyon-street parking facilities.
J. No home occupation shall be permitted which results in or generates
more traffic than one (1) car for off-street parking at any given point
in time.
[E] Requirements: Permitted Home Occupations.
1.
No person other than those who customarily reside on the premises shall be
employed.
2.
All permitted home occupations shall be conducted entirely within the
principal building and may not be conducted in an accessory building.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/58
.
.
.
"
3. Permitted home occupations shall not create a parking demand in excess of
that which can be accommodated as defined in Section 3-5 [F] 6, where no
vehicle is parked closer than fifteen (15) feet from the curb line.
4.
Permitted home occupations include and are not limited to: art studio,
dressmaking, secretarial services, foster care, professional offices and
teaching with musical, dancing, and other instructions which consist of no
more than one pupil at a time and similar uses.
5. The home occupation shall not involve any of the following: repair service or
manufacturing which requires equipment other than found in a dwelling;
teaching which customarily consists of more than one pupil at a time; over-
the-counter sale of merchandise produced off the premises, except for those
brand name products that are not marketed and sold in a wholesale or retail
outlet.
[F] Requirements: Special Home Occupations.
1. No person other than a resident shall conduct the home occupation, except
where the applicant can satisfactorily prove unusual or unique conditions or
need for non-resident assistance and that this exception would not
compromise the intent of this chapter.
2.
Examples of special home occupations include: barber and beauty services,
photography studio, group lessons, saw sharpening, skate sharpening, small
appliances and small engine repair and the like.
3. The special home occupation may involve any of the following: stock-in-
trade incidental to the performance of the service, repair service or
manufacturing which requires equipment other than customarily found in a
horne, the teaching with musical, dancing, and other instruction of more than
one pupil at a time.
4. Non-Conforming Use. Existing home occupations lawfully existing on the
effective date of this section may continue as non-conforming uses. They
shall, however, be required to obtain permits for their continued operation.
Any existing home occupation that is discontinued for a period of more than
180 days, or is in violation of the provisions of this chapter under which it
was initially established, shall be brought into conformity with the provisions
of this section.
5. Inspection. The City hereby reserves the right upon issuing any home
occupation permit to inspect the premises in which the occupation is being
conducted to ensure compliance with the provisions of this section or any
conditions additionally imposed.
(8/10/92, #232)
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/59
.
Planning Commission Agenda -12/07/99
7.
Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat approval for Klein Farms 6th Addition.
Applicant: Dave Klein. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At its Novembermeeting, the Planning Commission tabled action on the proposed Klein Farms
6th Addition to al low the applicant and City Staff to discuss a number of suggestions made in
the original staff report. Eleven conditions were listed in the 11/2/99 report, and stall has met
with the developer to discuss these and other issues relating to the proposal. The items were as
follows:
3.
4.
. 5.
6.
7.
1. Submission of a sketch plan showing layouts of the neighboring property to
verify the feasibility of the street connection location.
2. Incorporation of an additional 40 foot wide pathway from Farmstead Avenue to
the west plat boundary.
Revision of the lots to accommodate the added pathway.
Elimination of the internal 20 foot wide pathway connections.
Addition of sidewalk along Farmstead A venue from the north plat boundary to
Fallon Avenue.
Addition of pathway within the Fallon Avenue right of way.
Revision of the plat to illustrate future use of the land between the Amoco and
NSP easements.
8. Revision of the grading plan to show a more natural pond shape.
9. Submission ofa landscaping plan showing an appealing treatment of the pond
area which minimizes the need for public maintenance, such as mowing, and
which illustrates the proposed tree preservation efforts.
10. Revision of the plat to show adequate maintenance vehicle access to the pond.
II. Comments of other City Staff.
The applicant has submitted a revised plat in accordance with these conditions. Park Drive has
been shifted to the south to accommodate an expanded pathway area along the UP A easement
between the northwest corner of the plat and Pioneer Park, with the lots revised as necessary.
It appears that the proposed layout allows for a reasonable extension of Park Dri ve into the land
to the west, and lot lines have been extended through the Amoco casement to the edge of the
NSP power easement to avoid the remnant area previously shown.
'.
Planning Commission Agenda -12/07/99
.
Remaining issues include the landscape treatment of the pond area, final determination of the
maintenance road to the pond, and consideration of a temporary cul-de-sac for the end of Park
Drive. Staff has encouraged the applicant to work with the adjoining land owner to obtain an
easement which would avoid placing the temporary cuI-dc-sac in the front yards of Lot 4, Block
1 and Lot I, Block 4.
B. AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Preliminary Plat for Klein Farms 6th Addition
1. Motion to approve the Preliminary Plat, subject to final landscape plan submission, final
approval of the maintenance road design, and agreement on the temporary turn-around
issue for Park Drive.
