Planning Commission Agenda Packet 10-19-1976PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 19, 1976 - Tuesday - 7:30 P.M.
Chairman: Howard GiJ]ham.
Members: Fred Topel, Jim Ridgeway, Henry Doerr,
Dr. Bauer, J. W. Miller, ex -officio.
%/I. Approval of minutes - September 23, 1976.
J2, Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - 4 Unit
Apartment.
V3• Public Hearing - Rezoning Monticello Ceramic Property
from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to B-3 (Highway
Business) .
�4. Request for Bui.Jding Permit - Bondhus Tool Co.
5. Consideration of Amendments to Sign Ordinance.
6. Consideration of "Overhanging Sign" Ordinance
Amendments.
7. Consideration of Public Sign Ordinance Amendment.
Mailing to: Howard Dahlgren
Floyd Kruse
Bondhus Tool
Dan Blonigen
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
Agenda Item 2. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit - 4 Unit
Apartment in an R-2 Zone.
Dan Blonigan is proposing a four (4) unit apartment
on the southeast corner of the intersection of
Fourth Street and Elm
Street. Since this is in a
R-2 zone, a conditional use permit is necessary
under our ordinances.
For your information,
the following is a list of
some applicable provisions of our• ordinances per-
taining to building and parking requirements, etc.:
Ordinance Reference
Subject
10-3-3- (C)
Setback requirements:
R-2 Front and rear - 30'; side -
10' - except for corner lots
which are 20' on street side
10-3-5-(0-3
Parking spaces shall be 2
spaces per unit
10-3-4-(B)
Lot Area:
2,000 sq. feet per unit
10-4-(D)
Useable Open Space:
Soo sq. feet per unit
10-3-4-(G)
Floor Arra:
720 sq. feet, per unit, for 2
bedroom units.
600 sq. feet, per unit, for I
bedroom units.
I0 -3-5-(D)-8-0
Parking Area:
Shall have curb barrier and
parkintl area, shall he hard
surfaced.
10 -3 -5 -(D) -8-P
Parkina Area:
Shall be Rcreenrd by means of
fenco or plantina strip.
10-3-5-(F)-5
Off Street Parking shall be
provided in rear or side yard
except for corner lot, which
disallows side yard parking
towards street, side.
10-3-2-(F) Entire yard is to be in building,
parking, sidewalk, driveway or
landscaped with sod, shrubs,
tree or other acceptable vegetation
or treatment generally used in
landscaping.
At the last meeting, Mr. Blonigan agreed to move his
parking to the rear or side yard as required by ordi-
nances. It appears that all other applicable ordinances
are adhered to, except for hard surfacing requirements.
Mr. Blonigan is requesting that two of his eight spaces
be allowed to have a class S base only to allow for
future location of a garage.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consi-deration of approval or denial
of permit.
REFERENCES: Mr. Blonigan will bring in site plan.
Sec enclosed map depicting arca.
Agenda Item 3. Consideration of Rezoning Monticello Ceramic Property
from R -I to B-3.
Mr. Floyd Kruse of Maple Lake is proposing to purchase
the Mont.icelto Ceramic building and remodel it into a
supper club.
Currently the area is zoned R -I (Single Family Residential)
and according to our ordinance a rezoning of the property.
to I3-3 is necessary for a supper club.
If approved, Mr. Kruse has filed an application for a
liquor license which will be handled by the city council
at a public hearing.
The size of the entire parcel is 11.44 nrres and IN
triangle shape in design.
This rezoning request, would appear to be a reasnnable
use of the land in quest.inn as It. abuts a major
collector street in an out.lyint; area. Current. use of
the property is of a commercial nature and the land
use south of Ilillhway 25 is of an industrial nature.
Some thought should possibly bi, Iliven to leavinll part
of the parcel abuttinll the river as R-1. As you ,an sen
-2-
from the enclosed map, the area along the river abuts
a residential development and this part of the parcel
may be better suited as residential.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of rezoning request.
REFER ENC ES: See enclosed map of area.
Agenda Item 4. Request for Building Permit - Bondhus Tool Co.
At their October Il, 1976 meeting the Monticello City
Council reviewed the building permit application of
Bondhus Tool Co. and referred it to the Planning Comm-
ission for review of the landscaping plan and parking
lot requirement. At time of presentation to the city
council plans were not available for these items.
Following are current city ordinances relative to land-
scaping and parking lot requirements:
Landscaping 10-3-2-(F)-5 - Entire yard is to be
either in building, parking, sidewalk, driveway or land-
scaped with sod, shrubs, trees or other acceptable
vegetation or treatment generally used in landscaping.
Off Street, Parking 10-3-5-(D)-8 - (various sections)
Parking lot and access to Highway 75 should be surfaced
with bituminous or concrete and curb barrier should exist,
around perimeter. All parking stalls shall be striped
with white or yellow paint.
Section 10 -3 -5 -(II) -24 Requires at least eight spaces
plus one for every two employees with a minimum of eight,
spaces plus one for every 500 square feet (it' fluor
it rea .
POSSIBLE, ACTION: Consideration of approval or denial
of permit..
REFE]kENChS: .1. W. MiIler has InriIding plans and site
plan.
Agenda Item 5. Consideration of Amendments to SIRn Ordinance.
