Planning Commission Agenda Packet 09-29-1981AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTIC.ELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
September 29, 1981 - 7:30 P.M.
Chairman: Jim Ridgeway
Members: John Bondhus, Bill Burke, Dick Martie, Ed Schaffer.
1. Approval of the Minutes of the meeting of September 8, 1981.
F]
2 . Public Hearing - Variance - Don Lundqulot.
3. Public Hearing - Varlance - Monticello Ford, Inc.
6 . Simple Subdivision Request - Darwin s Shirley Straw.
Unfinished Busincoe.
Now Business.
Meeting Reminder -
The next regularly ocheduled mooting of the Planning Commioaion will
be October 13, 1981.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, September 8, 1981 - 7:30 P. M.
Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Dick Martie, Ed Schaffer, Loren Klein.
Members Absent: John Bondhus, Bill Burke.
SPECIAL NOTE, Because of a lack of 4/5's of the members of the Planning
Commission not being present, those who were present requesting
variances asked that their variance consideration be post-
poned until the October 13, 1981 Planning Commission meeting.
L. Approval of the Minutes.
Unanimous approval of the minutes of the August 11, 1981 Planning
Coamission meeting was given.
2. Consideration of a Zoninq Amendment.
As a result of an application filed by Tonotto Ruff to develop a con-
signment sales facility on her property located on Lot 1, Block 12,
of thn Original Plat of the City of Monticello, an ordianco anend-
ment was considered which would allow that consignment sales facility
to be developed within an I-1 sone.
In reviewing the specific request made by Tonetto Ruff, the Planning
Comnlalon felt that the particular requout would not he detrimental
to the area of the I-1 zone for which she had proposed her application
for a consignment sales facility.
However, the Planning Commiocion did feel that Sono guidelines should
be sot for future requests of a similar nature, and the following
conditions were approved to be made a part of the consideration for a
consignment sales facility within an 1-1 sone aml aro as follows:
1. Consideration should be given to ordinance 6,xtion 10-22-3 which
requires that making a consideration for a conditional uce should
W hired on the following factors,
A. 1( lationohip to the comprehensive plan.
Fl. The geographical area involved.
C. whother such uco would tend to or actually depreeiatO tilt area
In which it is proposed.
n. The character of tho surrounding area.
P.. The demonstrated need for Such a use.
2. Caloo and storage should not exceed 1,000 aquaro feet in area.
3. At least 80% of tho calors ohall be of conoignei merehandice.
4. t'n auctions should take place on tho prenicto.
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/8/81
5. There should be no outside storage.
Hearing no objections, and with a feeling that the particular request
would not be detrimental to the area in which it was proposed, a motion
was made and seconded and unanimously carried to recommend a zoning
ordinance amendment to allow a consignment sales facility within an I-1
zone as is proposed along with the considerations as stated.
3. Consideration of a Conditional Use for a Consiqnment Sales in an I-1
Zone - Tonette Ruff.
As a result of the same application which prompted the consideration
of a zoning ordinance amendment, as stated in the previous minutes
item, consideration was made for granting Tonette Ruff a conditional
use permit to allow a consignment sales facility on her property
located on Lot 1, Block 12, of the City of Monticello.
Tonette Ruff is proposing to offer various items of craft that have
been produced by other people who would like to consign those goods
to her for sale. According to Mrs. Ruff, she would charge a fee per
month based on the amount of space used by the person offering the
goods to her for consignment, and also would charge that individual a
certain percentage of the items if they were eventually cold. All of
the items which Mrs. Ruff would be handling would be relatively am --ill
items. Mrs. Ruff brought in a newspaper article depicting somewhat
what the proposed use of her facility would be.
Hearing no objections at the public hearing, and taking into considera-
tion that the Planning Coamianion felt that thin particular request
would not be detrimental to the area in which it was proposed, a motion
was mado and oeeonded and unanimously approved to reeomnrnd that this
conditional use request bo granted.
