Planning Commission Agenda Packet 07-18-1978M iTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
July 18, 1978 - 7:30 P.M.
Members present: Jim Ridgeway, Denton Erickson, Fran Fair, Fred Topel.
Members absent: Dave Sauer.
1. Public Hearing - Consideration of Conditional Use Permit - Fair's Market
Mr. & Mrs. Budd Fair proposed an increase to the area of their Market at the
Northeast corner of Broadway and Cedar Streets. Since this area is currently
zoned as B-4 (Regional Business) a conditional use permit is necessary to
allow for outdoor sales and storage.
A provision of the conditional use permit requires that the outside storage
area be limited to 306 0£ the building area, unless this percentage is
increased by the City Council. Mr. & Mrs. Fair are proposing the outside
sales and storage area to be approximately 434 of the building area. A
motion was made by D. &MM ekson, seconded by F. Topel and unanimously carried
to approve the conditional use permit as presented.
2. Consideration of Recommndation of Ordinance Amendment Relative to Jwrkyards.
Monticello's current ordinance relative to junkyards indicates that any
junkyard may only continue as a non -conforming use for more than one year
after the effective date of the ordinance (July 28, 1975) except that a
junkyard may continue as a non -conforming use in an industrial district
if, within that period, it is completely enclosed within a building, fence,
screen planting, or device of such height so as to screen completely the opera-
tions of the Junkyard.
Subject of the hearing was a proposed ordinance amendment that would allow
all existing Junkyarda as lawful, non -conforming useo, provided that junk-
yards are completely anclosed within a building, fence, screen planting,
or device of such height so as to screen lately the operations of the
juniprard. (Seo Agenda Supplement 7-18-78 1
A meeting was held the afternoon of July 18, 1978 at 4:00 P.M. with Betay
Parker and Rich Heinlan, officials of the State Department of Tranc;portation,
William Hoffman, attomey for Harold Ruff, Chuck Stumpf, with Ruff Auto
Parts, Inc., Jim Metcalf, representing Edgar Klucas, Loren Klein, Monticello
Building Inapector, and Gert' Wlebor, City Administrator. At this mectinG,
Mo. Parker indicated after review of the proportieo of Mr. Edgar Klucas
and Harold Ruff, that both appeared oligible for a State and Federal
program whereby State and Federal funds were available to scream that portion
of the junkyard that is visible from a State Trunk Highway. State and
Federal monies would be available for installing the fence, and nloo nvailable
for purchasing the eu mcmt from the property owners. If the City ao deoired
to have the remaining portion of any junkyard ocreened, that would be n
decision which the City of Monticello would have to make. However, in order
S
Minutes - 7/18/78
to allow State and Federal monies to be utilized in constructing the fence
and obtaining the easements, the City of Monticello would have to amend its
current ordinance which in effect amortizes out a junkyard. After these
items were explained by Gary Wieber, Monticello City Administrator, the
Chairman of the Planning Commission, Jim Ridgeway, opened up the hearing
for input from the audience.
Mr. William Hoffman indicated that his client, Mr. Ruff, had estimated that
it would require approximately $300,000 to screen the remaining portion of
his junkyard if the same type of fence that the State would put up would be
required. Mr. Hoffman indicated that if the City would want the screening,
that the City should consider paying for the screening itself.
Mr. James Metcalf, representing Edgar Klucas, expressed the same concern
for his client as did Mr. Hoffman, in that the financial aspects of such a
fence would be a burden to Mr. Klucas.
A motion was made by D. E1ririckson, seconded by F. Topel and unanimously carried
to table this issue and allow the item to be reviewed with our City Attorney.
The issue will be brought up at the next regular meeting of the Planning
Commission, August 15, 1978.
3. Consideration of Variance Request - Frontyard Setback.
At the request of Mr. Sam Peraro, the Building Inspector went out to Lot 13,
Block 1, at Hillcrest Second Addition, and provided the setback locations.
This property fronts on Hillcrest Circle and is zoned as R-1.
