Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11-21-1978AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MCNTICIISQ PLANNING COMMISSION
November 21, 1978 - 7:30 P. M.
Chairman: Jim Ridgeway
Members: Fran Fair, Fred Topel, Dave Hauer, Denton Erickson
Loren Klein (ex -officio).
1. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for Addition to Trinity Lutheran
Burch.
2. Public Hearing - Rezoning Application - Ouille's.
3. Public Hearing - Subdivision of a Lot - Mel North.
4. Consideration of a Variance Request - Roger Mack.
5. Consideration of a Variance Request - St. Peter's Lutheran Church.
6. Consideration of a Variance Request - Mr. James Murray.
7. Approval of Minutes - October 17, 1978.
Unfinished business -
New Busineso -
747
f
S�
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
P1. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for Addition to Trinity Lutheran
Church.
The Trinity Lutheran Church, 449 K. Broadway, is asking for a conditional
use permit in order to allow a 9,800 square foot addition to their
existing Church. The purpose of the addition would be to serve as a
worship center, accommodating approximately 313 people. Present Church
would still be utilized, but as a multi-purpose facility for classrooms,
religious instructions, social gatherings, etc.
Since the Church is in an R-2 zoning district, a conditional use permit
Is required.
In reviewing the proposed site plan, a copy of which is enclosed, with
our City Planner, along with the architect for the Trinity Lutheran
0yChurch, there were several concerns, and they are as follows: 19 'j,
A. Prime concern is the residenrO.along Best River Street that will p
�• be surrounded by two parking lots. There is concern for the possible to
io
depletion of the value of their property, and the proposed plan may V4in µ
P J,r effect force resident
standing thatvariousChurco
Church officials have the approached
the property�point,
kw+•A�,/In�� J owner relative to obtaining an option on the land, but at this point,fr n,V
ad`s have been unsuccessful.
V
° B. City ordinances require all parking lots that abut a residential
f area be adequately and effectively screened from the abutting residen-
tial areas. In the current site plan, it does not include sufficient
landscaping to satisfy this requirement. It should be noted however
that the Trinity Lutheran Church's architect, Lloyd Bergquist, is
revising the site plan, a copy of which will be available at Tuesday
night's meeting, in hopes of satisfying the City's requirement by the
Inclusion of a berm which would be landscaped with trees and shrubs,
etc.
C. In order to diminish any detrimental effects that the parking Iota
along West River Street would have on the surrounding residential pro-
perty, the Church is proposing to sod or seed those parking lots instead
0 of having them hardsurfaced with concrete or pavement. Since our
t ` ordinances require parking lots to be hardourfoced, this would necea-
�� sitate the need for a variance. In reviewing this, there seems to be
a great deal of benefit that could be forthcotaing if this arrangement
worked, and although it might be somewhat innovative, it might be
more attractive to the surrounding area. It would seem to me that if
°� a the City were to grant a conditional use permit for the oddition to
10 ,.� o+� the Church, one of the special conditions of the permit would be that
r�, s the Church would agree to hardaurface the parking lots on West River
�r d Street with concrete or bituminous, if, after one year poriod of time,
the City so ordered after reviewing the status of the parking lot.
a 0�
In this way, the City would still have control and if the arrangement
did not work and the area was quite muddy, or whatever, the City could
still require the area to meet the ordinances. It should be pointed
out that the parking lot along Broadway Street will be hardsurfaced
initially.
D. According to the City Ordinances, 98 parking spaces would be required
based upon the seating capacity along0th the number of classrooms, and
the present site plan provides for 82 parking spaces. As a result, a
variance would be necessary from the 16 parking spaces. Additionally,
it is unders that the revised site plan may have somewhere in the
area of only Lparking spaces. However, it should be pointed out
that the Lnur currently only has about 30 parking spaces provided
for its mewbership, and this would certainly improve that situation.
It also should be remembered that since the Church will only be occupied
to its capacity for probably four to five hours per week, that some
leniency could be granted relative to the request.