2. Motion to deny the Preliminary Plat, based on findings to be established.
3. Motion to table action on the Preliminary Plat, subject to additional infimnation.
Decision 2: Rezoning of Klein Farms 6th Addition to R-l, Single Family Residential
.
1.
Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning to R-l, based on a finding that the
zoning designation would be consistent with the low density residential
recommendations of the City's land use plan for the area.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning, based on findings developed at the
hearing.
3. Motion to table action on the rezoning, subject to additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDA nON
Staff recommends approval of both the plat and the rezoning. The applicant has worked with
Stattto address the issues which have been raised. Outstanding issues will not affect the layout
or Staff s recommendation.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Revised Preliminary Plat
Exhibit B - Revised Grading Plan
,
-.
I.~=:_-- ,-- ,Q-Q9'gSj,[^- ON 311;J X '''ND.<J X 'alDG
3NON 1X31 ...t<9J-".---- -.- .poco'S
_..:: 8MQ'a'>(j~ "91')(" - 'OMQ /YIv,l
f'lJAS Q3~03HO / fA 'I ~'D\O'.UU'f'I )0
... _. ._.._ -~---"---'. aWlS 04\ 10 ."'.{ X~ J JaaU,bU3
I " lDl ,).,8 NM~O IOUOI:SS;~~O)d p~S:U;l;lq 0 ~l puo
0:> .\ll:l 1,-~W...gN ....1- f'lJ 'AS N~IS3Q lIo'';''\Jodns lOOJ'P Iw JOp '~/q
I ----r:oNl ~~- P;j~OdilJd SOM lJod~j JO 'UOI1 ~..ds:
JPIO L^l.<J I 66! 1>1/6 31110 'uold "14\ 1D41 AmJaO Aq'aJa4 I
lN3f'1f'1
o
~
...
~
8
"
~
'"
..
0.
~
~
....
:3
~
'"
'"
~
{J
VJ
~; i!
d ~ ~I
aq q~
~ I ~ I ~:
II
I i r
i ~
.1 . ~
I
'"
(j
"'~
t:n 5 4.l L
~.t:~~
"'~
....
g
,..
'"
"
~
~. ....
~~ is
Col.AJ Ei
1'- '...1 oJ 'I
_1. _ -.....-.1. ..~. ,.!><>
~ ~,.
"..._~~&~-...-~'----:- _........~
.ft..~... ~,,~'''_......, _~.) -.._......~,._ "-
-_/j
<'~.n--/'5~
-z.
0
~
..... "
~ ~
1>"
(>
J.
~ ~
~
. <1'
ot.. p., 'S-
~ .....
\l.
...
'"
-z.
:'i
-'"
'"
{p
t5E'
~ij
~~~
"......
~~"
VjZ 15
~olIt;;
~ !i'....'"
~a
Ioeu..
~ ~ l'
~ ~ ~
Vl b tx
~ " ~ "
0 (j a
0' '" '"
~ ~ '" (j ~
~ ~~ 1A ~
~ i '" g~ Q!i~
;= w i
i l;l ;;w ",,!, ....
'" ~~ 8" ~
B ~ '" ........ i!:g; '"
c; /B;;; ~,.. <>
'" ,..0-. <> ~
~ iI:)~ '"
i .... =>
~. w ~ :1 w ~
b ..... ~ f3 ~ 1-
~- d-.... f'5
1r.\ ~ ~
~ i <0 IX B ~
~ ' ;>
<::i "
8~ ' -----..j Il:
o. 15 ~J ~
;0"
'*@ N <.0
.....
....", '"
-"...
~~ <0
,,'" '2
...
4~
II
lli~
I~~ ~
6tOfi-tfiB(XYd) 9tOIl-tIlB(IJIB)
48&99 't)~bBaUUtN j"l1'F~lUn8
OOJ 8nns 'H".u U8IM"-'J. 'J/. 10J
NVld lO~lNOO NOISO~3 "0
3D'v'NI'v'~a 'DNlaV~D ^~VNIV't1
'ONI 'NOI10mUSNO::> N131>t
:~O.:l
Nvt 'Ol1301.LNOvt
NOI1IOO't H1XIS S~~'v'~ NI
9999-ltt(XYd) IJWJ-ltt(IJI9)
OE:E:SS >>)O",",u'U/)JV 1.t8f1}H" '113
a'''1.<a~y atlpo(f 089
""rUU.~d IN.1I7 ',Su0i1lW.:r\s p:t.4.D7 '&ti.""'III1U!1JU..r jyl.}j
"DUf 'SBl.'DOSS~ , JBItUO uqOr
-,
u
g
~
'"
g
III
iE
f:-
"
'"
<
"-
1":
d
b
'"
~
'"
g
IJl
~
'"
'"
<<
"-
51
.'~~'9M-
__.....~_.~.... '_~f1.G
.....--,'
1..).~1.
.....~...