On Thursday, July 6, 19789 it was brought to the attention of the Building
Inspector that the setback was only 22' instead of the required 30', and
that the Building Inspector did in fact make a mistake in determining the
setback. As a result, a variance request to have the building setback at
22' instead of the 30' was being requested.
Motion was made by D. Erickson, seconded by F. Fair and unanimously carried
to recommend tho Council approve such a variance request.
4. Consideration of Ordinance Amendment - Day Care Center.
Mr. Shelly Johnson, Superintendent of Monticello School District 0362,
Indicated that Sue Baker and Marcella Corrow would like to open up a
Day Care Center in the gymnaalum portion of the former Oakwood Elementary
School. There appeared to be some quoation on whether such a use was allowed
no a conditional use in tho current zone, which is Rr2, or whether a zoning
ordinance amendment would have to be made to the R-2 to add thia provision.
A motion woo made by F. Fair, seconded by F. Topel and unanimously carried
to rule that such a use is a conditional use under the P-2 section, wince it
is a private educational institution. Therefore, since the School has already
existed, a hearing and restating approval from the City Council is not necea_
Gary to consider the came typo of use. However, tho Planning Commi::c,ion did
recommend that the provision for offotroot parking under the conditional use
section of R-2 be reviewed annually coinciding with the lease agreement between
the ochool district and the day care center.
2-
S
Minutes - 7/13/73
5. Approval of Minutes.- Julv 5. 1978 and June 20. 1978.
A motion was made by F. Fair, seconded by F. Topel and unanimously carried
to approve the minutes as indicated above.
6. Request for Variance - Mr. & Mrs. Robert Blake.
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 currently
zoned as R-2.
The Blake's are requesting to build within 3' of their Westerly property line.
With a 21 overhang on the garage, the drip line would be 1' from the property
line. Letters have been sent to the building inspector and are on file
indicating that the abutting property ommers have no objections to this
variance request.
A motion was made by F. Fair, seconded by F. Topel and unanimously carried
to approve the variance request.
Motion was made by F. Topel, seconded by D. Erickson and unanimously carried
to adjourn.
� Gary sober �?
City Adminiatrtor
GW/ns
0
3— -5-
`C'.r`''
NEW BUSINESS ITEM -
Consideration of a Variance AvDlication - Darwin Straw.
Mr. do Mrs. Darwin Straw have made application for a variance
to allow them to subdivide a 66' lot off of their 2h lots plat
on the SW corner of Block 10.
Presently, they own lots 1, 2 and W sbr of 3, Block 10. They
would like to set off the E ij of Lot 2 and W �., of lot 3 to
make one 66' lot to build a new home on. Their request is
for a lot only 66' because there is a garage on the W -�
of Lot 29 and they would like that garage to remain on the pro-
perty with the existing house on lot 1.
CONSIDERATION: Recommend approval or denial of this request.
REFERENCES: Plat Plan.
APPLICANT: Mr. & Mrs. Darwin Straw.
1�S
i
EVS.
pae
V! 6an9'�N4
Norms
i
I
Lor WY ( 2
l
UO-WIN
Lv I,z,cwV:3
w Vi.
Lor
3
PC' fn-=---�J L07-
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
AGENDA ITEM 1. Rezoning Aaolication - Riverside Addition - John Sandberg.
Mr. John Sandberg has made application to have Lot 59 Block 11
(109,000 square feet) of the Riverside Plat rezoned to R-3
to allow the construction of a 5-plex luxury apartment building
sometime in the future. This is currently zoned R-1. Mr.
Sandberg's intention is not to start right away on the apart-
ment project, but to be able to know whether or not it can
be built, so that as he sells off the surrounding property he
owns in the future, he can notify the prospective property
owners that there will likely be an apartment building going
up next to them some time.
If rezoning is granted, Mr. Sandberg has indicated that he would
make an agreement to build only a 5 -plea, rather than up to
a 12-plex as allowed in an R-3 Zone. It should be noted
that in talking to Mr. Dick Dwinell, he recommended against an
agreement of this nature since it would only be binding on Mr.