2 c Ing Ao adjour ed-
indminia ator
- 2 -
J
J
Planning Commision - 9/29/81
1. Approval of Minutes of September b, 1981 Reqular Planninq Commission
Meeting.
2. A Public Hearin - A Variance - Don Lunquist.
Don tunquist, who owns Lot 6, Block 1, Hoglund Addition, has made an
application for a variance to allow a solarium on the front of his house
to be 18 feet from the front yard property line,where the ordinance re-
quires a 30 foot set back. This property is toned R-1.
Mit. Lundquist is requesting an 18 foot front yard set back in order that
he might be enabled to build a 12 foot wide and 18 foot long solarium on
the front of his house. A plat map of his property and somewhat of a
cross section diagram of whet he proposes to build is enclosed with the
agenda supplement. Also, Mir. Lundquist has gone to many of his neigh-
bors and asked that they sign a petition of support for his proposed
solarium. A copy of that petition is enclosed with the abutting neigh -
bore being hi -lighted in yellow on that petition.
APPLICANT, Don Lundquist.
CONSIDERATION, Consider reconmending approval or denial of this
variance for a oat back request.
REFERENCE, An enclosed petition and plat map as proviouely otated.
3. Public Hearinq - Variance - Monticello Ford, Inc.
At the regular meeting of the Monticello City Council on November 7,
1977, a motion wao made and carried to approve a variance roquoot for
the curbing around the majority of the automobile sales lot at Monticello
Ford for two yearo or until November 7, 1979. However, oince occupancy
of the building did not take place until approximately October of 1978,
it wao thereby conoidered that the variance would be extended for two
yearo until Octobor of 1980.
At hie time, Mr. tarry Flako, Procident of Monticello Ford, io request-
ing that he not be required to place that curbing for which he wao
granted a two year variance. He would requeat that at thio time he only
be required to maintain that curbing on both oideo of the driveway
entrance on the northern portion of the parking lot and along the build-
ing frontage, with the balance of the curb barrier to be eliminated
through a permanent variance. Aloo, at thio time Mr. Flako to requootinq
a variance to be allowed to maintain a vehicle dioplay area on the graco
- 1 -
Planning Commission Agenda - 9/29/81
to the north of the garage building across the driveway. His
request is based on his feeling that the grass enhances the
appearance of the trucks and/or vehicles which ere displayed.
He requests that he not be required to place hard surfacing or
curbing around the area.
APPLICANT: Monticello Ford, Inc.
REPERENCES: An enclosed letter from Mr. Flake of Monticello Ford
and a copy of the minutes of the regular meeting of November 7, 1977.
CONSIDERATION: Consider recommending approval or denial of this
variance request.
4. Simple Subdivision Request - Darwin and Shirley Straw.
Darwin and Shirley Straw, who own the westerly 69 feet of vacated
Elm Street between River Street and the Mississippi River and Lot 5
and the easterly 66 feet of Lot 6, Block 60, zoned R-2, have made
a request for a simple subdivision to divide that property into two
(2) equal lots. The total frontage of that property on River Street
would amount to 135 feet. The Straws would propoee to make two equal
lots of 675 feet each. Those two newly created lots would be lose than
the 80 foot frontage requirement, as required by the present aub-
division ordinance, however, it would be Ili feet more in width than
the property which in located in that area in the original plat of
the community which is 66 feet in width.
Presently, there is a dwelling located on the vacated Elm Street
portion of the lot, but there is no dwelling on the portion of the
lot which in compriood of Lot 5 and the coot 66 feet of Lot 6, of
Block 60.
Since this ins simploraubdivioion request, that iot making two loto
out of one, it is not necessary to go through the entire subdivision
procoso to make those two loto. If the Planning Comm iaslon docidoo
to recommend thio oirnple aubdivioion requoot for approval, it should
be made contingent upon the certificate of survey being presented
which would chow that no variancoo would be nococeary no far ae the
cot backs of the exioting dwelling in rolationchip to the newly
created property lino without firot coming back to the Planning Com-
miooion to address that cot back ac would be the taco in any variance.