,-"
1;::" /
9/
~'o'\
.f
) ./ "Q
. ./ /~
/
o
0,1,;,,1"
~" ,//
.,/>
...,..."""
'~----
(,. ' -- ,.-
Ib-.i_.
',: . .i!i. " )
ll! __,'fO
,*
/
r ~....-
~~'J""
*
(
~
I
I
,,ro'
/ I
-'/ (
(
(
.,.i- .....~
-
,O-09'gS'''L "ON 3'11, 6GL ~l 'ON '6.~ 66/o~/6 :.100 61'0~-1'68(XY.i) gI'0~-P68(~ 19)
~1Wr;r---'":LX3L _._,_________ :p.u6!S 1.8(;99 D1osau'u.tN 'a'l11-tUn.lJnS l'v'ld ,U:l'v'NI~113Hd
- .- "5MCiN'id-91>i-- :~MO 001 anns 'n/not.L s.'it1~(l.'&)..y 'JI 10<: '8NI ' NOl18nH1SN08 NI31>l '0
h.----.- - -~^8 m~83W) g99g-I~I'(XI'.i) ztO~-IPI'(~19)
~'" 'O\D5~l.lLJI~ ~o :~Oj
.\O\S .'H )0 ""'01 .,~\ ).pun )O'\.NnS Ql:l:g~ "IOn"'....!/\' '",MHI 'Il!1
YH : f8 NMV<lO PI..J()l P~&UE,1.;)!-l ^II1P 0 wO I ~DLl) .n.....fty .6poU 089 NVi 'Ol13:J 110 Vi
6l>!I: './11 '~j-'- :!.8 NOI,.30
" PI,.IO Uo!sjAJadm; r:)[~J!p All.! JqpUn JO ~lU\4'P1d PU'D1 '81.l-pbfl...l.Jl.S ))\.1.>>1 't1v.'.l.uu,!-lhL,Il l'lAU NOI1IGO'v' H1XIS SV'ttl'v'j NI31>l I
31\10 'ON -66'!IT;rg--'-'3L\l0 ~I,.U .(q PEiJOd:II,dd 'SDM l)Od~,J JO 'UDld ":Jill '.81l1/:J0f1SV , J8"UO Ul/Or
Al~ 'fONnS "!4\ )D4\ ,1m).' ,\q.J.q I
'IlY"
~ "
-r: ~
.&
tJ ,S;.,..... "1l ii
~ -' iI ~ ~ ~
H~ .
~ B~ 0
.",2 0'-' E
i -Bti~ Z - "
~:5'N " 1.~ ~ i
~o~ ~ !I(~(Jl. ...
,,-N
].t~ ,~ V>
~~8 E "- '"
~ ... 6V} ~~ ~i~ ~ 3
"'06 ~ -....~ '-'
nu;! 1!1 ~<ll'i !! .
~~2 .
h~ ~ -0
ij
;:.~'01 ~8o 0"-" 0 0
w 1II;i! E 0 . <Il
;;i .t= ti ~ :1:"'....
o -..c VI o.
Vl & ~ ,; " ~~
>-v
.1 ~
, 0
... ~~ ,;
,J ~ ~
, ~ -'" '"
~ ~ '" ~
5 ~ 2..
'il ~ '-'-
"'" bili1 '" ,,'"
:; " t; "t:
~ ro>
~ O:wt)r:::::i~
~ ~ stffi~~"
~ >~;;,~g~
:I: <(. :I:
:I: ~ tl 00 :iQ.
'" "
<( ~
"
'" "'
~ ill >
>- >- ~
>
" ~ ~ '" Sl
~ :z ~ ~ "-
<( <( III
'" V> :I: '"
3
:I:
~
V>
~
It
w ::::
;.< d ~ w ~
t!g~~i~
~E.:'/GO".d
I..L.. 2::' 0.. U; f-
I
\:~G1800Q"
'!l~
z2
~z
-<"
!;;:i56
(:t:'::1....J....J
z",<loJ
~~I~O
0~8~
,-,-e:~~
\ S
I l
\
I
I ...
,w ~cl1 '"~l:~ \
,_ :.1 '0 ~
_1__
,<-'
~
0:
1-
---
NH30 ., UiV"" '1 H/'J)W'(lI.J
iSl
~
. ...., -- -r
~(~
.:$) ,.."
'SB_~r 5 ~
..0
-J.
o
r
.... ;
" .
o.
<>-
~{
P-.15
t
o
.to
.,.
~
.L
"J.
" .
"'i
.>.
'"
~
( ,,,,,-I
\
-"
'"
~
.n
N
.
i
'"
(:!
0.
i
!
ri
z N
" 1
ffi
0- >-
~d 0: '"
~ "
Oil! .
