Planning Commission Agenda Packet 04-08-1992R
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, April 8, 1992 - 7:00 p.m.
Members: Dan McConnon, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Richard
Carlson, Cindy Lemur
7:00 pm 1. Call to order.
7:02 pm 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held
March 4, 1992.
7:04 pm 3. Public Hearing --A variance request to allow
construction of a house and garage on a lot with
less than the minimum lot square footage.
Applicant, Ed Kruse.
Request cancelled. (Jeff O'Neill will report at
meeting.)
7:19 pm 4. Public Hearing --A conditional use request to expand
a bowling alley facility in an I-1 (light
industrial) zone. Applicant, Al Joyner.
7:50 pm 5. Public Hearing --A conditional use request to allow
auto body shop repair in a B-3 (highway business)
zone. Applicant, John Johnson.
8:10 pm 6. Public Hearing --A request for an ordinance
amendment to add private retractable antenna tower
to be allowed as a conditional use in a PEN
(performance zone mixed) zone. Applicant, Tom
Ware.
8:25 pm 7. Public Hearing --A conditional use request to allow
a private retractable antenna tower to be allowed
In a PEM (performance zone mixed) zone. Applicant,
Tom Ware.
8:40 pm 8. Public Hearing --A variance request to Section
20-2-C of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance which
requires that a planned unit development include an
area of at least 3 acres. Applicant, Investors
Together.
8:55 pm 9. Public Hearing --A roplatting request to subdivide
Outlet A of the East View residential subdivision.
Applicant, Investors Together.
9:10 pm 10. Public Hearing --A conditional use request allowing
a townhouse development in an R-2 zone. Applicant,
Investors Together.
0
Planning Commission Agenda
April 6,
1991
`i Page 2
9:25 pm
11. Continued Public Hearing --A variance request to
allow construction of a warehouse building within
the front, rear, and side yard setback
requirements. Applicant, J.M. Oil Company.
Tabled per staff recommendation. (Jeff O'Neill
will report at meeting.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
9:45 pm
1. Discussion of a proposal for an ordinance amendment
to allow outdoor sales, minor repair, and major
repair in a B-2 (limited business) zone.
Applicant, Monticello Boat Works.
10:00 pm
2. A variance request to allow construction of a
warehouse building within the front, rear, and side
yard setback requirements. Applicant, J.M. Oil
Company. Council action: No action required, as
the request did not come before them.
�0 10:02 pm
3. Consideration of approval of a preliminary plat of
phase II of the Cardinal Hills residential
subdivision plat. Applicant, Value Plus Homes.
Council action: Approved as per Planning
Commission recommendation.
10:04 pm
4. Rezoning request to rezone an unplatted tract of
land to be platted as phase II, Cardinal Hills
residential subdivision plat, from AO (agriculture -
open space) to R-1 (single family residential)
zoning. Applicant, value Plus Homes. Council
action: No action required, as the request did not
come before them.
10:06 pm
5. Consideration of approving amendments to the zoning
map of Monticello proposed in conjunction with the
Chelsea Area Planning Study changing the Thomas
Park area zoning from B-2 (limited business) to I-1
(light industrial). Council action: No action
required, as the request did not come before them.
10:08 pm
6. Set the neat tentative date for the Monticello
Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, May 5,
1992, 7:00 p.m.
�( 10:10 pm
7. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, March 4, 1992 - 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Dan McConnon, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart,
Richard Carlson, Cindy Lemm
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill
1. The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson, Cindy
Lemm, at 7:07 p.m.
2. A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard
Carlson to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held
January 7, 1992. Voting in favor: Jon Bogart, Richard
Carlson, Cindy Lemm. Abstaining: Richard Martie. Absent:
Dan McConnon.
3. A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie
to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held February 4,
1992. Motion carried unanimously.
Planning Commission Member Dan McConnon arrived for the Planning
Commission meeting.
4. Public HearincL-A variance request to allow construction of a
warehouse buildinq within the front, rear, and side yard
setback requirements. Applicant, J.M. Oil Company.
Chairperson Den McConnon opened the public hearing.
Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, reviewed J.M. Oil
Company's request to allow construction of a cold storage
warehouse building within the setback requirements. J.M. 011
Company is proposing to remove their existing 16 -foot X 38 -
foot warehouse and loading dock structure and replace it with
a 38 -foot X 50 -foot warehouse/truck storage building.
The property is currently zoned I-2 (heavy industrial), which
allows this type of warehouse/truck storage building
construction. The problem that exists with the Burlington
Northern Leased Property is the depth of the lots being only
100 feet. The minimum setback within the I-2 zone is a 50 -
foot front and rear yard setback requirements. Therefore, no
room is allowed for construction without an encroachment into
the front or rear yard setback requirement.
Mr. William Aydt, representing J.N. Oil Company, explained
that his existing bulk oil facility is in conformance with
State of Minnesota guidelines regulating his type of business.
However, by 1996, the existing bulk fuel tanks will have to be
removed from their existing location, a concrete block wall or
Page 1
a
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/4/92
poured concrete wall around the outside perimeter of the tanks
installed, and a new rubber liner installed in the area under
the tanks and inside the entire surrounding area of these
tanks.
There being no further input from the public, Chairperson Dan
McConnon closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for
input from Planning Commission members.
Planning Commission members commented on the improvement of
this location with construction of a new warehouse facility,
which would put all exterior storage inside of this building.
