Planning Commission Agenda Packet 03-21-1978- AGENDA
MXMCELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, March 21, 1978 - 7:30 P.R.
A
0•o
RC
Chairman: J. Ridgeway
Commission Members: F. Topel, D. Erickson, F. Fair, J. Miller (ex -officio).
1-A. Approval of minutes - 2/21/78. Alf""11
1. Public Hearing - Consideration of Rezoning Harold Ruff Property from
Residential to Industrial.
2. Public Hearing - Consideration of Rezoning lot 6, Block 5, River Terrace
from R-1 to R-2.
3. Public Hearing - Consideration of Rampa Estates.
4. Public Hearing - Consideration of Thomas Park Preliminary Plat.
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of Holker's Hillside Addition.
6. Consideration of Granting a Variance from the Home Occupation Activities
to Allow a Hair Styling Shop by Joseph Peterson.
7. Consideration of Building Permit - High School Concession Stand.
Unfiniohed Business -
Public Hearing on Comprehensive Plan.
New Business - 1
Renewal of Conditional Use Permit for
Four-Plex - J. Miller.
$atdtt.r-LWcr- �-B �...r,Lf
0
AGENDA SUPPLFMFNT
item 1. Public Hearing - Consideration of Rezoning Harold Ruff Proaerty
from Residential to Industrial.
Mr. Harold Ruff is requesting I-2 (Heavy Industrial) zoning of
15.8 acres of land for his salvage yard operations (see en-
closed map). Currently, this property is zoned as residential
(i.e., R-1, R-2 or R-3).
Reasoning for zoning request is that junk yards are only
allowed within an I-2 (Heavy Industrial) zone and then only
as a conditional use permit.
Present and future comprehensive plans have the area in
question as proposed for residential usage.
If the rezoning were granted to I-2 the present city ordinance
requires the area be entirely screened from abutting properties.
Additionally, ordinance section 10-22-1(E) reads as follows:
The Planning Commission shall consider possible adverse
effects of the proposed amendment or conditional use.
Its judgement shall be based upon (but not limited to)
the following factors:
1. Relationship to municipal comprehensive plan. D
2. The geographical area involved.
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate
the area in which it is proposed.
4. The character of the surrounding area.
5. The demonstrated need for such use.
Obviously, the rezoning request could have some serious
impact on the area in terms of expansion of the junk yard
and also requests from abutting areas for industrial zoning;.
Currently, the junk yard is a non -conforming use and the whole
question of whether to allow the junkyard to continue or
require screening has been previously diocuosed and materials
cent out.
It would ooem that one way to proceed Sa to hold the hearinr
on rezoning, take the testimony and appoint a representative
of the Planning Commiooion to meet with Mr. Ruff along with
a city council representative to discuss the iosue and o—
If the item could be resolved oatiofactorily to both parties.
I have talked to Acting Mayor Gene Waltero and ho feels thio
would be a good idea. In this fashion, the position of
both parties could be batter understood and ❑ p000ible solution
brought back to the Planning Co miooion for their next meeting.
rW31H1.E ACTION: Consideration of rezoning request or appoint-
ment of Plmdrig Commission member to meet with Mr. Ruff
and council representative.
RFFEKNCES: Ehelooed map.
-=1- 8
Item 2. Public Hearing_- Consideration of Rezoning Lot 6, Block 5.
River Terrace from R-1 to R-2.
Quintin Loaners recently purchased the basement home located
on Lot 6, Block 5, River 'terrace from John Lott, and is re-
questinP to rezone the property from R.-1 (Single Family)
to R-2 (Single and 2 Family Residential).
Mr. Lanners is proposing to build a second story addition on
the basement structure for the purpose of using the home as
a duplex and to rent out both floors. Since the basement is
already set up and equipped for residential use, Mr. Lanners
felt that the structure would be ideal for a duplex by addine
the second story.