1i3 ,j 0
12" ;;: ,
0
go ~~ vi
::>
g~ U I;' k
;::1'.> -< \"
5:;- '" V>
"' g~8
_...:iii<l( fIi
-;:: Uw
:i~ -<-<,..
Iljo ~qca
>-111 oOS
~~ ..~ r
<(W
\!;ci: ~~ Z<~
-<, r.(o.......I
~~g 4:...J:'J;W
'0 ",ii~
f~ ~~!
';0 ..c.. -<
>-"- -<::> <-'-'
"'0 bb~ ......1-1-1-
x'" ",g~~
w"- >->-'"
g
~
~..'~. .'~~'~~
-
,.0
"P
..__-r'c
.----~
.i
Q
~------'.....
)(_~_~l(
--
~
...
/t~
/ -'-!.~'/', :
---"""./' / ~ I
//""" I:S-
I -
1......_.... 0
/ ...4' "--z. I
...... , - .....-...
.
('".-----~')
.~..........._......~~,_.....,.,~f)ft, ~
.
.
t
'-
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/07/99
8.
Consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for land west of the Kjellberg
West Mobile Home Park. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC)
A. BACKGROUND
The City has been reviewing issues related to the Kjellberg Mobile Home Park area,
including the future land use of the area west of the existing devclopment. The owners of
the Kjellberg Mobile Home Park have requested approval of annexation and zoning
which would allow the development of an expansion of the Mobile Home Park, both of
which were rejected by the City, The most recent action of the Planning Commission
was to recommend a zoning of R-2, Medium Density Residential, if annexed, 'The City's
position has been that this designation would encourage attached housing in the range of
four to eight units per acre, An expansion ofthe Mobile Home Park was not viewed as
fitting with this designation,
However, staff has become concerned that the designation is not specific enough, The
most recent Mobile Home Park expansion plan was designed to meet the density
requirement. In order to address this issue, stafT is recommending an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan which would more clearly spell out the intended development.
Options include redesignating the site for low density residential or another land use,
excepting the site from the City's long range development plans, or amending the text of
the plan to provide greater detail as to the preferred development pattern,
The current land use plan designation is for medium density residential, with a general
reference to attached housing styles including twin homes and townhouses, The MOAA
has also designated the site for medium density residential, consistent with the City's
plans, If the City's land use plan is changed, it would no longer be consistent with the
MOAA plan, resulting in a dif1lculty in annexation and development. It is not clear what
the impact of this inconsistency would be, However, stall has noted previously that the
land owner has indicated an intention to develop the site as a mobile home park under the
assigned density,
Staff s preferred option would be to more specifically spell out the meaning of medium
density residential land use in the Comprehensive Plan, Suggested language would be as
follows:
In the extraterritorial areas of the community, medium density residential
is expected to mean attached housing such as twin homes or townhomes in
the range of four to eight units per acre, In keeping with the City's overall
housing goals, most of these projects are expected to be processed with the
City's Planned Unit Development zoning technique with an intent to
increase project quality and value.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/07/99
As noted in other portions of the Comprehensive Plan, the City of
Monticello has a significant amount of existing housing in the
"affordable" range, including rental housing and mobile home parks. '('he
City's proportion of these housing types arc higher than most other
communities in the region. It is expected that new medium density
residential development will be designed to encourage individual home
ownership through both plat design and utility design. Mobile home parks
are not expected to be a part of the housing expansion for the foreseeable
future.
The intent of this clause, to be inserted in the Comprehensive Plan text which discusses
the land use in the southwest growth area of the City, including the land west of Highway
25 and the Kjellberg West area.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment which
redesignates the area to another land use category.
2.
Motion to recommend amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to include new text
such as the language proposed in this report, retaining the existing medium
density land use designation.
.
3. Motion to recommend no change to the Comprehensive Plan affecting the area
west of the Kjellberg Mobile Home Park.
4. Motion to table action on the plan amendment, subject to additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staflrecommends Alternative 2, a change in the text. This change would be consistent
with the previous interpretations ofthe plan, and would serve to provide additional clarity
to the plan without a change in land use designation. It also keeps the consistency with
the MOAA designation for the area. A change in land use designation would create an
inconsistency with the MOAA plan for which the impacts would be dinicult to anticipate.
Excepting the area from the plan would result in a future problem for the area since no
land use or utility planning could be done to account for the eventual long term
development of the property.
.
.........,.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
none
.
.
,
..........".
Planning Commission Agenda -12/07/99
9.
Consideration of a req "est for an amendment to the R-l and R-2 side yard setbacks to
permit a six foot setback on the gara!!e side. Applicant: Harold Shermer. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Harold Shermer has requested that the City amend its side yard setback requirements in R-I
and R-2 Zoning Districts from ten feet to six feet on the garage side. Current setback
requirements are ten feet on each side of the house and/or attached garage. The request
would increase the buildable area of a property from 60 feet to 64 feet on a minimum 80 foot
wide lot.