CONSIDERATION: Conaidor raco®onding approval or denial of thio Dimple
subdivision roquoct.
REFERENCED: An attached drawing ohowing the proposed simple cub-
divioion roqueat.
- 2 -
Planning Commission - 1/13/81
4. Consideration of a Variance Request - Decorative Services.
Decorative Services of Monticello has requested a variance to eliminate the
curb barrier around their parking lot and driveway to their now facility
they are proposing to build on the lot east of the Independent Lumber
Company and on the south half of that particular lot. Their reason for
requesting that variance is that the back half of that lot is lower than
the surrounding area, and by constructing a holding pond on the lot, they
could contain the runoff water in that lot and also could use that pond as
a part of their landscaping, hopefully to enhance their property.
The plans for their request have been submitted to John Badalich, the
City Engineer, and he has recommended that the Planning Commission and
City Council consider granting this variance request. Mr. Badalich did,
however, point out a couple of items of concern that he has with this project.
One item would be that at the road ditch where the driveway crossea onto
Chelsea Road, that the 28• proposed culvert be changed to a 30' culvert.
Also, Mr. Badalich is recommending that the developer consider a manhole
at the point where the sanitary sewer connects with the City's main newer
in the street on Chelsea Road. Although these last two items are not
items that Mr. Badalich says that this variance should be contingent upon,
he makes them as suggestions for possible methods to better facilitate
the construction of thin proposal.
This parcel which is proposed for construction on is the southerly part
of the easterly pert of Lot 1, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park, and is
zoned I-1.
At the time of this writing, there have been no commento submitted, either
pro or con, on thin variance proposal as advertised.
POSSIBLE ACTION, Consider recommending approval or dental of this variance
request.
REPERENCESs Enclosed copy of the site layout for this project.
APPLICANT, Decorative Services of Minnesota, Monticello.
.A, k& �'1
Qao
- 3 -
Planning Commission - 1/13/81
S. Consideration of Possible Amendment to the City of Monticello's Park
Dedication Ordinance Requirement.
Currently, the park dedication for the City of Monticello requires all
developers requesting platting contribute 101 of the final plat gross
area to be dedicated to the public for their use as either parka, play-
grounds, public open space, or linear park and trail systems, or to
contribute an equivalent amount in cash and the form of contribution,
whether cash or land or combination thereof, shall be decided by the
City Council based upon need and conformance with the City's approved
plans.
In the past, the City of Monticello has determined that the cash equivalent
would be equal to lOx of the assessor's fair market value of the property.
The assessor's fair market value of the property is determined to be as of
January 2nd the preceeding year, and this market value determination is
very low. The value per acre historically has been anywhere from $1,000
to $4,000 per acre when, in fact, after development has occurred, residential
property, for example, could be in the area of $24,000 per acre. This
$24,000 is just an estimate, and based on four 1/4 acre lots selling for
$6,000 each, not including assessments.
If a developer proposes to pay the amount in cash, he is a lot better off
than dedicating land which is worth quite a bit more than the assessor's
fair market value.
As a result, it would seem that the City of Monticello should consider the
following:
A. Change the park dedication requirement to 5% of the final plat gross area.
0. When the park dedication is proposed in cash, the City would obtain an
appraisal of the market value of the property based on a final plat
on a per acre basis.
C. When the contribution is in land, the City would obtain nn opinion from
an appraisal firm that the park dedication is equivalunt to a 51 value
of the total plat, no opposed to 52 of the land area to discourage the
developer from granting poorerland for park and receiving the some
credit as a developer who offers good land. 13&9.1 w .a, #%&%J sMr
4..t Jald.
D. Park dedication should not include a wetlond or ponding area, as thin is
ultimately caving the developer money because utorm sever would not be
needed and the City still does not have, any additional parka because
the area in for ponding purpoaea.
