Loading...
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.