Side yard setbacks affect the look of a residential subdivision. Some communities allow
narrower side yards on the garage side, but these allowances tend to occur in small lot single
family districts, such as an R-2, or where wider lots are required in which case the standard
setback is usually wider than ten feet. In a quick check of other communities in the
Monticello area - Buffalo, Dclano, Rockford, Otsego, Albertville, and Big Lake - the
setbacks are most often ten feet on both sides for lots 01'75-80 feet in width. A few require
wider lots. Buffalo is 5 and 15 feet on 85 foot wide lots, and Rockford is 10 and 15 feet on
90 foot wide lots. Many of these communities had small lot single family districts which
allowed narrower setbacks, but most of the platting appears to be occurring in the larger lot
districts.
In the original plat area of Monticello, most of the lots are just 66 feet in width. In these
areas, a narrower sidc yard setback would seem to be appropriate. The City has granted
variances in the past to accommodate garage construction on these narrower lots. A 6 and
10 foot setback requirement (6 feet on the garage side) would seem to be appropriate in these
areas, most of which arc zoned R-2. While the City has stated that larger single family
development is an important housing goal, a reduction of the side yard setbacks in the current
R-l District would reduce the spaciousness of the subdivision in exchange for the potentially
larger house size. Developers always have the option of platting lots which are wider than
the minimum if they wish to construct houses which cannot fit within thc 60 foot wide
buildable area now in place.
B. AL TERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to approve the request to amend the side yard setbacks in thc R-l and R-2
Zoning Districts to allow a six foot side yard setback on the garage side.
2.
Motion to approve an amendment to the side yard setbacks in the R-2 District only
to allow a six foot side yard setback on the garage side.
.
Plmming Commission Agenda -12/07/99
3.
Motion to recommend no changes to the side yard setbacks in the R-l and R-2
Districts.
4. Motion to table action, subject to additional information.
c. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that side yard setbacks be reduced only in the R-2 District. As noted in
the report, the City has granted variances on some R-2 lots to allow additional construction
due to their narrow width. However, the City's R-l District has been the primary zoning
district for recent single family development with the 10 foot setbacks in place. Several
hundred single family homes have been built within these guidelines. Where larger homes
are desired, developers have the option of increasing lot width and maintaining the
spaciousness created by the wider side yards.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Memo of 1l/3/99 development meeting with llarold & Darlene Shermer
.
-
.
.
,
Park Side at the Meadows - Development Meeting.
November 3, 1999
Attendance: Harold & Darlene Shermer, John Simola, Jeff O'Neill and Clint Herbst
The following summarizes the discussion between the parties above regarding the items below. Please review
this document and call me if you have questions.
I. Credit for increasing pathway width from 8' to ] 0'.
It had previously been noted to Shermer that the City will pay for the additional two feet of path width
due to the fact that City standards changed after the project had been approved. O'Neill noted that he
received an estimated price of $1.50 per square foot for purpose of calculating credit. Shermer noted
that the credit should take into account the difficult terrain. Jeff will check with the City Engineer and
see if a larger credit is appropriate due to grades, etc. Is a $1.50 per square foot fair in this case.
2. Setback Amendment.
O'Neill noted that Shermer can apply for an amendment if he so desires. Shermer said if he was aware
of the 10' setback on both sides, his lots would be bigger. Shermer noted that he would like to apply
for the setback amendment. O'Neill informed him that he needed to submit a formal application and
the cost would be $250.
3.
Road Width.
The road width was defined by Shermer's engineer as back of curb to back of curb. This was a mistake
as the plans should have shown road width as measured at curb face. The City Engineer approved the
plans but before the curb was set, the City inspector saw the problem and required that the road be built
to standard. Shermer noted that the standard width cost was an additional $26,000.
Clint noted that the City should be responsible for funding any added or extraordinary costs associated
with adding the additional width. For example, if curb needed to be replaced for the widened road, the
City should pay such and additional cost. Shermer was asked to identify added costs associated with
increasing the road width after it had already been cut in.
Shermer noted that he might not have gone forward with the project had he known that the road was
going to cost an additional $26,000. Getting this information after the utilities were in pushed him into
a position where he was forced to complete the project.
John noted that we should check with the City Attorney to see what responsibilities the City or engineer
have to with respect to paying for added costs associated with widening the road width after original
plan approval.
Shermer also noted that there was late information on the need for Chimney seals. Also, drain tile was
not noted on the original plans. O'Neill noted that Shermer should document his added costs
associated with adding these items late in the project.
4.
Annexation.
It was noted that annexation process from 1997-1999 was delayed due to City/Township discussions.
Ultimately, MOAA approved entire first phase for annexation - City approved 13 acres in first phase.
Township wanted to follow MOAA recommendation. This was one cause of the hang-up. Other
delays were caused by problems with the legal description.
qA
.