%k E. Present site plan shows the parking lot on West Broadway and also
on West River Street intruding into the required 30' setback require-
ment area in the front yard, and this is not allowed for required off-
street parking spaces according to the City Ordinances, and a variance
would be necessary.
2.
Mr. John Uban, with Howard Dahlgren Associates, will be at Tuesday night's
meeting and offer his recommendations.
10
POSSIBLE A0FTON: Consideration of recommending apprpyal of conditional
use permit for addition to Church, along with variance �Q
request on the number of off-street parking spaces,
and al"a variance to allow parking lots to infringe
iS ad►� anti a' on t b%lront yard setback. Additionally, it may be
nee ssary to consider a variance on the landscaping
✓ferements for a parking lot.
REFFRF1iCESS!ll? %ip�ed site plan plus area depicted on enclosed map.
Public Hearin Rezoning Application - Ouille's.
Richard & Delores Ouillo have made application to have their property
at 806 Foot River Street rezoned from R-1 to R-2 co that they can
legally have their baoement so an apartment.
Torero are coveral items that you should take into eonoideration before
making your recommendation to approve or deny thio requests
A. At the time the building permit was ioouod to add a second story
to thio hilloide boacment houoo (ono oido open for a walkout), tho owncro
were informed that thio building could not be made into a duplex unl000
it woo rezoned.
B. Thoro woo never a otairway made to go from the lower lovol to the
upper lovel, indicating to Mr. J. W. Moller, tho proviouo Building
Official, that thero wao probably oomo intentiono on tho owncro behalf
to mako o duplex. The owner did indicate at the time he woo told
that he couldn't make this house into a duplex, that they had no intention
to do that, but if they would decide someday to make a duplex, they
would get a variance to do so.
C. Since the time that the building additin was completed, there have
been renters in the lower level of this home. Also, this lower level
apartment was advertised in the Monticello Shopper as being available
for rent. The present Building Official investigated the ad as a possi-
ble residence when first coming to Monticello in April, and was advised
that the apartment could be rented for $240 per month.
D. Presently, the apartment is occupied by Joanne Jensen and her Bon.
Ms. Jensen is a sister to Mrs. Guille. The City doesn't know the cost,
if any, of the rent paid, but the occupancy of this building by a
second resident is prohibited without first having the proper, legal
zoning, that is, from R,-1 to Rr2.
E. If this building is to be rezoned from an R.-1 (single family) to
an R-2 (two-family), then before any apartment would be allowed, that
apartment should be required to meet the qualifications set out in the
Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Housing Code, both having been
adopted by the City of Monticello.
F. There is opposition to this rezoning request at this time from at
least some of the neighbors, and at the time of this writing, we have one \
letter on file in the Building Official's office in opposition.
G. The lot area is 3% short of the area required in an Rr2 zone for
a duplex. ('IS
H. There would need to be four (4) off-street parking spaces which
are located off of the right-of-way and may not be in any portion of
the front yard, except a designated driveway leading directly into a
garage, and one (1) open space along side of that driveway. In the case
of a single garage, such as this case, there can only be two spaces
in front of the house and the rest must be elsewhere on the lot.
However, they cannot be in the sidoyard on a corner lot. This duplex,
if allowed would require four (4) off-street spaces.
There is a tape from the November 28, 1977 City Council meeting at
which this piece of property was discussed in regard to Mr. J. W. Miller's
suspicion that a duplex would become a use in this building, and dis-
cussing the conversations with the owner about whether or not a duplex
was intended there. This tape will be on the recorder and will be
turned on if you would caro to listen to it. Also, any member of the
Planning Commission could come in earlier to listen to the tape if they
wished to.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this request.
REFEREN CESc Enclosed map showing location and a tape with discussion about
this property can be heard at City Hall at your convenience
or at the meeting.
APPLICANTc Mr. h Mrs. Richard Ouille.
3. Public Hearing - Subdivision of a Lot - Mel Horth.
Mr. Mel Worth has applied for subdivision approval to divide the lot where
the present Stor-/-Way is at along South Highway 25 into two lots.