In light of the above procedures being implemented, the City could reduce
the park dedication requirement to 59 from l0I and still be better off
than now becoune of the following:
U
- 4 -
Planning Commission - 1/17/81
In case of land dedication, only quality land will be received,
or if substandard land is offered, it will take more land to
equate to 5% as indicated in Item C above.
In case cash is offered, a more equitable method, as indicated
in Item B above, will be used.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of amending ordinance on park dedication
requirements (if it is determined what amendments might
be made, it will be necessary to hold a hearing on these).
- 5 -
ORDINANCE SECTION: lu-3-9-C-7
The City of Monticello, or its agent, is authurized and required
by this ordinance to enter into an agreement with the United
States, or any of its agencies, t,r departments, to the end
that the objective stated in Title 23, United States Code,
Section 131, Section 319, or any other applicable Federal
Statute to obtain non—conforming signs along the Great River
Road within the City of Monticello. Ilowevrr, the City of
Monticello, or its agent, shall not be required, nor allowed, to
expend funds for the acquisition of non -conforming signs or
advertising devices under this Chapter until Federal funds
in the amount of 752 or store of this acquit: i tion Cost are made
available to the City of Monticello for the purl,ose of carrying
out this ordinance. No sign nor- advertisiiik; devict• legal under
Laws 1971, Chapter 883, shall be required to be remvcd or
relocated until payment, as provided in Lav:; 1971, Chapter 883,
is tendered by rhe City of Monticello.
6. Discussion on Scope and Purpose of Planning Commission.
John Bondhus, who had previously written a letter that was sent out to
Planning Commission Members on October 3, 1980, indicated a concern
with the purpose and duties of the Planning Commission. Specifically,
he felt that in some areas there might be some redundancy for reviewing
variances, etc. He felt an effort should be made to streamline some of
these duties, and wondered if some of these matters could not be taken
directly to the City Council.
Administrator Wieber explained that because of legal requirements contained
in the Minnesota State Statutes, it was necessary for a City to have a
Board of Appeals that was separate from the governing body itself, or the
City Council. However, Cary Wieber indicated that he would look into the
possibility of having less members serve on a board of appeals specifically
for variance requests in order that this might be able to streamline some
of the work done by the Planning Commission.
Additionally, other areas were discussed on how the Planning Commission
could better serve. Various members felt that the Planning Commission was
already serving its assigned function, but felt that Mr. Bondhus's comments
were worth considering and in the future, at the end of each agenda, a
particular area would be discussed to see how it could be streamlined. For
example, one possibility was discussed to take each section of the Ordinance
Planning Commission - 10/14AO
and review it in detail to see if any changes should be made.
A motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Bill Burke and unanimously
carried to adjourn.
414)/Ci'lly
�! ( 6-
or,
A9miniatrator
CW/no
MEMORANDUM
TO: File P-40-2
FROM: Gary Wieber bj,O
DATE: October 23, 1980
SUBJECT: Streamlining of Activities of Planning Commission
As a result of the inquiry by John Bondhus at the Planning Commission's
October 14, 1980 meeting, I researched various areas of the statutes.
League of Cities handbook, and other applicable regulations, etc., relative
to streamlining the activities of the Planning Commission, and significant
items are as follows :
According to League Handbook, the establishment of a Planning Commis-
sion is specifically authorized in State Statutes. The indication is
that the cities can, but do not have to, establish a Planning Commis-
sion; however, once established, they only may be dissolved by an
Ordinance which passes by 2/3's vote of the Council, or in other words,
a 4/5's vote in the case of the City of Monticello. A reference to
this is given as Minnesota Statute 462.354 Subdiv. 1.
According to League Handbook, municipal officials may serve as
members of thu Planning Commission. In order words, m�mbere of the
City Council could serve on the Planning Commission as well.
The League (landbook indicates that, although not required by Statute,
the use of Planning Commissions is generally recosamended. The Handbook
goes on to any that Planning Commissions are usually composed largely
of persons whose sole public responeibiI ity is to focus public atten-
tion on the planning problem and work towards the preparation and impte—
mentation of o comprehensive plan. it suggests that Council Members
should not compose the entire body of the Planning Commiooion.