Commission members also asked Mr. Aydt if he had considered
relocating to a new site.
Mr. Aydt responded that it would cost approximately $150, 000
to relocate the existing tanks to a new site.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission
members, a motion was made by Cindy Lemm and seconded by
Richard Martie to table the variance request to allow the
consulting planner to review relocation possibilities versus
staying in the same zone with the possibility of establishing
a new zone within the Burlington Northern Leased Land area
with leaser building setback requirements. Motion carried
unanimously.
5. Public Hearing --Consideration of approval of a Preliminarv,
plat of phase II of the Cardinal Hills residential subdivision
plat. Applicant, Value Plus Homes.
Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the public hearing.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the
preliminary plat request of phase II of the Cardinal Hills
residential subdivision. Phase II of the Cardinal Hills
subdivision is a 20 -acre residential subdivision, which
Includes development of two roadways and 50 residential lots.
There do not appear to be any conflicts between the
development of phase II of the Cardinal Hills subdivision and
the adjoining land uses.
The park dedication requirement for the entire 109 -acre
development area is about 10.5 acres. The plan calla for
development of a 3 -acre passive park area in phase II and a
.75 -acre park in the oast center portion of the plat to be
developed in a later phase. It is proposed by the developers
that the remaining 6. 75 acres will be given to the City in the
form of a cash equivalent for park dedication.
O'Neill highlighted comments of the parks Commission's
findings of the preliminary plat for phase II of Cardinal
Hills as followat
Page 2
t
4. Consider a sidewalk plan for future installation to
provide north/south access to School Boulevard.
5. Have the developers name the streets within
phase II.
The Public Works Director indicated that the Starling Drive
intersection of phase II as shown is less than a 90 -degree
intersection. This intersection should be realigned to a 90 -
degree angle.
Page 3 O
oZ
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/4/92
rr
+1 1.
It was the consensus of the Parks Commission that
Value Plus Homes should strongly consider
establishing a housing mix and not limit their
entire project to low-end FHA homes.
2.
The Parks Commission reviewed the sketch plan dated
2/10/92 and concluded that the park areas
identified were sufficient.
3.
The Parks Commission finds that the park proposal
is acceptable, which includes approximately a 3 -
acre park to the north and approximately a 1 -acre
park to the east, with the remaining park
dedication requirement to be in the form of cash.
4.
The wetland areas located on the southerly boundary
of the plat should be preserved as a nature area
for the enjoyment of the public and should not be
included in the calculations for the total park
land dedication. Easements should be obtained to
allow the general public to have access to this
wetland area.
Following
were concerns brought up by the consulting planner:
1.
The plat shows only a single access point with
phase I and phase II of the Cardinal Hills
subdivision. The staff should work with the
developers to acquire an easement for the second
access as proposed in phase III.
2.
Consider Martin Drive, as it extends into phase I1,
to come to a 90 -degree intersection and then extend
north to School Boulevard.
3.
Consider dedicating Block 1, Lot 3, for additional
park land dedication to increase the size of the
park dedication to just over 3 acres of land area.
t
4. Consider a sidewalk plan for future installation to
provide north/south access to School Boulevard.
5. Have the developers name the streets within
phase II.
The Public Works Director indicated that the Starling Drive
intersection of phase II as shown is less than a 90 -degree
intersection. This intersection should be realigned to a 90 -
degree angle.
Page 3 O
oZ
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/4/92
The wetland area located in the southerly portion of the
proposed preliminary plat should be left as a natural area and
preserved for that with future development south of this area
could be expanded to a larger nature area.
The developers questioned the need for the additional land
area for park dedication with Block 1, Lot 3, being
incorporated into the proposed park land dedication area. The
developers felt that they have dedicated to the City an area
of approximately just less than 3 acres in size, which is
probably the most prime area of park land dedication to be
dedicated to the City, with the land area for the park having
mature oak trees on it and being just less than 3 acres in
size, a park equal to the size of Ellison Park.
The developers indicated they are proposing a housing mix of
approximately 20t of the proposed 40 lots to be developed in
phase II, with the majority of the housing mix of these lots
to be developed with housing abutting the area of the park
land dedication.
There being no further input from the public, Chairperson Dan
McConnon then opened the meeting for input from the Planning
Commission members.
i
Concerns addressed by the Planning Commission members were the
area of the park land dedication. Some Planning Commission
members felt that the park land dedication should be left open
at this time to consider further park land dedication land at
some time in the future if needed with further phases of this
development.
The developers countered that it's pretty hard to know where
you're at in the development of this entire property not
knowing if additional park land will be required as part of
future phases of this development.
Planning Commission members complimented Mr. Dennis Taylor,
Taylor Land Surveyors, on his layout of this development.
The proposed alignment of the intersection of Starling Drive
should have no problem being realigned at a 90 -degree angle.
The City should require easements for the second access in
case the developers of phase II should not be able to meet
their obligations. Staff is requested to have Consulting
Engineer, Bret Weise, take a look at all the land surrounding
the pond for the 100—year event and beyond the 100 -year event.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission
members, a motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Cindy
Lemm to approve the preliminary plat of phase II of the
Cardinal Hills residential subdivision with the following
conditions:
Page 4
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/4/92
1. The City of Monticello is to receive a temporary
easement for street purposes for a second access to
School Boulevard.