If the present lot of 2.11 acres were divided, the result would be one lot
of .924 acres, and one lot of 1.186 acres. The lot where the existing
building is located would be the smaller lot (Parcel A). Parcel B could
be sold off then for another development.
There will also have to be discussion of the method for meeting the
park dedication requirements if this subdivision should be approved.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Recommendation of approval or denial of this request.
\/
REOLACES: See enclosed map - a certificate of survey is on file at
`'0 City Hall and will be available at the hearing.
w APPLICANT: Mel Worth.
4. Consideration of a Variance Request - Roger Mack.
Mr. Roger Mack, who lives on the property described as NJ of Lots 11 h 12
of Block 50, has made application for a variance to allow for a room addi-
tion onto his present home.
The reason that a variance would be needed is that this property is located
in a B-4 zone.
Mr. Mack has submitted preliminary plans for his proposed addition, and is
willing to make all aspects of the work conform to codes and ordinances
if this variance 1s granted.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider reco=endin pro_ or denial of this request.
REFERENCES: Ehelosed plat plan showing existing structures and the pro-
posed structure and their relationship to the property lines.
APPLICANT: Mr. Roger Mack.
5. Consideration of a Variance Request - St. Peter's Lutheran Church.
St. Peter's Lutheran Church would like a variance to allow a sign to be put
on the right-of-way of the Northeast or Southeast corner of Highway 25
and Third Street, indicating the location of their worship facility.
This sign would be considered an off -premise sign and would require a var-
iance. Also, a variance is required to allow this sign on the right -of --way.
You may want to consider that if you wouldn't wont the sign placed on the
right-of-way, that you might want to recommend that they negotiate with
the abutting property owner for a location on private property, that is,
if you would have no objection to the off-premiso sign.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Conoidor recommend" approval ordenialof this request.
APPLICANT: St. Peter's Lutheran Church. N
0 v 4A /
6. Consideration of a Variance Request - Mr. James M rray.
Mr. James Mirray, of 571+ West 5th Street, is requesting a variance from
the ordinance restricting a garage to 1,000 square feet on his property;
Lots 8, 9 & 10 of Block 10. Zoned R-3.
Mr. Murray would like to build a garage which is 1,728 square feet in area
and over 15' in height.
The purpose of this garage would be to house his lain and garden equipment
and miscellaneous other items. The mayor purpose, however, would be to
have offstreet, inside storage for his moving van. Mr. Murray has a semi -
tractor & trailer, which he does moving with under contract with North
American Van Lines.
He has stated that there would be no repair work done within this building,
but that it would be strictly for covered, off-street parking.
The building would be of a pole type building, utilizing colored metal
siding, and would replace the presently too small garage on the property
now, which is scheduled to be removed if this variance would be granted.
Mr. Murray will most likely be unable to attend the Planning Commission
meeting on November 21st, so if anyone has any specific questions they
would like asked of Mr. Murray, if you could contact the Building Official's
office prior to that time, there might be ample time to contact him for the
answer.
At the time of this writing, there hasn't been any objection raised by the
abutting property owners.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consider recommending e
or denial of this request.
REFERENCES: Enclosed plat map showing proposed location of the building
in question.
APPLICANT: Mr. Janes Murrey.
.. 7yh?P1
Cif o� �/i'/onfice�[o
250 East Broadway
MONTICELLO. MN 55362
T0: Monticello Planning Commission
FROM: Gary Nieber, City Administrator
DATE: November 20, 1978
SUBJECT: Monticello Ford Variance Request from Sign Ordinance
Provision Relative to Pennants
Shortly after the Planning Commission agenda went out on Friday, a
request was received from Larry Flake, with Monticello Ford, Inc.,
to be on the Planning Commission's agenda relative to a variance request
on allowing the use of pennants at his new location.
According to Monticello's present ordinance, there is a provision within
the section relative to signs which prohibits the use of banners,
pennants and similar devices on a permanent basis. It does allow
for the temporary use of such devices for a period of up to seven (7)
days with a permit.