Sandberg, and not a subsequent owner. One alternative could be
a covenant on the land itself which would have to be drawn up by
an attorney and reviewed by our City Attorney. However, Mr. Dwinell
recommended against this also as establishing a precedent.
If the Planning Commission feels the area is appropriate for up
to 12 units, it should recommend rezoning to R-3; however, if it
feels that 5 units is appropriate, but would not feel comfortable
with as many as 12 unite, a possibility of a new zoning district
could be explored. The new zoning district would allow say 5 - 8
unit apartments. Of course, if the Planning Commission feels that
5 units is too great, then it should simply recommend denial of
the request.
CONSIDERATION: Granting or danying this rezoning request.
REFOMCESs A plat map is available at City Hall and map is enclosed.
Plane for the proposed apartment building have not
been submitted.
APPLICANT: John Sandberg.
AGENDA ITM 2. Continuation of Public Hearing on Proposed Ordinance Amendments for
JunKyardo,
At the Planning Oommioaion's last regular mooting, the issue of
proposed ordinance amendmgnto rolative to JunlWarde and oalvago
yardo were diocuosod at a Public Hearing. At that time, it wao
decided to table the matter until the next meeting to allow con-
sultation with our City Attorney relative to the matter.
Fhclosed, you will find a July 20, 1978 letter to Gary Pringle
outlining the issue and asking his opinion on four specific ques-
ticns relative to the requirement of a fence. Rather than inundate
you with more information, I have just enclosed copies of the
information that was sent to Gary Pringle which I believe recaps
the situation up to this point in time.
On August 3, 1978, Gary Pringle contacted me relative to the July 20
1978 letter. Mr. Pringle indicated that this is an extremely
complicated matter and there are very broad concepts contained
within the provisions of an ordinance requiring the screening of
an existing junkyard. To complicate the matter further, Mr.
Pringle indicated there is concern because the junkyard was annexed
into the City, and initially was not started within the City of
Monticello, but within another local government unit.
Mr. Pringle indicated it would take an extreme amount of research
to determine whether the City would require fencing, and a defini-
tive answer would require an extreme amount of time and would be
quite costly. Mfr. Pringle indicated there is no definitive statute
relative to this particular matter, and he would be relying on
Case law, and the only Case law he could research at this point
relative to the junkyard was in the State of California. In this
particular case, a junkyard was allowed to exist; however, it
appears that there was no provision regarding screening.
The issues before the Planning Commission have essentially boiled
down to two issues:
1. Amendment to the current City ordinance allowing junkyards
and/or salvage vards to be a lawful, non -conforming use,
rather than an unlawful, non -conforming use that would have
to be amortized out over a period of time.
2. Whether any ordinance should be adopted that would addi-
tionally require the screening of a junkyard or salvage
yard.
Mb
recommendation would be to amend the ordinance to allow all
existing junkyards and/or salvage yards to be lawful, non -conforming
uses and provide no amortization period for eliminating them.
Secondly, in light of the extreme complicated nature of the issue,
it would seem beat not to require any fencing at this time.
It should be pointed out that State and Federal funds will still
provide a screen from state trunk highways, including Interstate 94,
provided that the City of Monticello ultimately amends its ordi-
nancoo to allow junkyardo as lawful, non -conforming uses. This
is regardless of any fencing requirements. Additionally, if a
junkyard and/or salvage yard were made to be a lawful, non -conforming
use, it does not still allow expansion of that junkyard or salvage yard.
CONSIDERATION: Amendment to Monticello ordinances relative to
junkyardo and/or salvage yards.
RF.FWUVCF3: July 209 1978 letter to Gary Pringle.
- 2 -
AGENDA ITEM 3. Consideration of a Variance Recommendation -Gus Hammer.
