Planning Commission Agenda Packet 05-23-1978 (3)AGENDA
HIMCELLO PLANNING OOt4kWION
RELULAR MEETING
July 18, 1978 - 7:30 P.M.*
Chairman: Jim Ridgeway
Members: Fran Fair, Denton Erickson, Fred Topel, Dave Bauer.
Loren Klein (ex -officio).
1. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - Fair's Market.
2. Public Hearing - Consideration of Recommendation on Ordinance Amendment
Relative to Junkyards.
3. Consideration of Variance Request - Frontyard Setback.
4. Consideration of Ordinance Amendment - Day Care Center.
y!
5• Approval of Minutes - July 5, 1978 and June 20, 1978.
Unfinished Business -
New Business -
Variance Request - Robert Blake
*NOTE: 4:00 P.M. meeting on item 2. relative to Junkpyardo
with the State Department of Traneportation.
This meeting can be attended by those who
are interested.
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
AGENDA ITEM 1 - Public Hearinit - Conditional Use Permit - Fair's Market.
Mr. & Mrs. Fair are proposing to increase the area of their
Market at the Northeast corner of Broadway and Cedar. This
area is zoned B-4.
A significant change in size or in structure of an outside sales
area requires a Conditional Use Permit. Ordinarily, outside
sales areas should be only 30% of the building area, and the Fair's
would like to increase this amount to about 43% of the building
area.
They would meet or exceed the other requirements for businesses
in a B-4 zone using the present plans.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial on
,rocawmending this conditional use.
REFERENCES: Plans are available for review in Building
Inspectorle office.
APPLICANT: Mr. R Mrs. Budd Fair
- 1 -
AGENDA ITE} 2 - Consideration of Recommendation on Ordinance Amendment Relative
to Junkyards.
Ehclosed, please find a notice of public hearing that intends to
amend the Monticello City Ordinance relative to the regulation
of junkyards in the City of Monticello. The affect of the
ordinance would be to allow a junkyard as a non—conforming use
provided thee effective screen be put up within three years from
the effective date of the ordinance amendment.
It should be pointed out that the current City Ordinance would
amortize out any norb-conforming junkyard over a period of one
year from the effective date of the ordinance which in effect
is already passed. According to the current ordinance, a non-
conforming junkyard is any junkyard that is either not screened
and also ary junkyard that is not in an industrial zone. This
ordinance has not been enforced simply because at the time of
the adoption of this ordinance it was included with the whole
section on zoning and it was not the intent of the City at that
time to specifically amortize out arty type of business. In
the normal case, a nor -conforming business is allowed to exist,
but is not allowed to expand.
It should be pointed out that this ordinance amendment then
would allow any existing junkyard to be grandfathered in
provided they put up the screen within three years. However,
it does not allow any junkyard to expand. If a junkyard
desired an expansion, it would have to be in a heavy induo-
trial zone, or an I-2. where junkyards or automobile salvage
yards are allowed as a conditional use.
It would appear that this ordinance would affect at least two
businesses - Ruff Auto Parts and Edgar Klucas. Both of these
parties have been sent a notice of the public hearing and
additionally, I have sent a notice to a Mr. Rtebaed Oei}}e �•�� G••I�-
who has a used car business but also seems to store a lot of
junk care on his property on County Road 75. This is just
approximately one block west of the Wayside Inn and abuts
up againat the Golf Course. For your information, according
to our ordinance, a junkyord is wV place whore two or more
vehicles not in rvrning conditiorf and/or not licensed or
parts thereof, are stored in the. open and are not being
restored to operational conditio%, or any land, building
or structure used for wrecking or' storing of such motor
vehicles or parts theroofM and including any counercial
salvaging and scavenging of any other goods, articles or
merchandise.