Future phases should be designed to allow public
access to the wetland area.
3. The City of Monticello accept the park land
dedication with phase ii with no additional money
for park land dedication required at this time.
Notion carried unanimously.
6. Public Hearing --A rezoning request to rezone an unplatted
tract of land to be platted as phase II, Cardinal Hills
residential subdivision, from AO (agriculture -open space) to
R-1 (sinale family residential) zoning. Applicant, Value Plus
Homes.
Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the public hearing.
Jeff O'Neill explained that the proposed rezoning request is
for phase II only of Cardinal Hills subdivision plat.
There being no input from the public, Chairperson Dan McConnon
then opened the meeting for further input from the Planning
Commission members.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission
members, a motion was made by Cindy Lemm and seconded by Jon
Bogart to approve the request to rezone phase II of the
Cardinal Hills residential subdivision from AO (agriculture -
open space) to R-1 (single family residential) uses. Rezoning
of said property is contingent upon the completion of the land
subdivision process. Notion to recommend approval of said
rezoning is based on the finding that the rezoning request is
consistent with the comprehensive plan for the City of
Monticello and is consistent with the subdivision policies
contained within the comprehensive plan. Notion carried
unanimously.
7. Consideration of a)provinq amendments to the zonlnq map of
Monticello proposed) In conjunction with the Chelsea Area
Planning Study changing the -Thomas Park area zonlnq from B-2
(limited business) to I-1 (light industrial).
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the proposed
rezoning of the Thomas Park area from B-2 (limited business)
to I-1 (light Industrial) zoning as part of the review
completed in conjunction with the Chelsea area corridor study.
Page 5
Z
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/4/92
Upon further review by the City staff, the consensus is that
the property should remain as it currently exists as B-2
(limited business).
There being no further comments from the Planning Commission
members, the City of Monticello withdrew its request for the
rezoning of this area.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
1. Consideration of a resolution adopting amendments to the City
of Monticello Comprehensive Land Use Plan in conjunction with
the Chelsea Area Land Use Study. Applicant, City of
Monticello. Council action: Approved as per Planning
Commission recommendation.
2. Consideration of approving amendments to the zoning map of
Monticello proposed in conjunction with the Chelsea Area
Planning Study. Applicant, Citi of Monticello. Council
actions Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
3. Consideration of establishing a business campus zoning
district which provides for establishment of limited light
industrial business offices, limited light manufacturing,
wholesale showrooms, retail uses in an environment which
provides a high level of amenities, including landscaping,
preservation of other natural features, architectural
controls, and other features. Applicant, City of Monticello.
Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission
recommendation.
4. Consideration of a request to rezone a 12 -acre portion of
Auditor's Subdivision, Lot 17, from B-3 (highway business) to
a combination of PLM (performance zone mixed - 5 acres) and 8-
2 (limited business - 7 acres). Applicant, Evangelical
Covenant Church. Council action: Denied as per Planning
commission recommendation.
5. Consideration of a variance request to allow construction of
a building addition within the rear and aide yard setback
requiroments. Applicant, Michael and Kathleen Froslie.
Council action: No action required, as the request did not
come before them.
6. Consideration of adopting an ordinance amendment to Section
12-2 of the City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance which would
allow a convenience store to operate as a permitted use in a
B-2 zone. Applicant, City of Monticello. Council action:
Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
Page 6 C--)-)-
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/4/92
7. Review Cardinal Hills development sketch plan. Applicant,
Value Plus Homes. Council action: Recommendation follows the
Planning Commission recommendation to proceed with the
development of preliminary plat plans.
8. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members to set
Wednesday, April 8, 1992, 7:00 p.m., as the next tentative
date for the Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Dan Gassler, Pastor of A Glorious Church, explained to Planning
Commission members a proposal that will be coming before them at
their next regularly scheduled meeting for use of an existing
building in the Oakwood Industrial Park for a church facility.
9. A motion was made by Richard Wartie and seconded by Richard
Carlson to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Anderson
Sorting Administrator
C.
Page 7 �/
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/8/92
4. Public Hearing --Consideration of a conditional use reouest to
expand a bowling alley facility in an I-1 zone. Applicant, Al
Joyner. (J.O.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The title of this agenda item is somewhat misleading, as Al
Joyner is not proposing to expand the actual bowling facility;
however, he is requesting that he be allowed to install two
volleyball courts on the south side of the property. The
volleyball courts represent an intensification or enlargement
of an existing use; therefore, it is appropriate that the
applicant obtain a conditional use permit prior to development
of the courts.
The area of the site proposed for the volleyball courts is the
area between Chelsea Road and the existing structure. The
proposal calls for development of ground level decks 14 inches
or lower along with two volleyball courts. The decks will be
connected to the entrance to the building and will be used as
a lounge and eating area. The volleyball courts will be
placed on either side of the deck area. Surrounding the
volleyball courts will be a 6 -foot high wood fence with wire
net extension on the top. The proposed volleyball court and
deck area will be placed within the building setback area. It
does not appear, according to our ordinance, that there is a
problem with placing this activity area within the setback, as
there are no structures being constructed in the setback area.
In addition, it would not appear that development of the
volleyball courts and the deck will not create a significant
increase in parking demand. As you know, bowling tends to be
more of a winter sport and, of course, the volleyball activity
will be occurring in the summertime; therefore, the parking
needed for the volleyball use can be satisfied by the existing
parking spaces.