Mr. Gus Hammer has made application for a variance to build a
610" tall fence from the front setback line on his property up
to 20' from the property line, or 1610" in front of his home which
is set back 36' from the property line, thereby only a 10'
encroachment is requested. (See reference mar) Presently, this
property at 900 West Broadway is zoned R-2. The fence Mr. Hammer
would like to build is wood construction and would be intended
to provide privacy between he and the abutting property.
According to Monticello Ordinance 10-3-2(F) items X and 49 no
fence in front of the principal building front line can exceed
3'0" in height without a variance.
CONSIDERATION: Recommendation to approve or deny this request.
REFERENCES: Enclosed map and plat plan.
APPLICANT: Mir. Otis Hammer.
AGENDA rM 4. Consideration of a Variance Recommendation - Duane Rayanen.
Mr. Duane Rejanen,of 412 East 3rd Street, is requesting a variance
to allow him to erect a garage 510" from the easterly property
line.
This property is East i} of Lot 9 and all of Lot 8, Block 35.
It is currently zoned F-2.
Although Mr. Rajanen hasn't submitted a plat plan yet, one should
be available by the time of the Planning Commissing meeting on
August 159 1978. The building inspector should have the plat
plan at the meeting, also letters stating the objections or
approval of the abutting proporty owners.
You may want to note that at present, there is an attached garage
on the house that would be removed prior to the building of a
now garage. Two separate garages on the as property would be
in violation of Monticello ordinances.
OONSIDERATIO N: Recommendation to derby or approvo this request.
REFERENCES: Should be ready by the meeting.
APPLICANT: Mr. Duane Rajanon.
- 3-
NOTICE OF PURI W 11FAR UNt:
Not it a is hereby given that a patbl it ho.0 - -i _
M i I I h.• 1 ld by 1 -hp Mont -it elh, Planninc Oommissi�-a
I'll August 15 . 10 78 .tt t, V. t .
thy M--ntivelln City Hall to 4',wsidrt the 1.01 t,
Vint t P•f`t
Rezoning of Lot 5, Sandberg Riverside Platt Pram
R-1 (Single Family Residential) to Rr3 Matiple
Family).
Li)
APPLICANTr John Sandberg
PURPOSE& Oonstruet an Apartment House.
Written and oral testimony wi i 1 be accept c,tl .n
above subject and all persons desir-ing to be heard .m
refer•encud subjoet will, be heard at this meeting.
Gary Wt6ber
c
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
AGENDA ITEM 1. Rezoning Application - Riverside Addition - John Sandberg.
Mr. John Sandberg has made application to have Lot 5, Block 1,
(109,000 square feet) of the Riverside Plat rezoned to R-3
to allow the construction of a 5-plax luxury apartment building
sometime in the future. This is currently zoned Rtl. Ftr.
oP� Sandberg's intention is not to start right away on the
apart -want project, but to be able to know whether or not it can
be built, so that as he sells off the surrounding property he
owns in the future, he can notify the prospective property
owners that there will likely be an apartment building going
f up next to them some time.
�o
aIf rezoning is granted, Mr. Sandberg has indicated that he would
make an agreement to build only a 5-plex, rather than up to
a 12 -plea as allowed in an R-3 Zone. It should be noted
that in talking to Mr. Dick Dwinell, he recommended against an
agreement of this nature since it would only be binding on Mr.
Sandberg, and not a subsequent owner. One alternative could be
a covenant on the land itself which would have to be drawn up by
an attorney and reviewed by our City Attorney. However, ft. Dwinell
recommended against this also as establishing a precedent.
If the Planning Coumiesion feels the area is appropriate for up
J to 12 units, it should recommend rezoning to R-3; however, if it
feels that 5 units is appropriate, but would not feel comfortnble
with as many as 12 units, a possibility of a new zoning districL
li could be explored. The new zoning district would allow say 5 - 8
unit apartments. Of course, if the Planning Commission feels that
5 units is too great, then it should simply r oma mend denial of
the request.
OONSIDIRATION: Granting or deny -big this rezoning requeot.
REFERENCES: A plat Harp is available at City Hall and map io enclosed.