In his initial request for signs, Mr. Flake did receive a variance on
the allowance of two pylon signs, but was denied a second variance
request on exceeding the height limitations for signs. At that time,
there was no indication from Mr. Flake that there would be any other
signing devices other than the ones reviewed at the meeting. However,
Mr. Flake does indicate in his letter which is enclosed that he was not
aware of the City's provision which prohibited pennants, and therefore,
obviously did not ask for a variance request. Mr. Flake also indicates
in his letter that the City had an obligation to notify him that pennants
were prohibited since he did use this type of device at his former
location. Mr. Flake brings up a good point, and I will explain the City's
policy and procedure in matters relative to these type of items. Nor -
molly, where there is an existing situation that does not comply with
the newly adopted zoning ordinance, the City would allow the particular
use to be grandfathered inj however, such use cannot be enlarged or
modified. In the case of oigrdng ordinances, the City has somewhat taken
the came position except that all existing non -conforming uses are allowed
to exist for o period of up to five (5) years. At the end of this poriod,
our City Ordinance requires that all signs be brought into coaplianc o
with all City Ordinances after written notification has boon sent to the
property ownero. Since Monticello Fordo prior location and use of
pennants existed before the adoption of the ordinance (July 1975) he
would have received a written letter in 1980 indicating that the norms
conforming sign or device must be brought into compliance by July of 1980
or a variance request be approved.
Wi1fcoma to M/onlitAlo [ills mountain 1 "�
Monticello Planning Commission
November 20, 1978
Page p2
It should be pointed out that prior to bringing thi,- -•r. to the :-
tion of Mr. Larry Flake, the ordinance provision was brou:;ht to ..._
attention of the City Council and they felt that the ordinance was a
good one and decided not to amend it ir_ any fashion at.i = ?c
to any property owner who put up this type of device after the a:op.i:::
of the ordinance in July of 1975, to bring these type o: devi,c .^..o
compliance with the orriinance or seek a variance regatet. One other
property owner, Rolling Wheels, Inc., did put up pennants a- er --
July 1975 ordinance adoption, and was similarly notified of .he v:o:a-
tion, but at this point has not requested a variance.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approving or denyint the
Lion for a variance request to the Ji ty Counci ..
REFER121CM: Larry Flake's letter of November 17, 1973.
`V, r r�
`J
1 (�
November 21, 1978
REQUEST FOR VARIANCES
TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH
Monticello, Minnesota
BWBR ARCHITECTS
1. Permission to provide 75 off-street spaces in lieu of 98 as
required in the ordinance. D
2. Request to vary from 30' setback required for parking lots
to lot lines to 20' on the north and south and 15' on the
east side of the block.
3. Request approval to pave only the parking lot east of the
church and the through driveway from east to west, leaving
the remaining parking lot areas grass.
4. Request approval to reduce distance from parking lot to
residential side lot lines.
Request pennissio n to provide planting for screening as shown
on the site plan subject to approval by the City Planner.
B-9r.tedl WaNbelo 94`rgg061 %hl Ohl
400 Stony SI ISI Pad. Momjs to 55101,612 2223701
- GU1t.GB
�ZAtGHpRO AKD 0£40RE�
it A cK PAOPFRS t
oil
+ ~ � ir• err~, p ! • \
•:. „ of � � r (, '•
QetetGN
PAOPOSpO tie Guthec r b .
:� _ �" Qr{��,•y ! est,
GNWAY
^�
PAOPa " V i 1:: v, ...
� ~ tt8s l41AA�� a.
�\ ,A1 � r. �•:1 �. ire .. �.
�
I
`k
V
�
1
M
SLK /O /NOlVTICEI,LO ;v=in
r. row
4c L
h 2.S.F
2
7o of o6movet, Q
m
IbL r � Lf_ •_'L ��•-•
�
V
PRoP. 4AR •J�
...f ad•1 �
.y
/.[A IOGf c�
•�
Aurte i6 S' T1+ I•iYPo
132' rr
AT g,LA I mT
6cA4r / •• 'jig
a .r�G
.4.44" Monticello
o7tak� Ford, Inc.
MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 55362
PHONES: Monticello - 295.2056: Twin Cities - 42 1.6595
Wholesale Distributors of Tires, Batteries, and Auto Supplies
"In the Land of Lakes, gat your Ford at Flaka'i"
hov's:➢aer V, 19%J
CSty Council of Monticello
Noeticello, Minnesota 55362
OQntlem m a
We are in receipt of the duilding Impactor's latter dated Cictober 45, 1978
regerdine the use of pennants at our dealerebip.
Whim we deciaed w build a new buildlaa wltAlu the city limi.te of hoaticello
a great deal of planning was done Lo mune burs that our bailding vr.ld be a
oredit to the aafwmity. tie nave Lrimi Lo eomy],y with all codes without esus-
LaM arty caenges whatever. sic spent toe total amunt of coney rennired for land.
scaping without taking credit for trees exiaLing on our nrannrty n, o'my others
haw done. as nave tries to vckviy vita all requlrwreuta.
W were located in downtofm Aonticeilo far eleven yeartt end lurin.- thRt tire fleZe
were diaplayau at eai trmea. 'fnerefore, iL only ao"* to rer9en tn.t if we had
bean made aware of an ordnance ngainet our flego we could hhvn ebidoe, b7 that
oruoana.. Waft the city ao,.iiiso us reaardlna our eiPn han^,7.n„ aver the sidewalk
lY. was removed ru now as Lt was reasonably possible enet without "r;; ob3eetimul.
" believe Ube city bare an obligation at our forLor loonti.nn .,p not] -ft us about
tie was ai pennants w that are could cotply. When we noveo into our, new location
we uvre earoiLl to choose flags wnien were handsome end durable. rhe ones which
we are presentu nelbg are being used by V agreeaive and well reneged deeler-
shipa. taro Cavo Qone to n great deal of erpmtae in picking out ewe Vleae. We
bought the very boot brackets with aepnrato flags that cm be rrpl^eel et" they
bocclao wom. wa have spent over 2600.00 oar these fingr r1^.1^ tdth -arh time :tri
adfort putting up sosothing thot would be cpmplSmentnry to our heautifnl Wilding.
L.f re thought they would be unsightly we would be the first to object to their n44.
Uo feel that ut= the Council nceepted our dealership building in t:ae city they
roust also allow no to be able to run our enterprise in o way that to =Qatitive
with other doalors enrl not tie our horde in this manner. We fool thio matter
alnoala be reconsidered by the Council. !herefore, we are aakang that we be given
an opportmity before tho Flrnning Cocalcaion an fusedgtr tlovarber 21, 1978 alfmb
with o hearing before the City Gounell on Noveslber 27th W aok for a 7ar'ianect
be Mmtioello ordinance 10-3-9 (C) (6).
Yeas very truly,
ILORfL FORD, INC.
zw v. vl.te
President
cel Gary Welber CCs Lorna D. Klein
NOTICE OF PUBLIC IIEARI\G
Notice is hereby gi%cn that a publ it h,•ai m.--
will
n_will be held by the Monti ollo Plannin
,:n November -1 In 7J , at ;: 10
the MnntAcello City Hall to ,onsicler th.• :' Ilnwin_
matter:
An application to rezone Lot i, cxvept. the
easterly 201, Block 16, Lower Monticello, Prom
R-1 to R-2 to allow for a duplex.
Applic-ant: Delori.s Guille
Written and oral test.imuny will be arreptrd ..n
above subject, and all persons desiring in be heard .,u
ref,rented /subject will be heard at this meet.inC.
NOTICE OF PUBLTC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearin
will be held by the Monticello City Council
on Monday, November 27 , 19 78 , a t 7: 30 P. vt. i n
the Monticello City Hall to consider the following
ma Iter
A variance application to allow a pole -type building
for storage of a semi -truck on Lots 8-9 h 109
Block 10. Property address is 54 West 5th Street, and
is Zoned 11-3.
APPLICANT: James Murray.
Written and oral testimony will be accepted rn
above subject and all persons desiring to be heard irn
referenced subject will be, heard at this meeting.