.
t
5.
Grading Fee.
Ilarold noted that the grading fee of $1 ,800 was agreed to earlier. Harold said it was an unreasonable
amount, but he agreed to pay it so he will. Also, projeet was given authorization once both the City
and Township agreed to annexation but before State Planning Agency ratification. This was done to
accommodate schedule. Shermer recognized that the City tried to work with him on this. O'Neill
noted that grading permits would no longer be granted until the State Planning Agency ratifies City and
Township annexation approvals.
6.
Development Agreement.
City allowed his corporation to act as disbursing agent.
7. Power Pole.
The preliminary plat design required that the pole be moved. This was a pre-existing condition on the
land. Emmerich said that he would move it when he did the next phase. Emmerich never bought the
land so he never moved the pole. Shermer felt moving the pole was the City's responsibility. Clint
noted that the value of the land purchased by Shermer should have reflected the added cost of moving
the pole.
8. As-Builts.
As of one week ago, the project is completed sufficiently to allow the City to record as-built
information. This information will be collected as soon as possible. This information is necessary in
order for Shermer to begin plan work on next phase.
9.
Road Curve.
Road curved tighter to residential side to preserve park area. This created added cost associated with
building retaining wall. It was noted that the road was later shifted back slightly to save trees and
reduce height of retaining wall.
10. Park Parking.
Simola noted that the entrance road was allowed to be extended through a City park. The parking lot
was required to be rebuilt as part of the project. Shermer noted that he did extra grading of the park
area that was not necessarily required. John noted that perhaps it would be appropriate to grant a credit
for the grading of the park area.
II . Pathway between lots.
It was agreed to take a look at eliminating the pathway connection and bring it up at the next Planning
Commission and Parks meetings. Parks Commission. Parks is on the 18th of November @ 4:30. This
based on Shermer's request and recent Planning Commission action to eliminate a similar pathway
associated with Klein Farm VI.
Other Items:
Shermer noted that he had good control of the project. He new every dime that went in there. He saved
money by doing more of it himself. He believes that utilities installed privately cost less for the
developer.
Shermer requested that the City get a price on sign installation.
.
John said we can ask the City Attorney ifthe City Engineer can be held liable for the road width
mistake? Shermer noted that he doesn't want to get into litigation but he docs feel that the mistake in
the review cost him $ and forced him to complete the project.
O'Neill asked if the questions regarding the final name of the road had been answered. John reviewed
the documentation on the street name and said he would check with Gary and Roger on the final name.
He would also call 421-9126, Jim Cairo, to determine if the streets have been properly labeled on the
plat.
Shermer noted that the County is requiring a document number for the gas line casement. He had to
have a blanket easement converted to a specific area adjacent to the gas line. It has taken since August
to figure get this resolved.
Discussions regarding City expenses - Shermer requested that the City reduce its fee in an amount equal
to the City Engineers share of City soft costs. O'Neill noted that he would review the matter with the
City Attorney and the City Engineer
Harold noted that he paid directly for overages so we need to pay him back for the costs out of the
$14,000 deposit he provided. At the end ofthe meeting, Shermer provided Y2 of the city's fees as partial
payment ($12,000). Full payment to occur in conjunction with resolution of road width.
Shermer noted that he had an unexpectcd land expense ($5,000) when he was stuck with buying a
sliver of land necessary to make a road connectcd from the Meadow Oaks plat to his property.
Shermer noted that this had been a difficult project for him and his family. He recognized that many of
the problems resulted from circumstances bcyond the City's control. City officials stressed that they
would do what they could to make sure that the second phase goes better than the first.
.
CC:
Planning Commission
Mayor and City Council
City Engineer
City Attorney
City Administrator
.
-~
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda -12/07/99
10.
Consideration of a request for an amended plat for Parkside to allow the elimination
of a pathway in the side yard. Applicant: Harold Shermer. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND;
Harold Shermer has requested that the City allow a revised plat for his Parkside subdivision.
This subdivision was designed with a cui-de-sac, from which a pathway route was reserved
to allow a pedestrian connection from the cul-de-sac to the next street. Recently, stan'has
reconsidered such pathways in light of concerns over thei r compatibility with residential side
yards, as well as difTiculty in constmcting and maintaining such pathways in limited areas.
Staff's discussion has centered around a more thorough review of where such pathways may
be needed. In the case of Parks ide (as with Klein Farms 6lh Addition), it is believed that the
short additional distance from the cul-de-sac to the street and principal sidewalk does not
necessitate a pathway through the side yards as previously planned.
There may be situations where such pathway connections are still appropriate. In these
cases, staff willlikcly be recommending a wider pathway right-of-way (forty feet or more),
and potentially wider lots adjacent to avoid both the crowding issue and the maintenance
problems encountered with the previous design.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to approve the plat amendment for Parkside, eliminating the pathway in the
side yard, based on a finding that the benefits of the pathway in this location do not
outweigh the problems associated with narrow side yard pathways as previously
designed.