As you may recall, one lot in Creekside Terrace was recently
rezoned by Vern Youngberg to R-2 for a duplex and the Planning,
Commission recommended at that time that future requests of
a similar nature would be considered on an individual basis
depending on how close other duplexes were located to the
property in question.
It would appear that the addition of a second story to this
home would enhance the appearance of the property and the
surrounding residences, but the property owners within 350'
have been notified and some of the neighbors have expressed
opposition to the rezoning, indicating that the area should
remain single family.
For your information, it should also be noted that within
the same block there are currently two homes that aro. being
used as duplex's already, both being grandfathered in under
our current zoning ordinances.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of cnpprovinr. or conyinp rc
zoning request.
REFERENCES: Map depicting location of property, P. Klein Letter.
Item 3. Public Hearing - Consideration of Kampa Estates.
Nick Kampa and Judith Sandberg are proposing a 6.2 acre p.at
north of W. County Road /139. (Copy of plat is enclosed).
Proposed platting is for ten (10) residential lots ranging
in size from 12,100 square feet to 28,000 square feet. Thi L;
proposed use would conform to present and future -zoning of
the property.
City ordinances are met relative to minimum lot sizes and
widthal however, lot 3 on south of 1(ampa Circle appears to
be quite limited for building. Keith Nelson points out
In his review of the plot that the north side of the lot
could be considered a aide yard and cctback reduced to 20'
to allow for additional building area which would be pooL.ibl,.
On new plate, it hos been city policy not to allow varinnaeLi
from width and size requirements, but it would not be un-
reasonable to allow one side of lot 3 so a side yard.
It should be noted that all existing atructures on lot
will be removed.
3-21-71
Park dedication is proposed in cash. Outlot A is intended
for future use for the Monticello Country Club as part of
the golf course.
Enclosed, you will find our engineers review of the plat
and a copy has been sent to Dick Lwinell for review.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of:^
1. Park dedication - land or cash `� rbT t'
2. Approval of preliminary pla .
REFERENCES: OSM letter of 3.13-78. Copy of plat.
Item 4. Public Hearing - Consideration of Thomas Park Preliminary Plat.
Stuart Hoglund is proposing to plat 19.6 acres of land east
and south of Hoglund Bus Garage (copy of plat enclosed).
The area is platted for connercial and industrial size lots
and conforms to present and future zoning of the property.
Fourteen (14) lots are included in the plat ranging in size
from 23,200 square feet to 200,000 square feet.
City ordinances are met relative to lot widths and sizes.
Additionally, park dedication would be required in land or
cash for the area. (Plat does not indicate land - it is
presumed cash dedication is proposed).
One question that has been raised is that the city will be D
blacktopping the road north of the roller rink and south of
the plat and would like to install the necessary sewer and
water services to the north for Thomas Park but Stuart Hoglund
has not yet responded to whether he would like these services.
This should be resolved at Tuesday's meeting.
Our engineers and Dick Dwir:ell are reviewing the plat and
their comments will be presented at the meeting
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration or:
1. Park dedication - land or ca
2. Sewer and water services for lots abutting road to
be blacktopped.
3. Approval of Preliminary Plat.
REFERENCES: Copy of plat.—AveOaLble- Cie M41 Caay 4.0.
Item 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of Holker's Hillside Addition.
Richard Holker and Martin Ostvig are proposing to plat a 3.5
acre parcel of land located dust south of the Burlington Northern
railroad in Lower Monticello. (Copy of plat is enclosed).
The proposed platting eonoioto of (10) residential lots plus
one (1) outlet ranging in size from 6,800 oquaro feet to over
20,000 square foot.
Lot 8, Block 1 appears to be an unbuildablo outlet since this
lot does not have any acce as.
Phis plat is actually a replatting of Blocks 44 and 45, Lower
Monticello, and other than Lot 8, Block 1, minimum lot sizes
and widths appear adequate. 1r. Holker has not indicated
whether they plan to have Lot 8 as an outlet, or if their
intentions are to combine Lots 7 k 8 together. This should
probably be resolved at Tuesday's meeting.