According to the zoning ordinance, an expansion or
intensification of a non -conforming use cannot be allowed
without the facility being brought into conformance with the
zoning ordinance. In this situation, Joyner Lanes developed
prior to fairly recent updates to the landscaping ordinance;
therefore, the existing landscaping does not meet present
code. In addition, the sign system does not meet code. The
present sign system exceeds the maximum square footage for
signage by a significant margin. The ordinance limits sign
area to 300 eq ft. The Joyner's signs encompass approximately
400+ sq ft. It is proposed by City staff that the conditional
use permit be granted; however, in accordance with the zoning
ordinance and as a condition of the conditional use permit, it
should be required that the landscaping and signage
L requirements of the City be met.
a
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/8/92
3v ;'.S"d.�
In order to comply with the landscaping ordinance,/given the
size of the facility, Joyner would need to plant 41 overstory
trees. In order to comply with the sign section of the
ordinance, Joyner would need to remove the existing pylon sign
(mobile reader board) and replace it with wall signs that have
a total square foot area of 300 sq ft or leave the reader
board sign in place and erect wall signs with a total square
foot area of less than 100 sq ft.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Notion to grant approval of the conditional use permit
request allowing expansion of a bowling alley in an I-1
zone subject to the following conditions:
1. The facility must be brought into compliance with
existing codes pertaining to signage and
landscaping.
The motion would be based on the finding that the
conditional use permit as requested is consistent with
the geography and character of the area, and the
development of the volleyball court will not depreciate
the value of adjoining properties.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission is
comfortable with the expansion of the facility= however,
In keeping with the ordinance, Planning Commission is
requiring that areas of non -conformity be brought up to
code.
If the Planning Commission is inclined to grant the
conditional use permit without requiring changes to
landscaping and signage, then it would be appropriate to
develop an amendment to the zoning ordinance. The
amendment would be written to alow expansion or
enlargement of non -conforming uses without being in
compliance with the terms of the zoning ordinance.
Z. Notion to deny the conditional use permit request.
This alternative does not appear to be appropriate, as
there are no grounds for denying the conditional use
permit request unless it can be demonstrated that somehow
the volleyball courts located at this location in the
front along the boulevard will create a hazard. It does
not appear, however, that a hazard would exist, as the
site lines at the intersection of Chelsea Road and Thomas
Park Drive appear to be unobstructed by the fence. It
appears that driveway eight lines are also unobstructed
by the fence. It appears that there Is no valid reason
for denying the conditional use permit request unless the
applicant is unwilling to bring areae of non -conformity
up to code.
�y
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/8/92
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of site plan for Joyner Lanes volleyball courtBi Excerpts
from the zoning ordinance.
114
IN
,'�k_
CHAPTER 3
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION:
3-1:
Non_ -Con formina_Buildinas: Structures and Uses,
3-2:
Genern Buildings and Performance Requirements
3-3:
Yard Requirements
3-4:
Area and Building Size Regulations
3-5:
Off -Street Parking Requirments
3-6:
Off -Street Loading
3-7:
Land Reclamation
3-8:
Mining
3-9:
Signs
3-,0-
A.A -tt us, s
3-1: NON -CONFORMING BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, AND USES:
[A) PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this section to provide
for the regulation of non -conforming buildings,
structures, and user and to specify those requirements,
circumstances, and c nditions under which non -conforming
buildings, structu as, and uses will be operated and
maintained. The z ning ordinance establishes separate
districts, each of which is an appropriate area for tho
location of uses which are permitted in that district.
It is necessary and consistent with the establishment of
these districts that non -conforming buildings,
structures, and uses not be permitted to continue
without restriction. Furthermore, it is the intent of
this section that all non -conforming uses shall be
en—tually brought into conformity.
[B] Any structure or use lawfully existing upon the
effective date of this ordinance shall not be enlarged
but may be continued et the ease end in the manner of
operation existing upon such date except as hereinafter J
epeciiied or subsequently emended.
[C] Nothing in this ordinance shall prevent the placing of
a structure in safe condition when said structure is
declared unsafe by the Building Inspector, providing the
necessary repairs shall not constitute more than fifty
(50) percent of estimated market value of ouch
structure. Said value shall be determined by the City
or County Assessor.
[D] No non -conforming building, structure, or use shall be
moved to another lot or to any other part of the parcel
of land upon which the same was constructed or was
conducted at the time of this ordinance adoption unless
such movement shall bring the non-conformance into
compliance with the requirements of this ordinance.
KONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/1
�y�
JE) When any lawful non -conforming use of any structure or
land In any district has been changed to a conforming
use, it shall not thereafter be changed to any non-
conforming use.
(F] A lawful non -conforming use of a structure or parcel of
land may be changed to lessen the non -conformity of use.
once a non -conforming structure or parcel of land has
been changed, it shall not thereafter be so altered to
increase the non—conformity.
(G] If at any time a non -conforming building, structure, or
use shall be destroyed to the extent of more than fifty
(50) percent of its estimated market value, said value
to be determined by the City or County Assessor, then
without further action by the Coucil, the building and
the land on which such building was located or
maintained shall, from and after the date of said
destruction, be subject to all the regulations specified
by these zoning regulations for the district in which
such land and buildings are located. Any building which
is damaged to an extent of less than fifty (50) percent
of its value may be restored to its former extent.