2. Motion to deny the plat amendment, based on a finding that the pathway serves an
important public purpose in the currently approved location.
3. Motion to table action on the amendment, subject to additional information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval ofthe plat amendment as outlined in Alternative 1. As noted in
the text, such pathways can prescnt problems fiJr the City, the neighbors, and the users. Staff
will recommend such side yard pathways where a wider right-or-way can be obtained, and
where there is a greater need for direct pedestrian access.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Preliminary Plat Drawing
0' 80' 80'
4' 83' 90'
. If) If) 3
'" '"
) 3 -4
................................
.4' 83' 83'
/
16561 .q f1
0.3800cre..
r0
(J\
9
':
t.
o
CO
\53
12166 '9 fl
0.279 ocr....
8
15\
7
~ g 13563 sq ft 0
,.......<?: ~.I.I. .~;r.e.s.:.. 0>
150
o
80
2
021
If)
020
If)
I"')
N
o
CO
80
25289 square feel.
0.581 ocr....
12
I-
I
I
\
L
13
'" 14
51616 square feel.
1.185 acre..
15
. I 385
: I
:' /
80 16 48238 .quare feel.
1.107 acres.
.........
CONSIDERATION OF REMOVAL
18 0 OF PATHWAY
If)
~
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
'" I 1
ex)
N I I
I I
I I
I I
I I I I
I I
I I
..............y ..
86 I
I I
CO
1O :..... .... M'
4\
o
If)
80'
If)
'"
5
--_. .n_
3 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83
....... ................ ............... ................ .. .............. ................ ................ ............... ................ ................ . . . . . . . . . . .
) 3 4 5 LJ') 6 4 Lf) 7 8 9 I 0 If) I ,~.
Lf) Lf) LJ') '" If) Lf) I 1 L
'" '" '" '" '" '"
'" - If) If)
- - - - - -
- "" ""
.q fl 12035 S9 f 1 12035 s9 fl 12035 ''1 f 1 12035 ''1 f1 12035 sq f 1 12035 .q f 1 -----12035 ''1 f 1 12035 ''1 ft 12035 s'1 It 12035 .
jC r 9!1 . 0.28 ocreg. 0.28 ocr-g.!.. 0.28 acres. 0.28 ocr es . 0.28 acres_ 0,28 acres. 0.28 ocres. 0.28 acreS. 0,28 ocres. 0.28 oc
3- - - - ~ - ~ - 83 - - - - 8-3 - - -- 83 - - - - -83 - - 83 - - - - 83 - - - -83 - - - - - - -83
83 83
.rk Trai I
25294 "I, fl.
0.581 aCre..
-- - - --- ~ - --- - ~ -~- - - ~-- - - ----~ -~-- --~~ - - --~ - - --- - -~-
I S 89.47'44" W
1846.40
Kenneth Shultz
L. Scheving
.
.
.
.
"'"
It.
Planning Conunission Agenda -12/07/99
Consideration of DA T comments re~ardin~ the proposed amendment to the Si~n
Ordinance allowinl! electronic reader boards. Applicant: Citv of Monticello. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At its November meeting, the Planning Commission considered a proposed amendment to
the Sign Ordinance which allows the use of electronic reader boards as a part of the sign
display in B-3 and B-4 Districts. The Planning Commission's action was to recommend
adoption of the ordinance amendment, with the inclusion of properties in the CCD District
adjaeentto Highway 25. The rationale for this inclusion was based in the different character
of the Highway 25 corridor from that of the rest of the CCD.
Staff took this recommendation to the Design Advisory Team for comment, since the DA T
had not had the opportunity to review the proposed ordinance prior to the Planning
Commission's inclusion of the CCD area. Staff noted that City Staff has discussed the
potential of a modest electronic sign as a part of the Community Center project in the CCO.
lt was pointed out that such a sign would be allowed under the ordinance which permits
"public signs" to include electronic reader board technology.
Despite the possibility that such a sign might be built for the Community Center, DA T
recommended that the CCD not be an eligible area for electronic signs. Their comments
included a concern that such signs would not be in keeping with the downtown district's
intent, even though the Highway 25 corridor was different in nature from the remainder of
the district, and that the cost of such signs would likely limit their proliferation.
Staffis bringing this recommendation back to the Planning Commission for its consideration
prior to forwarding the sign ordinance amendment to the City Council. As noted, this has
been done only to allow DA T comment, and staff has no specific recommendation in this
regard.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to forward the sign ordinance amendment to City Council as previously
recommended by the Planning Commission.
2. Motion to amend the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council
by eliminating the CCD from the proposed ordinance.
3.
Motion to table action on the amendment, subject to additional information.