The property is currently zoned Br3 (Multiple Family) and the
plat indicates single and two family dwellings are the intended
use;.
Park dedication has been proposed in cash, which appears to
be reasonable due to the size of the subdivision.
Our engineers and Dick Dwinell are reviewing the plat and
their comments will be presented at the meeting.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of: SOI'
1. Park dedication in cash as proposed.��,/ �0
2. Intended use of Lot 8, Block 1. Cwi �t
3. Approval of preliminary plat.
REFERENCES: Copy of plat.
Item 6. Consideration of Granting a Variance from the Home Occupation
Activities to Allow a Hair Styling Shea by Joseph Peterson.
At the last Planning Commission meeting Joseph Peterson,
owner of the home located at 348 E. Broadway, requested the
rezoning of his property from R-2 to B-4 for the purpose of
setting up a hair styling shop In the residential home.
As you will recall, the Planning Commission denied the ro-
zoning request due to the strong opposition from the area ra
oidences.
Wh _•i the rezoning issue was brought before the city council,
Hr. Peterson withdrew his request and asked to apply instead
for variance under the home occupation activities to allow
the hair styling shop.
Current ordinances do allow home occupations in residential
diotricts so permitted accessory uses under certain conditi�-r:
and the definition of a home occupation is as follows:
Any gainful occupation engaged in by the occupants of
a dwelling at or from the dwelling. Such activity
shall be clearly incidental and secondary to the
residential use of the premises. Permisuabl,+ home
occupations chall not include the conducting of a
retail buslneoi other than by mail, manufacturing
business, or a repair shop of arty kind on the premi:;es,
and no stock in trade shall be kept or Gold. :•lo other
than peruono residing on the premises shall be em-
ployed, and no mechanical equipment Ghall be employed
that Is not cuotomarlly found in the home and no more
than one (1) room may be devoted to home occupation
u::e. Such home occupation shall not require internnl
or external alterations or involve conotruction features
not cust.omnrlly found in dwellings. The entrance to
the loco devoted to ouch occupntions ahaLl be within
the dwelling. There shall bo no exterior display.
no exterior oigno except as allowed In the sitT
regulations for tho zoning district in which arch home
occupation is located. There shall be no exterior storage
of equipment or materials used in the home occupation. No
home occupation shall be permitted which results in or
generates more traffic than one (1) car for off- street
parking at any one given point in time. Permissab'_e home
occupations include, but are not limited to, the following:
art studio, dressmaking, special offices of a clergyman,
lawyer, architect, engineer, accountant, or real estate
agent or appraiser, when located in a dwelling unit occupied
by the same; and teaching, with musical, dancing and other
instruction limited to one (1) pupil at one time.
Although not specifically mentioned, it would appear that a hair
styling shop, subject to the conditions mentioned in the definition,
would be permitted accessory use in a residential area.
Mr. Peterson is requesting a variance from the conditions that the
operation generate no more than one (1) offstreet parking traffic
at any given time. Mr. Peterson has indicated that the operator of
the shop would only be doing business by appointments and should
never generate more than one (1) off street parking space unless
appointments are scheduled back-to-back. In addition, a variance
is requested from the definition to allow the sale of hair care
products such as shampoo, conditioner, etc. to his customers.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approving the hair etyline
shop as a peridtted accessory use subject to condi-
tions spelled out in definition of home occupation. /
REFERE14CES: Letter from Mr. Peterson explaining the proposed
operation and map shoving location.
Item 7. Consideration of Building Permit - High School Concession Stand.
The Monticello Jr. -Sr. High School is requesting a building permit
to construct a concession and atorago building on the High School
property.
The 56' x 381 concrete building vould be located near the football
field and would be used for storage of equipment in additiun to
conceasion oaleo.
Part of the storage area hao boon indicated for future toileto.