Estimate of the extent of damage or destruction shall be
made by the Building Inspector.
(H] Whenever a lawful non -conforming use of a structure
land is discontinued for a period of six (6) months,
future use of said structure or land shall be made
arm with the provisions of this ordinance.
Z
or
any
to
Normal maintenance of a building or other structure
containing or related to a lawful non -conforming use is
permitted, including necessary non-atructural repairs
\ and incidental alterations which do not physically
\\extend or intens f the non -conforming use.
Normal maintenance, necessary non-structural repairs,
and incidental alteration of a lawful non -conforming
sign includes repair or maintenance of existing
lettering done without changing the subject, form, or
design of the lawful non -conforming eign.
(J) Alterations may be made to a building containing or
related to a lawful non -conforming residential unit when
said alteration will improve the livability thereof,
provided the alteration will not increase the number of
dwelling unite. In the B-1 zone, alterations or
expansion may be made to a building containing or
rolated to a lawful non -conforming residential unit when
said alteration or expansion will improve the livability
thereof, provided the alteration or expansion will not
increase the number of dwelling units and provided that
such alteration or expansion shall not constitute more
than 50 percent of estimated market value.
KORTICELLO SONING ORDINANCE
1/2n
2. Within the PZM, B-1, B-2, 13-3, B -4,I-1, and I-2
districts, signs are subject to the f wing size
and type regulations:
(a) Within the PZM and B-1 districts, the maximum
allowable square footage of sign area per lot
shall not exceed the sum of one (1) square
foot per front foot of the building plus one
(1) square foot for each front foot of lot not
occupied by a building, up to one hundred
(100) square feet. Each lot will be allowed
one (1) pylon or freestanding sign and one (1)
wall sign or two (2) wall signs total.
(b) For buildings in which there is one (1) or two
(2) business uses within the B-2, B-3, B-4,
I-1, and I-2 districts, there shall be two (2)
options for permitted signs. The property
owner shall select one option which shall
control sign size on each lot.
I. Option A. Under Option A, only wall
signs shall be allowed. The maximum
number of signs on any principal
building shell be six sign boards or
• placards, no more than four (4) of which
may be product identification signs,
with only two walls allowed for the
display of the signs. Each wall shall
contain no more than two product
identification signs and two business
identification signs. The total maximum
size of wall signs shall be determined
��o n t 1�0 by taking twenty percent (20%) of the
groes silhouette area of the front of
1146. the building, up to three hundred (300)
square feet, whichever is less. It a
principal building is on a corner lot,
bn the largest side of the building may be
used to determine the groes silhouette
5 area.
yS �tM
(, Por purposes of determining the groes
area of the silhouette of the principal
building, the silhouette shall be
defined as that area within an outline
drawing of the principal building as
viewed from the front lot line or from
the related public street(a).
il. Option B. Under Option B, either wall
signs or pylon signs may be utilized or
a combination of both. In no case,
however, shall more than one pylon sign
be allowed. Only two product
identification signs and one premise
identification sign is allowed, and
these wall signs must be only on one
separate wall. The total maximum
allowable sign area for any well shall
be determined by taking ten percent
C (10%) of the groes silhouette area of
the front building up to one hundred
(100) square test, whichever is less.
The method for determining the gross 1
silhouette area for wall signs is a
Indicated in Option A.
3. Conditional Usss In Commercial and Industrlal
Districts$ The purpose of this section is to
provide aesthetic control to sLgnage and to prevent
--'L'�idual dans on buildings
(b) The minimum number of major or overstory trees
on any given site shall be as indicated below.
These are the minimum substantial planting, in
addition to other understory trees, shrubs,
flowers, and ground cover deemed appropriate
for a complete quality landscape treatment of
the site.
I. Commercial, industrial, institutional
p n�1 i sites shall contain at a minimum the
greater of one (1) tree per 1,000 square
ngu�Q¢Mont feet of gross building floor area, or
D one (1) tree per 50 lineal feet of site
perimeter. When total property area far
exceeds building or developed area, and
when excess property area fe intended
for use in conjunction with future
expansion of the development area. site
perimeter shall be defined as that area
which extends 30 feet bevond side and
rear yard setback of varkina areas
and/or 30 feet bond side and rear yard
setback of primary or accessory
structure.
NONTICELL0 ZONING ORDINANCE 7/111
1
S1. Multi -residential sites shall contain at
b
a minimum one (1) tree per dwelling
unit.
(#174, 1/10/09)
(c) An equivalent of up to fifty percent (501) of
the required number of overetory trees may be
created through the use of overstory trees in
combination with other landscape design
elements as listed in 3 (a) above.
In no case shall the number of overetory trees
be lose than fifty percent (501) of the
appropriate formula. The burden shall be upon
the developer to demonstrate by narrative and
by graphics how the equivalent effect is
provided. The equivalent effect shell be
subject to approval by the City Council.
4. MINIMUM SIZE OF PLANTINGS
(a) Required trees shall be of the following
minimum planting elsei
1. Deciduous troes--2.5 inches diameter as
measured six Inches above the ground.
Li. Coniferous trees --6 feet in height.
NONTICELL0 ZONING ORDINANCE 7/111
1
Z
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/8/92
5. Public Hearing --Consideration of conditional use request to
allow auto body shop repair in a B-3 (highway business) zone.