One of the dut ics, according to the League Handbook, is not only to
prepare the comprehensive plan, but also to periodically review and
recommend amendmento to the plan as noceonry.
The Handbook also indicates on Pago 175 that zoning ordinance amendments, p.L'
subdivision plats, and official maps must be reviewed prior to onactmenti'lf
Public Hearings in ouch cases may be before the Planning Commission, but
the Council must ultimately make the final decision on these legislative
matters. According to the Handbook, under moot municipal ordinance
procedures, al l Council determinations have Planning Commission implica—
tions are first raferred to the Planning Commission for study and recom—
mondation.
a
Memo to File P-40-2
October 23, 1980
Page d2
CW/ns
According to the League Handbook on page 175, and also referenced is
Minnesota Statute 462.354 Subdiv. 2, every municipality having a zoning
ordinance or official map must establish a board of adjustments and
appeals. It goes on to say that the Planning Commission or a committee
of the commission may, but need not, be assigned this duty. Since the
Board of Adjustment may review decisions and recommendations of the
Planning Commission, it is usually better to have a board of adjustments
different from the Planning Commission itself.
According to the League Handbook on page 176, relative to zoning, the
City again must establish a board of adjustment and appeals. This may
be a separate board, the Planning Commission, a committee of the Plan-
ning Commission, or the Council itself. The board -of adjustmTtl-a d
appeals -hears requests -for variances and appeals=frem;esrer or a
arbitfaey-deeieione-of-adminiatreetve-off ieera�eafors�g�e�..�a�e��ag�p
or_ap. The ordinance establishing the board may, where the Council
does not serve as the board, provide that the board's decisions are
final, or subject to appeal to the Council, or are advisory to the
Council. A board -of adjustments and -appeals may-not-be-us@d to_.-. 1;
grant-special-er-conditionnl use peryta, or-revi-bw--regdests-'forzonidg
Qrdinanee _or offi�al map amendments, These are functions of the
Council and the Planning Commission.
In reading the above item, it would appear that the City of Monticello
could utilise either the Planning Commission as the sole authority for
variances, or this could be done by the Council itself. 9po,9ther
method yould-ba-to-have the sole -authority be the ?In in"amenisdflon,
but 65$�X.9rpvida a-method-for'appealing-the-deet etoil thi�Plarinina
Commission.; It specifically indicates that the board of adjustments
and appeals, however, may not be used by grant special or conditional
use permits or review requests for zoning ordinance or official map
amendments. These are ultimately the function of the City Council,
although recommendations on these items may be forthcoming from the
Planning Commission.
Zoning Ordinance amendments or changes requesting a rezoning still have
to go to the Planning Commission, not the board of appeals, according
to Statute 462.357 Subdiv. 4. It goes on to say that the governing
body cannot act on the amendment until the recommendation of the Plan-
ning Commission is received, or until 60 days have elapsed from the date
of reference of the amendment to the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission - I1/11/80
4. Consideration of Rezoning Lots of Rivcrwood Estates — Floyd Kruse.
and Kermit Lindberg.
At a recent Planning Cuanaission meeting it was recotttmanded to
approve the Rivervood Estates for Mr. Floyd Kruse and Mr. Kermit
Lindberg. However, at that time there was a possible discrepancy
in the zoning line for portions of several of those lots, and
also the Lindberg'a on their portion of the property proposed
rezoning Lot 1., Block 2 from R-1 to B-3.
At a subsequent meeting, the Planning Commission recoumended
granting the rezoning of Lot t of Block 2 from R-1 to 1-3.
However, now it is necessary to define the arra of B-3 to the
south po ton of the Kruse portion of that property. That being
that Lots'5,6,7 be zoned as H-1 and that Lots 1,3 ,l and 2, of
Block 1 be zoned B-3.
APPLICANT: Floyd Kruse
CONSIDERATION: Considur recommending approval or denial of this
clarification of thin rezoning.