Jay Miller io reviewing the plans and will be at Tuoodgy'o meoting
to answer any questions.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of Building Permit Approval.
REFERENCES: A copy of the pito plan io available of City Hall
for your review. /
En
- OAA•SCHEIEN•MAYEAON &ASSOCIATES INC.
Lend sun o .yrs
March 20, 1978
C_,
Mr. Gary wieber
City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Ret Preliminary Plat of
Holker's Hillside Addition
Dear Garyt
The preliminary plat of Holker's Hillside Addition under
date of March 6, 1978, was received by our office on March
9, 1978, and has been reviewed by my staff. The following
are our comments based on the requiremente of Monticello's
Subdivision Ordinance Section 11-4-1.
1. Section 11-4-1 (A)3 requires that the address of the record
fee owner be shown on a plat.
2. Section 11-4-1 (B)1, it appears that the developer may
intend to include Outlet A of Lauring Hillside Terrace
with Lot 8, Block 1 of this plat to make an 85' x 160'
lot. without this inclusion, Lot 8 would have a 3.5 foot
frontage on Ramsey Street and about a 1 foot frontage on
Sixth Street. i would think that the developer should
be required to include said Out;pt A in this plat as part
of Lot 8 Block 1, as Lot 8 would not be suitable
for a building site.as platted. Further, this parcel of
land(Lot 8 and Outlet A) would require two titles and I
can foresee a problem in the future that the city may have
in maintaining this subdivided lot as two single unite.
3. Section 11-4-1 (B)S, the adjoining property to the south
and wast is Lauring Hillside Tsrraae, not Addition. The
property north of the railroad and west of Block 36, Lower
Monticello, should be identified as Block 1, A.C. Riggs
Addition and the ownership given.
r
L_
•
Mr. Gary Wieber
March 20, 1978
Page 2
4. Section 11-4-1 (B)7, no soil survey for the plat has been
submitted.
S. Section 11-4-1 (B)8, the preliminary utility plan as sub-
mitted seems to be in order, although no gradients of the
sewer and water have been shown in the profile format. We
understand a petition has been filed with the city requesting
sewer and water and a feasibility study for this improvement
will be made in the very near future.
6. Section 11-4-1 (B)9, no statement has been made identifying
tree coverage and the proposed disposition within the plat.
7. Section 11-4-1 (C)1, the proposed street profiles and grade
have been submitted and seem to be in order. However, a
typical street cross section should be included denoting
Ramsey Street as 36 feet face to face of curb and Wright
Street 32 feet face to face of curb in that Wright St. will be a
dead end street with a cul de sac. A complete right-of-way
section should be shown indicating the side slopes
to the property line and the boulevard section at the
back of curb.
B . Section 11-4-1 (C)4, the building setback lines from all
streets should be shown, that is 30 foot setback on front
streets and 20 foot sideyard setback.
9 . Section 11-4-1 (D)2, the proposed stormwater runoff plan
seems to fit the natural drainage area which is along the
southerly ditch of the Burlington Northern Railway. A
sewage basin is noted for erosion control, but a detail
should be provided for this.
10. Section 11-4-1 (D)7, a soil erosion plan has been sub-
mitted and seems to be in order. However, we would recommend
that the three to one slope adjacent to the railroad right-
of-way be sodded and pegged in lieu of coed and impregnated
mats. Cross sections of the property have been submitted in
lieu of two foot contours duo to the topography of this plat.
Theso cross sections indicate that no building is proposed
on gradients steeper than 8% and this would appear acceptable.
1 1. Section 11-5-7, Steep Slopes, this section indicates that
subdivisions shall be designed such that no construction
or grading will take place on existing ground with alopeo
steeper than 188. This plat nearly approaches this limitation
ao nomo of the aroaa are approximately 17 to 189 at their
steepest location.
Mr. Gary Wieber
March 20, 1978
Page 3
This concludes our comments regarding the preliminary plat for
Holker's Hillside Addition. One set of marked plans have been
enclosed for your review.