Planning Commission Agenda -12/07/99
.
c.
STAfF RECOMMENDATION
Stall has no additional recommendation on this issue, however we request that the Planning
Commission review the eomp plan closely to determine if introduction of electronic reader
boards is appropriate in the CCD.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Copy of sections of the redevelopment plan relating to signs in the CCD.
.
,
.
.
.
materials that characterize the property, and shall be differentiated
from the old, and yet be compatible with the massing, size, scale and
architectural features of the original structure.
. Reversibility: New work shall be applied such that, if removed in the
future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and
environment will be maintained.
5.2
The Department of Interior "Standards for Rehabilitation" and the
Guidelines which accompany them are the starting point for storefront
and downtown building design. However, in terms an approach (for
example, "where does one start?"), a process~might be defined for re-
use. Restoration and renewal work shall follow these steps:
. Historic pictures and/or research to determine authenticity of work is
the most important starting point, thus avoiding guesswork, false
application of history or a restoration theme. It also helps all parties
visualize what is possible.
. In some cases, apply for Historic Structures Report grant to do a com-
plete analysis.
. Study and articulate what is original,' what is not, what should be
retained and what is the character of the place.
Develop a design concept based on this data and the use/re-use.
. Deal with code and technical matters as required using the appropriate
specialists.
5.3 In downtown, the two-level, two-use nature of some buildings is impor-
tant, thus each can be thought of as a "storefront" and an "upstairs,"
which may require dual re-use considerations, accessibility solutions and
other factors that might affect the re-use. Frequently the second level
fronts are less changed or easier to restore than the storefronts below.
. Image: The whole building works as the signature of the business(es)
present, and is one large "sign" of its presence, nature and viability.
. Storefronts: Maximize transparency, remembering that this is the
advertising of the inside, it is inviting and provides light outward in
the evenings.
. Signboards: Typically signboards are located just above the transpar-
ent storefronts. Small and interesting is better, with small spotlights
for illumination. No backlighted plastic signs shall be allowed.
Projecting signs (those that overhang the sidewalk) are acceptable as
described in Section 4.3.
. Awnings: Real, operable, fabric (canvas or stabilized natural fabric)
are encouraged if originally present or on new construction. They pro-
vide shade, rain protection, assist in store/business recognition and
sign locations. and are a variable that is visually interesting. Awnings
must not be regularized too much, nor become fixed or backlighting.
Awnings on re-use projects shall conform to the description in Section
4.1 and 4.2.
. Upper facade: Restore typical historic window patterns discovered in
old photos, restore top of wall detail or overhanging cornice work
which acts as the eye-catching finale to the storefront.
F
~
i
I:
!.l
j: :~
Jew Bridge
Ital/zlng Mont/cello's Downtown and Riverfront
/ I A
I ~
I I
,-
13.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/07/99
Consideration of call for a public hearinl! on a zoning text amendment that clarifies
curb cut reauirements in residential districts.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
A few residences have recently been constructed with driveway widths exceeding 24 feet
in width at the property line. The current ordinance reads a s follows:
No curh cut access shall exceed twenty-four (24) feet in width with thefollowing
exception: C-;urh cut access in industrial and commercial zoning districts may
exceed twenty-four (24) feet with the approval of the City Engineer and the
Zoning Administrator. Denial hy the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator of
curb cut access in excess oftwenty-four (24) feet may he appealed following the
procedures outlined in Chapter 23 (~fthe zoning ordinance.
We have interpreted this ordinance to mean that the driveway width across the boulevard
area of the public street must not exceed 24 feet in residential districts. Unfortunately,
our interpretation and the words of the ordinance differ.
The ordinance language of "curb cut access" is not defined by the zoning code. A "curb
cut access" may be interpreted to mean the curb cut providing access to the lot. In the
case of surmountable curb no curb cut is made, and where curb cuts are made in typical
136/12 curbing, the driveway may be greater in width after the curb cut and prior to
crossing the property line.
It is suggested that the ordinance state what is intended:
The maximum drivewav width between the rJUhlic street and the pronertv line
shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet with the following exceptions..:
L Within all districts. a five foot radius curh mav he constructed at the
lJublic street in addition to the maximum drivewav width allowed.
l Curh cut access in industrial and commercial zoninS! districts may exceed
twentv-f(JUr (24) teet with the annroval of the Citv EmJineer and the
Zoninz Administrator. Denial bv the Citv Engineer and ZoninS!
Administrator of curb cut access in excess oftwentv-four (24) feet mav be
armealed following the procedures outlined in Chanter 23 o(the zoning
ordinance.
This suggested change will assist in enforcement of the ordinance and retain the aesthetic
standards intended.
.
.
-
13.
Consideration of call for public hcarin~ on a zonin~ text amendment that clarifies
curb cut requirements in residential districts.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Fred Patch to discuss at meeting.