Applicant, John Johnson. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
John Johnson, owner of Monticello Auto Body, is proposing to
build a building to be leased out to another company that does
automobile pin striping and automotive visor and automotive
sunroof installation. City staff interpreted that proposed
use of this building, even though it's not auto body repair,
at some point in time could be occupied by Monticello Auto
Body or some type of auto body shop repair. That is why we
are proposing that kr. Johnson go through the conditional use
permit to allow this building to be built and this use to
operate in a B-3 (highwy business) zone.
Please note that in April, 1989, the City amended the
ordinance to allow auto body shops in the B-3 zone as a
conditional use. The city went on to award Mr. Johnson a
conditional use permit with the same conditions as noted
below. Johnson, however, did not follow through and develop
his property. The new application is, therefore, virtually a
repeat of a previous matter considered and approved by the
Planning Commission.
There are ten conditions that apply to the auto body shop
repairs
1. The door opening to the service area of the garage must
not face the street frontage. The doors will not face
the street.
2. The vehicle storage area is limited to 501 of the floor
space of the structure housing the auto body shop. There
will be no outside storage.
3. All vehicles being serviced and all vehicle parts must be
stored inside or in a vehicle storage area. A11 work
performed and all parts will be within the confines of
the proposed building.
4. Vehicle storage area shall be enclosed by enclosure
intended to screen the view of vehicles in storage from
the outside. Enclosure shall consist of a six foot high,
loot opaque fence designed to blend with the auto body
shop structure and consist of materials treated to resist
discoloration. There will be no outside vehicle storage
area.
G
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/8/92
1. To approve the conditional use request to allow auto body
shop repair in a B-3 (highway business) zone with
applicant complying with all ten conditions under auto
body shop repair.
This alternative is consistent with action taken on the
application made in April. 1989.
2. To approve the conditional use request to allow auto body
shop repair in a B-3 (highway business) zone.
3. Deny the conditional use request to allow auto body shop
repair In a B-3 (highway business) zone.
CS,"
5.
Floor area of the vehicle storage area shall consist of
asphalt or concrete paving. There will be no vehicle
storage outside and no hard surfacing required.
6.
No work on vehicles or vehicle parts shall be conducted
outside of the confines of the auto body shop. All work
will be done inside the confines of the building.
7.
The advertising wall facing the public right-of-way shall
consist of no more than 501 metal material. The
applicant is proposing a different type of material on
the front portion of the building.
8.
The secondary or non -advertising wall facing the public
right-of-way shall utilize a combination of colors or
materials to serve to break up the monotony of the single
color flat surface. The applicant is proposing to
address this requirement through a combination of colors
or materials.
9.
Development shall conform to the minimum parking and
landscaping requirements of the zoning ordinance. The
parking requirements are met for this use on this parcel
of land. The landscaping requirements will be submitted
before building permit application and will be reviewed
at that time for compliance to the minimum landscaping
requirements.
10.
No conditional use permit shall be granted for an auto
body shop within 600 feet of a residential or PEN zone
existing at the time that the conditional use is granted.
Proposed use is not within 600 feet of a residential or
PEN zone.
B.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONSt
1. To approve the conditional use request to allow auto body
shop repair in a B-3 (highway business) zone with
applicant complying with all ten conditions under auto
body shop repair.
This alternative is consistent with action taken on the
application made in April. 1989.
2. To approve the conditional use request to allow auto body
shop repair in a B-3 (highway business) zone.
3. Deny the conditional use request to allow auto body shop
repair In a B-3 (highway business) zone.
CS,"
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/8/97
C. STAFF RECONKENDATION:
City staff recommends approval of the conditional use request
to allow auto body shop repair in this B-3 (highway business)
location. The applicant must comply with all ten conditions
as noted under the auto body shop repair.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Site plan for Parcel B/proposed auto body repair shop; Floor
plan for the proposed auto body repair shop; Front and side
view elevations of the proposed auto body repair shop; Zoning
ordinance Section 13-11, P.
k
----------
LAND SWWEVE
0 9ox
WIE==ODle
Reg (812)20,3360
M
t t
o O
i l ~ n..... A— • s.�. � S
..'. ( 4r I •� 1 rid I n�
g
run I
D��
I r::�w 10 1
�t
I If
[P) Auto body shop repair provided that:
1. Door opening to service area garage must not face
street frontage.
2. Vehicle storage area limited to SOS of floor space
of the structure housing the auto body shop.
3. All vehicles being serviced and all vehicle parts
must be stored inside or in vehicle storage area.
4. Vehicle storage area shall be enclosed by enclosure
intended to screen the view of vehicles in storage
from the outside. Enclosure shall consist of a
six-foot high, 100% opaque fence designed to blend
with the auto body shop structure and consisting of
materials treated to resist discoloration.
S. The floor of the vehicle storage area shall consist
of asphalt or concrete paving.
6. No work on vehicles or vehicle parts shall be
conducted outside the confines of the auto body
shop.
r., 7. The advertising wall facing the public right-of-way
1 shall consist of no more than 50% metal material.
S. The secondary or non -advertising wall facing a
public right-of-way shall utilize a combination of
colors or materials that serve to break up the
monotony of a single color flat surface.
9. The development shall conform to minimum parking
and landscaping requirements of the zoning
ordinance.