Yours very truly,
ORR-SCHELEN-1AYERON
6 ASSOCIATES, INC.
JJohn P. Badalich, P.E.
City Engineer
JPB/mb
cc: Keith M. Graham, Land Surveyor
Enc.
0
0
ORR•SCHEIEN• MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
C
March 20, 1978
Mr. Gary Wieber
City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 E. Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Preliminary Plat of
Thomas Park
Dear Gary:
The preliminary plat of Thomas Park was received by our office
in the early part of March and has been reviewed by my staff.
The following are our comments based on the requirements of
Monticello Subdivision Ordinance, Section 11-6-1.
Let me state at the outset, that the preliminary plat as now
presented is different from what was originally proposed in
relation to the utilities constructed for this property during
Improvement 77-1. Under Improvement 77-1, there were three 6"
sanitary sewer and three G' water connections constructed to
serve the property north of proposed Thomas Park Drive. The
preli.ninary plat as now presented has eight lots in Block 2
abutting the road plus a cul de sac (mini circle) intersecting
this roadway which has three additional lots. This moans that
additional services will have to be constructed to serve the
eight additional lots as now platted. This additional con-
struction would have to take place early this spring and prior
to the paving of this roadway which is scheduled for this
sprinq under Change Order No. 1 to Arcon Construction Company,
the contractors for Improvement 77-1. This additional con-
struction would consist of a manhole over the existing pipe to
facilitate a sewer extension into mini circle. Also five
additional sanitary sewer services would bo cut into the
existing pipe and extended to the five lots on the eaot/wost
roadway. In addition, seven G" water services would be tapped
off of the existing 10" main into these lots and also an 8'
cut -in for an extension into mini circle.
The extension of the roadway oast and wont (Thomas Park Drive)
from Public road to County highway 1117 was not contemplated
in the past, thorefore construction of tho appropriato c ewor
and water services should be made prior to the final paving
on County road #117.
March 20, 1978
Mr. Cary Wieber
Page 2
All of the above noted construction will involve extra work and
a change order will be necessary to Improvement No. 77-1 prior
to the final surfacing contemplated in this improvement. A price
for this work will have to be negotiated with the contractor.
Other comments regarding the plat are as follows:
1. The ownership of the triangular parcel northerly of Oakwood
Industrial Park and easterly of this plat is not shown. This
parcel appears to be land locked. Could this parcel be
purchased and attached to Lot 11?
2. The setback lines are shown but they are not identified
as to width. In the B3 District, side yard setbacks on
streets need only be 20 feet wide.
3. is it wise to have one lot (Lot 11, Block 2) within two
zoning districts. Wouldn't it be better to change the
zoning district to follow the proposed lot line and have
Lot 11 entirely within one district.
4. According to Section 11-4-1 (D)4 a sketch plan for the remain-
der of the adjacent pruperty west of the plat should b�
submitted to the Planning Commission.
5. According to Section 11-4-1 (D)5, in that Lots 9 and 10
are largo lots, the structure location should be noted. ar""
Also Lot 11 should indicate a structure location so that a b�
street could be extended easterly in the future which will
allow subdivision of Lot 11.
6. The entire right-of-way for the extension of the cast/webt
roadway (Thomas Park Drive) from Public road and north o;
Block 1 should be dedicated in its entirety. This roadway
easement was drawn up for Improvement 77-1 construction
but never signed. According to the grading plan, this
designated roadway is Thomas Park Drive and should thus be
noted on the preliminary plat also.
7. The grading plan as submitted is acceptable and will
provide the nceesary drainage for all streets. A alight
revision will be necessary in the proposed grade for
Thomas Park Drive and this will be accomplished prior to
blacktopping this spring.
8. A 20' easement will be necessary along the south li.ie of
Lot 11 for future storm sewer construction as identified
in the Comprohenaivo Utility Plan.