`o Plans for the proposed apartment building have not
7� been submitted.
APPLICANT: John Sandberg.
AGENDA ITEM 2. Continuation of public Hearing on Proposed Ordinance Amr-ndmento for
Junkynrdo.
At the Planning Commission's loot regular mooting, the ioau of
proposed ordinance amendmento relative to juniayardo and oalvage
yarde were diecusood at a Public Hearing. At that time, it woe
decided to table the matter until the next meeting to allow con-
aultation with our City Attorney relative to the motter.
Eh closed, you will find a July 20, 1978 letter to Gary Pringle
outlining the issue and asking his opinion on four specific ques-
tions relative to the requirement of a fence. Rather than inundate
you with more information, I have just enclosed copies :)f the
information that was sent to Gary Pringle which I believe recaps
the situation up to this point in time.
On August 3, 19780 Gary Pringle contacted me relative to the July 20
1978 letter. Mr. Pringle indicated that this is an extremely
complicated matter and there are very broad concepts contained
within the provisions of an ordinance requiring the screening of
an existing junkyard. To complicate the matter further, Mr.
Pringle indicated there is concern because the junkyard was annexed
into the City, and initially was not started within the City of
Monticello, but within another local government unit.
Mr. Pringle indicated it would take an extreme amount of research
to determine whether the City would require fencing, and a defini-
tive answer would require an extreme amount of time and would be
quite costly. Mr. Pringle indicated there is no definitive statute
relative to this particular matter, and he would be relyin6 on
Cade law, and the only Case law he could research at this point
ive to the junkyard was in the State of California. In this
icular case, a junkyard was allowed to exist; however, it
/.down
ars that there was no provision regarding screening.
issues before the Planning Commission have essentially boiled
to two issues:
. Amendment to the current City ordinance allowing junkyards
and/or salvage yards to be a lawful, non -conforming us",
rather than an unlawful, non -conforming use that wouli have
to be amortized out over a period of Lime.
2. Whether any ordinance should be adopted that wou-IJ adai-
tionally require the screening of ❑ junkyard or oalvaec
yard.
Mjy recommendation would be to amend the ordinance to allow all
existing junkyards and/or salvage yards to be lawful, non -conforming
uses and provide no amortization period for eliminating them.
Secondly, in light of the extrema complicated nature of the ivaie,
it would seem best not to require any fencing at this time.
t It should be pointed out that State and Federal funds will otill
provide a screen from otate trunk highwayo, including Interutatc 94,
provided that the City of Monticello ultimately amends itu ordi-
nancoo to allow junkyardo as lawful, non -conforming useu. Tliiu
to regardless of any fencing requirements. Additionally, if n
Junkyard and/or aalvago yard were made to be a lawful, non -conforming
use, it does not still allow expansion of thnt junkyard or mlvarc yard.
CONSIDERATION: Amendment to Monticello ordinances relative Lo
�k junlyardo and/or salvage yards.
7 REFERENCES: July 20, 1978 letter to Gary Pringle.
2
AGENDA ITE! 3. Consideration of a Variance Recommendation - Gus Hammer.
Mr. Gus Hammer has made application for a variance to build a
610" tall fence from the front setback line on his property up
to 20' from the property line, or 161a' in front of his home which
is set back 36' from the property line, thereby only a 10'
encroachment is requested. (See reference map) Presently, this
property at 900 Best Broadway is zoned R-2. The fence Mr. Hammer
would like to build is wood construction and would be intended
to provide privacy between he and the abutting property.
.v
According to Monticello Ordinance 10-3-2(F) items IR and !, no
'+ fence in front of the principal building front line can exceed
\� e 310" in height without a variance.
V'
OQdSIDERATION: Recommendation to approve or deny this request.
REFERENCES: Ehclosed map and plat plan.
APPLICANT: Mfr. Gus Hammer.
AGENDA ITEM 4. Oonsideration of a Variance Recommendation - Duane Ralanen.