There in a program within the State Department of Transportation
that will make Federal and State funds available to put up
an effective oereen for any junkyard that in visible from a
trunk highway, provided it is within 1; mile of arch trunk
highway. According to the State of Minn000ts, they are certain
that Ruff Auto would be eligible for such fundo. and I have
- 2 -
also indicated to them to look at the Edgar Klucas property
because it would appear to me that it is certainly within the
definition of the program. If anyone is interested, I have
contacted the State of Minnesota and they will be out on
Tuesday, July 18, 1978 at 4:00 P.M. to meet at City Hall and
then to take a field trip of the existing salvage yards, and
in addition to having the State out, I have also asked Mr. Ruff
and Mr. Klucas to attend this meeting for their information.
Additionally, a representative from the State Department of
Transportation will be at our meeting Tuesday night to clarify
any points and to answer any questions.
While the State may possibly pay for funds to screen the portion
of a junkyard visible from the trunk highway, it would not
pay to screen the entire junkyard, so this is the reason for the
three year clause to allow an individual to pay for any portion
of the cost which State or Federal money would not cover and
would allow adequate time to put up an effective screen whether
that would be a planting type of screen or actually a board type
of fence. A wire mesh or chain link fence would not seem to be
adequate since this would not form an effective screen
as it would be visible from the freeway and abutting properties.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration or recommendation to the City
Oouncil of ordinance amendment
REFERENCES: Enclosed copy of notice of public hearing, and
May 31, 1978 letter from the Minnesota Department
of Transportation.
AGENDA ITEM 3 — Oonsideration of Variance Request — Frontyard Setback.
At the request of Mr. Sam Peraro a few weeks ago, the
Building Inspector went out to Lot 13, Block 1, Hillcrest Second
Addition, and provided the setback locations. This property
fronts on Hillcrest Circle. It is zoned R,-1.
On Thursday, July 6, it was brought to the Building Inspector's
attention that the setback was only 2210" of the required 30'0",
leaving an 810" encroachment on the front yard.
A variance is requestod to avoid having to move a nearly completed
house.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Oonoideration of recommendation of approval or
denial of this request.
REFERENCES: Largor scale plat plan io available in the Building
Inspector's office.
APPLICANT: Samuel Peraro
— 3 —
AGENDA ITEM 4 - Consideration of Ordinance Amendment - Day Care Center.
Mr. Sheldon Johnson has asked to be put on the Agenda to
speak in behalf of an ordinance amendment to allow a Day Care
Center as a Conditional Use in an R-2 Zone. Currently, a Day Care
Center, other than in a residential dwelling, is only allowed
as a Conditional Use in an R-3 Zone. Additionally, it would
appear that there might be a problem with the requirements
of Section 10-3-5(x)-7, since there is no on -the -property
p&'king provided.
In the past, when the school was used as an elementary facility,
parking was provided in the public lot across the street to
the North of the Oakwood School.
Possibly, parking for the proposed Day Care facility could be
dome on the public lot across from the school on the basis
where its permitted use could be renewed annually. This way,
if overcrowding on the parking lot would occur, the City
would have the right to request that the Day Care Center provide
other off street parking, rather than allow the use perpetually
of the public lot.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of recommendation of approval
or denial of ordinance amendment.
REFERENCES: Enclosed letter to Planning and Zoning File.
-4-
loR't"Sea 041LOOVAW4-►
s'
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARISG
Notice is hereby given that a publi, hr•avin_ hit
be hold by the City of Monticello PlanninG Cr.tttml.ri.•n
on .Indy 18, 1978, at 7130 P. M. in the ?dont i., of l,.
f i t,v Ilal t to consider the fol lowing mat ter:
Amendment to Monticello Ordinant v Q4-, ti.n, 1•1 _ •�
t.,. toad as follows:
ki6115L: Passenger autom,tbilei. :testi„u••n-
and I rucks not currently 1 it ensed b> ,ho �1....•.
or which are beLause of met•hani.-al d.•I'it i.•u„
incapable of movement under their —w4- jw%vr•.
parked or stored oulaide for a petind in , v• -•
n1' thirty (30) days, and all. material: -;t„r•,•d
,.otside in violal ion of the city ovdinan, v .tto
Considered refuse or junk and shall be disp-4—d ,.I.