Jr'�YW7-11 ��
%,Qi.#sr7►
Z-orm.
11
v REGULAR MEETING
M YNT10ELLO PLANN7Nr, C11AD11:Sait1N
Tuesday, December Ig, 197,� - 7:30 P. M.
Members: James Ridgeway, Chairperson, Dace Bauer,
Fred Topel, Fran Fair, Denton Erickson.
1 . Publ is Hearing; - PUD Devel opment Stage fur
Samuel Pr-raprrt'ies.
2. Consideration of Variance Request - Independent
1 umber.
3. Approval oP November 21, 1075 minutes.
y. lhifinished Balminess.
j. New linsin-ess.
7
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
Agenda Item 1. Public Hearing - PUD Development Stage.
Samuel Properties has submitted their Development.
Stage plans on the Standard Station for public
hearing and approval. This hearing is not to be
confused with the first hearing held on this pro-
posal which was for an overall concept plan of
entire parcel.
Normally, this step would have to be done before
any buildings were allowed, but the site of the
Standard station was approved for a PUD after the
construction of the building was started intending
For only one building on this lot. Now, however,
since this entire 3 -plus acre lot has been approved
as a PUD, each business locating there must go
through the hearing process before a building
permit can be issued.
At. thts Develolunent Stage hearing, the developer
has Rubmitted a plan of his intentions for land-
scaping, signs, parking, etc. A plan is on file
here at city hall and you are encouraged to stop
in and review it..
Recommendation would be for approval of develop-
ment. stage plan as it does meet the essential
criteria of the PUD ordinance.
ACTT4I14:RCCOmmend approval ov denial of this request.
REFERENCES: A plan on file at city hall.
APPLICANT: Samuel Properties, Inc.
Agenda Item 2. Contaideration of Variance Request..
Independent Lumber Co. would like to be granted
a variance to allow them to build a storage bttild-
ing up to the westerly property line of their lot
in the Oakwood Industrial Park (NWJ of Lot 1,
Block 2).
Considering that they are located In an 1-1
e.onv, their setback on a sideyard should he
31,141" by ordinance.
Presently, there is plenty of room in the outdoor
storogc area for existing and anticipated future
needs, oven if the proposed building were required
to be built using the 3000^ setback+ but, the
owner's feeling is that if a building were allowed
to be built up to the westerly property line
there could be better uti:lication of the space
that is already there and the traffic pattern
created would be one which would allow better
traffic flow for customers in that storage area.
ACT10Nt Recommend denial or approval of this request.
REFERENCESt Enclosed map and„a plan is at city hall.
APPIICANTt Tndependent Lumber Co.
i..
The following are some items that you may want
to consider in determining a recommendation to
the Councilt
A. At the time the principal building was
built, the landscaping requirement w•as not
met, nor was the screening that is re-
quired by Section 10-3-2(G), nor was the
curb barrier, although that barrier
could be of the style which was not in-
surmountable.
B. Also, at the time the principal building
was built, the storage area was to be,
grassed or surfaced to control dust.. How-
ever, the roadways among the stored materiels
are worn clear of the grass that, was there
and, they are only dirt or gravel alleys
presently. This pursuant to Section 10-15-44'A)(3).
C. Presently, employee parking is done on the
grassed area directly east of the black-
top area used for customer parking. This
employee parking area should be hard -
surfaced, also.
Should you decide to recommend approval of this
request., or even if you decide to recommend denial,
`
you may want to recommend that the previously
v
discussed items A, B or C be complied with or
bonded for before any permits are issued.
Presently, there is plenty of room in the outdoor
storogc area for existing and anticipated future
needs, oven if the proposed building were required
to be built using the 3000^ setback+ but, the
owner's feeling is that if a building were allowed
to be built up to the westerly property line
there could be better uti:lication of the space
that is already there and the traffic pattern
created would be one which would allow better
traffic flow for customers in that storage area.
ACT10Nt Recommend denial or approval of this request.
REFERENCESt Enclosed map and„a plan is at city hall.
APPIICANTt Tndependent Lumber Co.