Mr. Duane Rajanen,of 412 Fast 3rd Street, is requesting a variance
to allow him to erect a garage 5'0" from the easterly property
line.
f
This property is bW i of Lot 9 and all of Lot B, Block 35.
It is currently zoned R-2.
Although Mr. Rajanen hasn't submitted a plat plan yet, one Ghould
be available by the time of the Planning Commissing meeting on
August 15, 1978. The building inspector should have the plat
plan at the meeting, also letters stating the objections or
approval of the abutting property owners.
You may want to note that at present, there is an attache) garage
on the house that would be removed prior to the building of a
now garage. Two separate garages on the Game property would be
in violation of Fonticollo ordinances.
OONSIDERATION: Recommendation to derby or approve this request.
I /
RPFERSICEi: Should be read by the meeting.
APPLICANT: Ptr. Duane Rajanen.
- 3 -
NEVI BUSINESS ITEM -
Consideration of a Variance Application - Darwin Straw.
Mr. & Mrs. Darwin Straw have made application for a variance
to allow them to subdivide a 661 lot off of their * lots plat
on the SW corner of Block 10.
Presently, they own lots 1, 2 and W i of 3, Block 10. They
would like to set off the E -j of Lot 2 and W -X of Lot 3 to
make one 66' lot to build a new home on. Their request is
for a lot only 661 because there is a garage on the W i
of Lot 2, and they would like that garage to remain on the pro-
rty with the existing house on lot 1.
NSIDERATION: Recommend approval or denial of this request.
W./REFERENCES: Plat Plan.
PLICANT: Mr. & Mrs. Darwin Straw.
W. Tom Chock of 601 hest 3rd Street would like to Planning Commission to consid(
and send their recommendation to the Council on a Variance.
He would like to build a garage 51-0" from both his rear property line and
his side property line (the west side).
Mr. Chock owns the property on the side line and naturally has no objection,
and his neighbor at the rear line (the north end of the property) has
expressed no objection either.
If Mr. Chock were able to build with the setbacks that he has proposed,
the new garage would line up with the one he owns on the property to the
west side.
The above mentioned property is on Lot 5 — Block 42, and is coned Rr2.
Possibly, Mr. Chock will have a letter to present from his abuting
neighbor tonight to say that he (James Fuller) has no objections to this
proposal.
I.
City 411M.&A.
250 East Broadway
MONTICELLO. MN 5516?
July 20, 1978
Gary Pringle, Esq.,
Smith k Pringle, Attorneys at Lew
14Dnti'cello, M. 55362
REt Pr000sed Ordinance Amendment - Junkvards.
Dear Garys
As mentioned to you on the phone -on July 20, 1978 end also to be th, stb',,',ot
matter of our 2100 P.M. appointment an July 21, 1978. I am su5mi*-'!nC ',h --
following information for your reviews
1. May 31, 1978, letter from Bet4y Parker, Junkyard Program Coor y=nator,
with the State Department of Transportation.
2. Agenda Item Supplement, relative to a public hearing on a proposcz
amendment relative to junlyarde.
3. Actual notice of'the public Hearing detailling the propo9eu uxt:dment
to lbnticellots Ordinance relative to Junkyards.
It should be pointed out that a meeting was held at 4:00 P.M. an July 18, 1978,
with Beteg► PaAw, Rich Helrslon, with the State Department of Transportation.
William Hoffman, repreaanting Ruff Auto Parte, Chuck 3t. pf, Jim Metcalf,
representing Edgar Muoaa Bud oyeelf. The purpose of this meeting woe to
review the oubject matter of the Pleading Oom dasion'a hearing that evening
at 7s3O PA relative to the City'a proposed ordinance amendment, and also
to have the State Department of Transportation review the jtmlyarda of Mr. Rlucae
and Mr.. Ruff to see that thepr were eligible for the program. To be eligible
for the program, the criteria is as followas
1. Junlyard must have oxiated prior to 1971.
2. Junkyard not be viciblo fr m a trunk hiGhngy.
3. Juftard must be within one-half (j) mile of a trunk highw-;•.
I.. Junkyard must bo a nonconforming use ( that i o, in a cone , tt, r t h=
o aoarnorciel or industrial cane).