Yn junk yard may continue as n nun t inC.-rmi.nc
use for more than cthree (3) years after lho
effective date of this ordinance. except that a
junk yard may continue as a non-tonformin_ n,r
if within that period it is u,aop I vt vl � rut
�. within a building, fence. scrern plantinG ur
device of such height no as to nvveen c,mtpletel�
the operations of the junk yard. Plaits of .nth it
building or device shall be approved by the t,t�
Planning Commission and CJt.y Council before it i,
erected or put Into place. The piling of ,junl. it,
yards in all residential districts &halt be con-
sidered to be a non -conforming use and shall be
removed within a period of three 131 months at tei
the effective date of this Ordinance.
tCurrent ordinance reads one (1) year.
Current ordinance has provision +, tit an indu:t,eat
disUtiel..n
he t t 1 t•n and ora I t esl imam • 1 I 1 h. .,, , • pt . ,1 ,
.,hnto .•ub,jetl and all pi•r-ion, 114-,1, inu t„ 116• fi..,..'
rot'er•rut 4-t) mtil jec.l wi 11 be heard a1 , It t , m.,et 1 it,.
�' ry ebrl
o�
ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEM (under New Business)
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Blake have made application for a variance
to build a garage behind their home at 313 East 4th Street.
The property is zoned R-2.
The Blake's would like to build within 3'0" of their westerly
property line. With a 210" overhang on the garage, the drip line
would be 110" from the property line.
The abutting property owners have sent letters stating that
they don't have any objection to this garage.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of recomaending approval or
denial of this variance.
REFERENCES: Plat plan and abutting property owner letters
available for review in the Building Inspector's
office.
APPLICANTS: Mr. & Mrs. Robert Blake.
r
Wnesota Department of Transportation
Transportation Building, St. Paul, MN 55155
pha
:-Tay
31, 1970
Cary 6'icber
City Administrator
250 rant Broadway
:lunticello, '.II: 55362
Dear :1r. b:icbcr:
Thank you for your letter of May 22. 1978 regarding the Harold Ruff
Junkyard In :Ionticello. You are correct; the State dues not scrccit
Junl.yards wlitch are located In industrial zones.
Cuwever, Ilarold Ruff's yard is not eligible for the State's progran
bacauac It is illegal under section 10-3-2 (M) of the :'onticelle
Inning ordinance (1975). That section probibitu n Junl,yard fron continu-
ing as a nonconforming use for wore than one year after the effcctivc
date of the_ ordinance unless it is located in an I:uluatrial dlstrirt
and is screened. As I understand the ordinance, that provision c"nns
that junkyards are allowed to exist an nonconforming uses only In Indus-
trial districts. The only provision I can find for the establishment
of new Junkyards to section 10-16-4 (g) 1, which vould allow "auto
wrecking, Junkyard, used auto parte (open storage) and similar Unca"
to the "I-2" Heavy Indistrial District subject to the conditional tine
permit procedure in Chapter 22. As Mr. Ituff'o junkyard is located in
violation of the ordinaneo.'wo must regard It no illegal under the
ordinanco. Out policy prohibits us from working on a Junkyard which is
illegally located under a local ordinance even though it might be eligible
otherwise.
I think that I osplatned this problem to you during one of our phone
convorsatians. If the ordinance did not contain the amortisation provision
which permits junkyards to continue as nonconforming uses only In Industrial
districts. Herold Ituff's yard would be eligible for the State's program.