10. No conditional use permit shall be granted for an
auto body shop within 600 feet of a residential or
PZN zone existing at the time the conditional use
permit is granted. (#175, 4/24/89)
C
0
11ONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 13/11
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/8/92
6. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request for an ordinance
amendment to include private retractable antenna tower to be
allowed as a conditional use in a PZM zone. Location is all
PZM zoned areas, and specifically, Block 1, Lot 1, Griefnow
Addition. Applicant, Ton Mare. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Tom Ware proposes to construct a retractable antenna tower,
which he uses for short-wave (ham) radio operation. Ware
currently operates a ham radio station at his home on the
shores of on Big Eagle Lake. I have some video tape of the
radio tower and how it looks relative to the neighborhood,
which I plan on showing at the Planning Commission meeting.
The antenna is retractable, which means it can range in height
from 58 feet to 22 feet, depending on the operator's needs.
Ware informed me that the antenna will likely be fully
extended to 58 feet about 25% of the time.
The City zoning ordinance as now written does not allow
antennas higher than 20 feet above the roof line. There are
no provisions within the ordinance that specifically regulate
radio antennas or other communication devices. The ordinance
amendment as proposed would allow radio antennas higher than
20 feet above the roof line to be installed in the PZM zone as
long as certain conditions are met. Please refer to the
proposed ordinance amendment for an outline of those
conditions.
I would also like to note that the Federal Communications
Commission has the authority to override local ordinances, and
the City cannot unreasonably restrict radio communications by
severely limiting the height of radio antennas. The FCC has
stated that local regulations which involve placement,
screening, or height of antennas based on health, safety, or
aesthetic considerations must be crafted to accommodate
reasonably amateur communications and to represent the minimum
practical regulation to accomplish the local authority's
legitimate purpose. At the same time, however, the FCC has
recognized that there are certain general state and local
interests which may, in their even-handed application,
legitimately affect amateur radio facilities. In fact, the
FCC has stated that it will not specify a particular height
limitation below which local government may not regulate, nor
does it suggest precise language that must be contained in
local ordinances.
Y
r
C�
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/8/92
The Planning Commission need to determine whether or not a 58
foot antenna in a PEN zone is excessive. Will such a tower
tend to devalue adjoining property given the character of the
PEN zone?
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt a zoning ordinance amendment allowing
radio antennas and other communication transmission
devices to be allowed in a PZM zone as a conditional use
based on the finding that the proposed use in the PEN
zone is consistent with the character and geography of
the PEN zone and there is a demonstrated need for such
use.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission is
comfortable with allowing a 56 -foot high radio tower in
a PZN zone under the conditions as noted. Under this
alternative, a 60 -foot high antenna tower could be
installed in any PEM zone in the community. Adopting
this ordinance amendment would not likely set a precedent
that would enable a similar tower to be erected in an R-1
or R-2 zone. Development of a tower in an R-1 or R-2
zone would require a separate zoning ordinance amendment,
and the Planning Commission could easily argue that
erection of a high tower in a purely residential zone is
not consistent with the geography and character of an R-1
or R-2 zone; therefore, the Planning Commission would
have grounds to deny a zoning ordinance amendment
allowing a radio tower to be placed in an R-1 or R-2
zone.
2. Notion to deny request for a zoning ordinance amendment
allowing radio antennas and other communication
transmission devices to be allowed in a PEM zone as a
conditional use based on the finding that development of
a 60 -foot radio tower Is not consistent with the
character and geography of the PEN zone.
Planning Commission could take the view that
communication devices are acceptable in the PZM zone;
however, the height and magnitude of this particular
antenna is beyond what should be allowed in a PEN zone.
A PZM zone is part residential, part commercial, and the
negative effects of a high communication transmission
tower need to be controlled. It could be argued that a
60 -foot tower in a PEM zone is simply too high given the
nature of the zone.
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/8/92
Planning Commission could modify the ordinance amendment
as proposed and reduce the allowable height of the
antenna from 60 feet to a lesser height if it so desires.
Tom Ware would then need to determine if the antenna at
a lesser height would still be functional.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The PZM zones in the community are transition zones between
residential and commercial areas. Given the nature of the PZM
areas, it would not appear that the presence of a fairly tall
radio antenna will result in a depreciation of adjoining
property values. If Planning Commission is uncomfortable with
the height of the antenna, it might be reasonable to adopt the
ordinance but reduce the height allowed from 56 feet to a
height that the Planning Commission is more comfortable with.
Please note that Tom ware will promote the radio antenna and
his ham radio station as a benefit to the community because it
can provide emergency communication backup to existing
governmental communication systems. There are also public
services that Mare and his amateur radio association can
provide to local citizens. These factors could possibly be
used to support a finding that there is a demonstrated need
for this type of use and associated zoning ordinance
amendment.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Picture illustrating antenna; Site plan of proposed radio
antenna tower; Memorandum and opinion order of the FCC on
federal preemption of state and local regulations pertaining
to amateur radio facilities; City Planner's interpretation of
FCC position on city regulation of radio antenna towers; Copy
of proposed ordinance amendment; Video (to be presented at
meet Ing) .