March 20, 1978
Mr. Gary Wieber
Page 3
9. Section 11-4-1 (B)-7 requires a soil survey to be submitted.
10. Under Section 11-4-1 (B)8 the availability of sewer and
water has been noted above. As was indicated earlier,
this construction should take place prior to the final
paving of Thomas Park Drive.
This concludes our comments regarding the preliminary plat for
Thomas Park Addition. One set of marked plans are enclosed for
your review.
Yours very truly,
OPR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
`6 ASSOCIATES, INC.
_,John P. Badalich, P.E.
City Engineer
JP B/mb
cc: Mayer-Rohlin, Inc.
0
a
ORR•SCHELEN•MAYERON &ASSOCIATES, INC.
/ unwdlitrq Enginrors
March 13, 1978
Mr. Gary Wieber
City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 E. Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Re: Preliminary Plat of
Kampa Estates
Dear Gary,
The preliminary plat of Kampa Estaten, under date of 1'ebruary 20,
1978, was received by our office on March 6, and has been reviewed P
by my staff. The following are our comments based on the require-
ments of Monticello's Subdivision Ordinance, Section 11-4-1.
1. The surrounding zoning classifications are missing.
2. The block numbers are not shown.
3. Lot 2 in the southerly block should have only a 20' side yard
set back shown instead of 30'.
4. The building area of Lot 3 is quite restricted. We would euggest
that the center line radius of Kampa Circle be reduced to 100'
to allow more lot area. This would, however, reduce the lot
sizes on the north side of the street and may affect the required
area. Also the northside of the lot could be defined as the
side yard and the tet back reduced to 20' thereby allowing a
larger building area. (See enclosed portion of plat).
5. What in the proposed use of Outlot A? Will this be dedicated
for park purposes?
6. Tho note relating to drainage and utility easements is missing
which defines the casement width.
7. In the Description, distance of 331.95' is shown ao 332.79'
in the graphic portion of the plat.
S. No soil survoy is submitted (Section 11-4-1(0)7.
3
Mr. Gary wi.eber
City of Monticello
Re: Preliminary Plat of
Kampa Estates
March 13, 1978
Page 2
9. Under Section 11-4-1(B)8, the sewer and water system will be
constructed in conjunction with the County Road 39 improvements.
However, the minimum basement elevations should be noted on the
grading plan.
10. No tree coverage survey is noted, (Section 11-4-1(B)9.
11. Under Section 11-4-1(D)2, the drainage plan as submitted
is acceptable except that two catch basins should be provi�cd
in the cul do sac instead of one.
12. Outlot A could be used as a storm water detention area until
a future storm sewer is constructed in the Chestnut Street Area.
This concludes our comments regarding the preliminary plat for
Kampa Estates. Two copies of all plans should be submitted so that
we can mark up one set and return to you.
Yours very truly,
ORR-SCHELEN-KAYERON
p ASSOCIATLr'/ ,, IIN�C.
John P. Badalich, P.E.
City Engineer
JPB/jet
cc: Moyer-Rohlin, Inc.
J
Ibnilcello City Council
.4e ui.^.h to request. a variance fmr.. the home ozo,;ptionn-,
regulations to allow us to have a hair styling :..op ,i:
3V -.. Brradway, late 11, i2 S 13, n1ock C. :�r.ticell9„
.Ilh an identification r.;gn In front, off xrprt Pile-
ing for two care other tnan the owner. (Las trout t tc
uuffic:unt becuuec the hair cf)!;ling wou :d kc On, t y
appointment only, and aluo be o1Ln;ed thu of "ra:.
core products such as ehampou, eotn:it.toixr, ate. t� —
et -
hair stylir%g ruotomnra.
4
;;lttc� r�tiy,
JtiL t 3isron Fater :::a
91r - v h Avo. "
Buffalo. :7:. 55-411
I
N
HOWARD DAHLOREN ASSOCIATES
7.1-7.