REFERENCES: Enclosed map depicting the area of the Riverwood
Estates and a cony of the plat of Rivervood Estates.
5. Consideration of Ordinance Amendments to Simplify Permit Process.
As a result of the inquiry by John Bondhus at our lust Planning
Commission meeting, I have researched the posaibility of simplifying
the process for variances.
It does appear one possible method to do this would be to amend
our current ordinance which would entahl ish the Planning Commission
on the. sole authority for variances. This, then would be in affect ,
a Board of Adjustments and Appeals. This board could be cel up any
number of ways. One way is that the decision of the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals is final , or Jnu other method is that the
decision of the board could be appealed to the City Council. It
would seew that the later method might be more preferable in that
the Planning Commission could still be act up an the Bocrd of Ad-
justments and Appeals and its decision would be final unlean the
particular decision was appealed by olther thr applieaat or thr
othur individual. This would still simplify tho process due to the
fact that many of the variances that go both to the Planning Coimuiasiun
and the City Council are not rontrovernial and would probably not
be appealed anyway. Again, thio would still allow the individual
who felt that the Planning Comsinniuo was unfair on l,is requput or
a resident who might feel that the drrinion mad,- by the Planning
Commission was unfair a further opportunity to gu to the Council
if they felt it neceasury.
It should be pointed out that this aanw type of prue.•ss cannut by
applied to o zoning request, a toning ordinance amendment or other
adjustments in the toning urdinancu.
-3—
IPlanning Commission 11/11/80
i
In the State statutes it specifically states that the
Planning Commission must review zoning ordinance changes or
request for rezoning. However, the Council must review the
recommendation of the Planning Commission before the decision
is made. Therefore, it is required that both the Planning
Commission and City Council review tliese matters.
In addition to possibly looking at the way that the city now
handles variances the Planning Commission made also want to
consider amending the ordinance so that a variance is not
necessary. For an example, right now we currently have a lot
of requests for a variance from landscaping provisions, curb
barrier for a parking lot, hard -surfacing of a parking lot,
etc. The Planning Commission may want to spend a portion of
Tuesday night's meeting looking at some of the more frequent
variance requests and consider recommendations to amend the
ordinance so that the number of variances may decrease.
POSSIBLE ACTION: No specific action is expected other than
discussion of the above issues and determination
made on which areas the Planning Commission
could consider at their next meeting for
definite ordinance amendments.
40
40
-4-
a
• � M t
l • a -
14
s
N
r
MATERIAL
t Ippploo3td f3ytLd�t.�
FINISH AND COLOR
TITLE%MPI IGRAk/T 13-ii.J,,w5S
a +4ti
oRAwN BY GAVE TAMES014
QATEAOG A; -90I SCALEX'= S4
+x'-41
TITLE%MPI IGRAk/T 13-ii.J,,w5S
a +4ti
oRAwN BY GAVE TAMES014
QATEAOG A; -90I SCALEX'= S4
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE FOR
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT -
Robert 6 Marion Jameson
�1.
INE 0- r4E �.:� / _�_/ 951 s, {
1 F rrn•Fnsr 3 1��c ISO
- 1. � _/ %• / / - !� 450 %�
/NORTH LINE IM4r14 T
I �. 3; 250 FEET of Lo ah10•
P71TVM Ron/:
7-1
'- -951 -- /Z'dtrEat !l I
PARG�L � / j r �SOO�, c • 5'- 9 E•�. �o•_ } �
ot
tS-955._soo
— I Ir4Vn tx-r1O. rr rIs VA es Avis
• / / �T ._ t.n ffffl �
Eu ro
os
' ( t / _ _ -• •� I LSSE:
6M, 101 r
flA H(-
�_ .. .��, -- - -psi -• - /--- - •�•-/- J 7T / ; � - _� �
w-TM-Olj�T
r
., . .
f•Vf
t11, �ti t. p • ! r
Owl
VARIANCE REQUEST FROM CURBING
Decorative Service•