At the City Council's request, Iloward Dahlgren has
reviewed Montirelld s sign ordinance, specifically in
the area of pylon sign and height requirements.
As you aro aware, Monticello has received quite a few
requests for variances from the pylon sign requirements.
It .is not necessarily the intent of the council to
liberalize the sign ordinance in this area, Wt. it. was
-3-
felt that amendments should be made if the sign ordi-
nance was unrealistic in its requirements.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of amendments deemed
necessary to the sign ordinance.
REFERENCES: Howard Dahlgren will be writing a letter
and will be here Tuesday to discuss the issue.
Agenda Item 6. Consideration of "Overhanging Sign" Amendments.
Under the zoning ordinances relating to signs, Section
10-3-9(C), General Provisions #5 states:
Overhanging signs will be allowed to
project over public right-of-ways in
the City of Monticello until 12/31/76,
which is the cut off date after which
no overhanging signs will be permitted.
Following is a list of businesses which currently have
signs overhanging the public right-of-ways.
The first category of signs are those that, arc attached
to the br.i-Idings and which extend directly over the
public sidewalks, etc.
Name of Business
Number of Signs
Monticello Wreck (Howling Alley)
3
Monticello Liquors (On -Sale)
I
Flickers T.V.
Darsness Drugs
I
K & B Bakery
1
Stella's Cafe
1
Figs It. Shop
1
I.O.O.F. Lodge 045
1
Foster's Ins. Agency
I
Ilar b. -r Shop (Cut, & Cur I )
I
Dairy Store
1
What. Knot Gift. Shop
1
Monticello Ford (Service)
I
St.elton's Laundromat
1
Ilolker's Drive Inn
I
The second category of signs are those pylon (free
standing) signs that protrude over the public side-
walks, etc., but are not attached directly to a build-
ing.
-4-
Names of Business Number of Signs
Monticello Cut Rate Gas I
Vance's Standard I
Del's Service I
Monticello Ford (Used Car) 1
Miller's Laundromat 1
Red's Mobil (Revolving Sign) I
The third category of signs listed are those placed
on awning type structures or overhangs directly attached
to the building fronts.
Names of Business
Monticello Theater
Stella's Cafe
Mini Mall:
1) Jan's Music
2) All Season Sports
3) Antique Shop
q) Cohen's
Golden Valley Furniture
Number of Signs
I
1
I
2
The current sign ordinance does not define whether a
pylon sign (free standing) or a sign attached to an
awning type structure should he considered as overhang-
ing signs if they project over public sidewalks, etc.
If it is decided that, the above type signs should be
classified the same as a sign directly attached to a
building, then all businesses listed in the three
categories would be affected by the 12/31/76 deadline.
If it is determined that, some of the categories listed
should not be prohibited, an amendment, should be made
to our ordinance to clarify the type- of overhanging
signs that aro allowable.
This matter should be remolved to allow affected prop-
erty owners ample time to remove signs finally deter-
mined to be in violation of the ordinance.
POSSIBLE ACTI(IN: Consideration of any amendments to ex-
clude above categories from "overhantlinU sign" ordinances.
lgenda Item 7. Consideration of "Public Sign" Ordinance Amendments.
a
The Monticello Chamber of Commerce would like to put up
some new signs to replace existing deteriorating signs
and possibly put up one to two signs where none formerly
existed. Message contained in the sign would bear a
welcome of some nature and would not contain the name
of any business or advertising for any business.
According to our ordinance, "public signs" are allowed
without a permit. Our ordinance defines "public signs"
as follows:
Sign of a public, non-commercial nature,
to include safety signs, danger signs,
trespassing signs, traffic signs, signs
indicating scenic or historical points
of interest, memorial plaques, and the
like, when signs are erected by or on
order of a public office or employee
in the offical performance of duty.
This particular definition does not include civic
organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce. Rotary,
etc.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of amendment to sign
ordinance definition of "public sign" to include civic
organizations.
fff
iv
G
O
N
a
D
yd{
w
c"OI
QLv
HOWARD DANLGREN ASSOCIATES
�Nco.rownio
CONSULTING PLANNER$
ONE GROVELAND TER.ACC
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55403
September 20, 1916
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, City of Monticello
ATTN: Gary Wieber, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Amendments to Sign Ordinance
1. As per your request we are currently considering the policies
expressed in the Sign Ordinance as currently in effect in the
City of Monticello. We are reviewing the regulations in the
context of variances that have been applied for which were
approved and some of which were not. We are also reviewing
the amortization question with respect to the non -conforming
signs.
2. We will have prepared an overall recommendation in time for
the next meeting of the Planning Commission at which time 1
would hope to be present as well. We feel that this is a
very important reconsideration and should deal with the
overall sign ordinance rather than explicit parts thereof.
We would appreciate any expressions of concern on the part
of the Planning Commission with respect to any revisions
that might be recommended. We would then prepare recommenda-
tions on its overall context.
MGM s P/uSW : � 1 I e
IFRAX -To f— �
I
6A4 y
rC,c ILc �� 1114
14
r
U.4'<)
. -2-
A e5
Res 140 1D
Y
Awl
/ p - Cc
ep,,t..t
D,a.-.».•� /27
7�7-e
L
m