CONSULTING PLANNERS
ONE ORO VCLANO TCRRACE
NINNC A PODS• MI NN C Sol. 66.03
..1 • 111.3-
March
11.1 10
March 13, 1978
MEMORANDUM
TO: Monticello Planning Commission
RE: Ordinance Review: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments
The planning Commission reviewed a memorandum for proposed
Ordinance Amendments dated December20, 1977. Following the
Planning Commission's review on January3, 1978, it was the
general consensus that the following amendments should be
recommended for adoptions
1. Section 10-3-4,Area and Building Size:
(A) PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum land area and
building size requirements to be provided for each
Zoning District as listed in the table below:
DISTRICT LOT AREA LOT WIDTH BUILDING HEIGHT
R-3 8,000 80 3 Stories
(B) LOT AREA PER UNIT: The lot area per unit requirement for
townhouses, apartments, condominiums, and planned unit
developments shall be calculated on the basis of the
total area in the projects
Multiple Family
8,000 square feet for first unit
plus 2,000 square feet for each additional one
bedroom unit
plus 2,500 square feet for each additional two
bedroom unit
2. Section 10-3-5, Off -Street Parking Requirmentat
(H) NUIUIER OF SPACES REOUIREDt
3. MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGSt at Least(2) off street
a parking opacas per dwelling unit, one of which shall
be onclooed.
3. Section 10-13-4"B-3" Highway Busineas Dintrict, Conditional Useos
(11) Commercial planned unit development as regulated by
chaptor 20 of thio Ordinance.
Page #2
Monticello Planning Commission
March 13, 1978
4. Section 10-14-4,"B-4" Regional Business District, Conditional Uses:
(E) Commercial planned unit development as regulated by
Chapter 20 of this Ordinance.
5. Section 10-8-2,"R-3 Medium Density Residential District:
10-8-2 PERMITTED USES:
(G) Any use permitted in the "R-2" District and as regulated
therein.
6. Section 10-8-4,"R-3" Mendium Density Residential District:
(C) Multiple family dwelling structures containing thirteen
(13) or more dwelling units, provided that where the
multiple family units are contiguous to single tamily
residential zoned property, the front side, and rear yard
setbacks will be a minimum of forty(46) feet, and that ,
the minimum setbacks for parking areas shall be
fort (40) feet on the front yard, and fifteen(15) feet
on the side and rearXards, with aproppriate screening and
landscaping with durable materials Seaigned in harmony
with the principal structures and an overall landscaDinq
plan.
7. Section 10-3-5,Off-Strect Parking Requirements:
(D) GCNERAL PROVISIONS:
8 STALL, AISLE AND DIRVCWAY DESIGN:
(q) Curbing: All open off-street parkins areas and
driveways in industrial and commercial areas
shall have a aix(6) inch non -surmountable continu-
ious concrete turn around the perimeter of the
parking area and driveways. All curb dealann
and materials shall be approved by the City
L•'nginoor.
PAGE # 3
Monticello Planning Commission
March 13, 1978
8. Section 10-3-9, Signs
(J) Signs for promotinq and/or sellinq a development project
for the purpose of promoting or selling a development
project of three(3) to twenty-five(25) acres, one sign not
to exceed one hundred(100) square feet of advertising
surface may be erected on the project site. For projects
of twenty-six(26) to fifty(50) acres, one or two sions not
to exceed two hundred(200) aggregate square feet of
advertising surface may be erected. For projects over
fifty-one(51) acres, one, two or three signs, not to
exceed three hundred(300) aggregate square feet of advertising
surface may be erected. No dimision shall exceed
twenty-tive(15) teet exclusive of supporting structures.
such signs shall not remain after ninety-five(95) percent
of the project is developed. Such si n permit shall be
reviewed and renewed annually by the gity Council. If
said sign is lighted, it shall Ke illuminated only during
those hours when business is in operation or when
the model homes or other developments are open for
business purposes.
-�7 r6�
j- 4
,ado
c- L41
,k) �
-V I
wp�
5
Lapen� ?
•