/111 anrr
Gary Pringle, Esq.
July 20, 1978
Page #2
According to the State officials, they did indicate after a field tri: to the
sites that both appeared to meet all of the above criteria and woul.: be
eligible for the State's program whereby the State and Federal goveruments
participate in a 100% funding to erect an effective type of screen fence to
hide a junlyard from visibility from the freeway. According to Ms. Parker,
the State and Federal government would purchase an easement from the property
owners and construct a fence.
As mentioned in the May 31, 1978 letter from Ms. Parker, the City of Monticello
must first amend its ordinance which intends to amortize a junivand out of
existence In one year's period of time in order for the State and Federal
government to put up this effective screen. Reason for this is that. the
State and Federal government will not spend monies for a fence when the use
is going to be grandfathered out anyway.
At the hearing itself at the Planning Commission level, many of these facts
were reviewed with the entire Planning Oommission. Both Mr. Hoffman aid
Mr. Metcalf indicated concern for their clients relative to the cos: of putting
up that portion of the fence that would not be eligible for State and Federal
funding, that is, the portion of the fence which is not visible from tF�
State trunk highways. Mr. Hoffman, in utilizing a figure from Ms. Parker that
the fence that the State and Federal government would put up would cn,1. about
130.00 a running foot, estimated that Mr. Ruff would spend close .,, 1 tY',000
in putting up such a fence. He felt that this would be confisca:inc: ,,i
property and certainly illegal.
It should be pointed out that the City of Monticello does not Lnt�•n: .o
create a financial hardship on the property owners, but, at the sant time,
would like the jtimlyards screened from abutting properties. For -xanq)le,
the City may not necessarily require the same type of expensive faic•e that
the State and Federal government puts up, and could as a possibi 1 i ty require
a planting type of screen consisting of evergreens and other types o.' plantinga.
This could be far less costly than the board typo of fence that the State
and Federal government would put up.
As a result of the meeting, the Planting 0oamdssion tabled any deci Ion until
further consultation with our City Attorney, and the following qu••.:tions are
germane to the issue:
1. Can a municipality require that a proporty owner put up any ty1• of
screen fence, whether it be a planting or board type of fenc,•, ,uid
also be required to pay for its cost? Mr. Hoffman indicated Unt he
would certainly ga along with the Stato and Federal program, :;i:—o the
State and Federal governments will put up the f\unda, and inul c •t d
that he folt that the City should pay for the fence that they ,uire,
rather than have the property owner pay for tho remaining portion of
the fence.
N
Gary Pringle, Esq.
July 20, 1978
Page 43
2. If the City can require such a fence, is there limitations on the type
of fence it can require eostwise in terms of what might be a :inar.cial
hardship to a property owner?
3. What is a reasonable period of time to require this fence to be put up?
4. If the City can require such a fence, and it is not put up in t. stated
time, what alternatives does the City have to make sure that •. :ence
goes up?
From the discussions held at the Planning Commission level, it appeare': that
some members felt that possibly we should just amend the ordinance so as not
W amortize out a junkyard, but not necessarily require any type o: screening
device whatsoever. This may be ultimately what the City might pos3ib;y 3o,
however, it would be well to find out if the City does have the author:ty to
require a screen fence to begin with.
As indicated, I will be reviewing this subject matter with you on Ju:y 21,
19789 and if you have any further Questions at that time, we can C,:: -u �h
them. The Planning Oosmiesion's next meeting relative to this matter is
to be held August 15, 1978, and I usually try to get information to them
at least a week prior, so if you could get an opinion on this matt,- prior
to August 8, 1978, it would be appreciated.
Sinr'ercly,
City istrator
GW/ns
ENC.
ccs Smit" Pringle Oorres.
JJmd Rezoning File
M]