I am not suggesting that 1lonticello amend its ordinance so that Mr. r:uff'o
junkynrd will ba ollgiblo for the State's program. for that to n policy
decision which thio City must consider. Apparently the City intenda to phase
out all nouconform] ng uses eventually for Ilonticalin Ilydtnanco eactionn
1
0-3-1 (A) and (D) provide that lawful noeconforeinr uses may contiruu but
that it is the intent of that section that all nonconforming uses shall
eventually be brought into conformance.
As swot oWwamr EAPUP . �'1
c
S everal ,.col le fron our District J office in Brainerd have visited ';r.
'uff's yard. ills yard is within 1/2 mile of 1-9- It would he difficult
to screen bccnuse the terrain is not level. As you probably :enol:, if a
hard is eligible for our program and it can't be successfully scrt.ncd,
1.•.: clthLr relocate it or buy the Inventory, thcrety putting it out of
Lur.lncus. :ven if this yard 1:eru eligible for Clio State's probr=, w.
v-uuldn't necesuarily screen it.
I 1.111 be glad to dltcuss Chiu with you or to explatr the cl.igli USC;
pro:.lua to the City Council if you wish.
Very truly ,yours,
3e43djA--
,.ct')y I r!,or
.luul;ard prngrau Coordinator
rc. ilarold Guff
ACI, 1111aIPn - Biatrict J
nil i.offman
C1
M EMPANDUM
TO: File P-40-2: Planning k Zoning Correa.
FROM: Gary wieber, City Administrator Pr'
DATE: July 11, 1978
Mrs. John Baker, Route 2, Box 2409 Buffalo, Minnesota, inquired of the City
of Monticello on approximately July 10, 1978, that the City put in writing
that the Oakwood C6rm meets all zoning, housing and sanitary sewer and
other ordinances of the City of Monticello. This would allow a portion of
the facility to be used for a day care center.
It should be pointed out that the Oakwood School is in an R-2 Single and
Two Family Residential district, and as such, a school or educational facility
is allowed as a conditional use within such a zone since a school is listed
as a conditional use within an Rwl and in an R-2, all conditional uses of an
R-1 are included in the same zone. However, there is some concern relative
to a day care center. It would appear that from the ordinance a day care
home which is somewhat defined as restricted to a family dwelling would be
allowable in an R-2 zone, since this is already allowed in an R-1 zone.
However, the day care or group nursery is only allowed as a conditional use
within an R-3 and the following are the condition3:
1. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served.
Children are delivered and removed daily.
2. The front yard depth shall be a minerof 351.
3. Adequate off-street parking and accesses are provided in compliance
with Section 10-3-5 of this ordinance.
4. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided in compliance
with Section 10-3-6 of this ordinance.
5. The site and related parking and service shall be served by an arterial
or collector street of mufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic
which will be generated.
6. All sifpno and informational visual commmication devices shall be in
compliance with Section 10-3-9 of this ordinance.
7. The provisions of Section 10-22.1-E of thio ordinance are oonoidered
and satisfactorily mot.
8. The regulations and oonditiona of the Ninn000ta Department of Public
welfaro Manual 113130 as adopted and amended and/or changed are natio-
foctorily met.
y
Nemo to File P-40-2
Page X
July 11, 1978
9. A written indication of preliminary or pending or final license approval
from the regulatory welfare agency is supplied to the City.
It would appear that one obstaclef1could be the provision relative to the parking.
According to the ordinance Section 10-3-5-H-7 that at least one parking ace
is necessary for each seven (7). students plus one space for each three (3,)
classrooms. From this, it would appear that the City at a minimum would have
to require parking for the portion of Oakwood School used as a day care canter,
and the problem currently is that there is no off-street parking provided by
the Oakwood School at this point. In the past, the School has utilized the
parking in the Block first to the North of the Oakwood School which is a
public parking lot financed by assessments none of which have been paid by
Oakwood School. It would appear that the other provisions of the conditional
use would be metk however, there is some question on items 8. and 9. and the
City would have to be assessed of the license approval apparently from the
Minnesota Department of Public Welfare.
GW/ns
cc: L. Klein
II