�G_
y
ALL NEW��"��y
THE TRI -EX
FREESTANDING
sky. needle
TOWERS
rEATURES
Free Standing without aid of bracket or guys
Telescopic cabling extends sections uniformly
llingud Base Mount included for concrete base
Geared raising and lowering winch Included
Motor included with 70',90' and 100' models
DESIGN
Aerodynamic design prosents a pleasing profile
Capable of supporting large Amateur Booms
CONSTRUCTION
Llecrtically weldod to exacting Jig tolerances
All stool conforms to ASTM specifications
• IIU'1' DII'I'LU GALVANIZED FINISII •
Ilul ht of h
14oight
Modol -Exto.Vd.d es
TM -210 60 Ft. 22' 650 lb.
TM -358 58 Ft. 22'-6" 1100 Ib.
0 70 Ft. 27' 2000 1b.
TM-3701iD 70 Ft. 27' 3270 lb.
TM -490 90 Ft. 28' 3550 lb.
TM'5100 100 rt. 29' 3740 lb.
•Thi -510011 100 rt. 29' 3820 lb.
• Top 30 toot of tower is rotatable,
1e1 -6x TOWER CO PORATIOH
7102 Ratttm m Avs,, VluU Ca01. 93277
,
EU
4,1
LOCAL ZONING ORDINANCES
In the past. amateurs relied on their powers of persuasion when dealing with
r {cel officials. Conflicts between amateurs and local authorities over the antenna
height. plaeemem in the yard, number of antennas on a particular support struaore
(a towel. for example), and the like, had become quite common. In the absence of
detailed federal regulations governing amateur antennas (except for those aspects'
discussed previously), municipal leaden often fill in the void and used their broad
dhaction in public health and safety matters to enact regulations that limit satennas
end supporting structure. The people who write these regulations have a lot of other
Wag, on their minds. so thele regulations Seldom take into account your need for
an euenna of certain dimensions and height to be effective (for working D%pe&
does, running phone patches to the South Pole and so on), so conflicts arise.
The situation reached epidemic proportions in the early 19W&. and anrateas who
invested fertility saving? in fighting local todng, building code and covenw restrictions
to costs around the counts y were kuhy. This happened because there was no clear
statement of any federal interest in the muter by the FCC. The courts held that the
FCC certainly regulates radio, but since the FCC had Issued no statement restraldng
the toning power of citin and counties, the traditionally local interest In ronin{
regulWons which protects the public gernually superseded the interestsof the individud
amatrBur.
y tktobr of 1913, the ARRL Board of Directora reviewed the adverts court
dreideas and realized that antenna restrictions would continue to be a major stanbllag
block unless a statement of federal preemption emerged from the FCC. On July 16.
19t14, the League filed a formal request along the FCC to Issue just such a declaratory
nnlw that would declare void all local ordination that preclude or significantly Inhibit
effective, reliable amateur communications. Many hundreds or comments were (Red
when FCC established a pleading cycle, labeled PRB- 1. ("PRB" is the designation
(or the FCC's Private Radio Bureau. the Bureau in the FCC's internal organization
that handles Amateur Radio mutat)• Comments were riled by amateurs, toning;
authorities and city planners.
September 19, 1913 was a red-letter day In the history of Amateur Radio, as
the FCC Issued Its now famous PRB•I declaratoryMemorandum Opi don ad Order.
which says, in pe sineat pan, that "state and local regulations that operate to preclude
amatrur communications in their communities are In direct conflict. with federal
objectives and must be preempted." See Appendix for the complete tett of PRB•I .
May 3 t , 1919 marked another mile cont in the history of Amateur Radio, when
the Commission adopted the revised and reorganized Part 97. 197.13(e) of the new
rubs codifies tits essence of the P11114 ruling; "... State and local regulation of •
station antenm structure must not pat
reclude natcur service communications. Rather.
It mug reasonably accommodate such communications, and must conmitatt the
minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the state or local authority's legitimate
Purim..,
Thor specific holding of PRB•I hu been of evtreme benefit to imatturs and.
with only a few exceptions. has encoursgtd open cooperation and dialogue belwem
the communities seeking to regulate amateur antennas and we amateurs ourselves.
Now that important language of PRB•I has been incorporated into the FCC rules
themselves. the federal interest and official SCC policy with respect to amateur
communications can be even more easily demonstrated to municipal officials. who
need to be educated by you and )aur fellow hams.
Antennas 3.7
(nom Ck. r
I', ecL �0�0c.e
F0 R..
Memorandum Opinion and Order in PRB-1
Here's the full text of FCC's Memorandum Opinion and Order in PRB-I. If
you require an-official" copy of PR& I for use ins least proceeding, you may cite
the Federal Register: 30 FR 38813.
Before the
Federal Communications Commission FCC 83.306
Washington. DC 20336 36149
In the Matter of )
1
Federal preemption of nate and 1 PRB-1
local regulations pertaining )
to Amateur radio facilities. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: September 16. 1983 ; Released: September 19, 1983
By the Comarbsioo: Commissioner Riven ant participating.
Background
1. On July 16, 1986, the American Radio Relay Lague. Inc. (ARRL) Mad a
Request for Issue= of a Declaratory Ruling asking us to delineate the Wallatlom
of local coning and other local sed nate regulatory awhorhy over Federally-Bamed
radio facilities. Specifically, the ARRL ranted an explicit statement that would
prompt an local ordinances which provably preclude or significantly Inhibit effective
reliable a stew radio a m nuniatbm. The ARRL ackaowleQge thin local authorftler
can feguWe amateur Installations to levan the safety and health of persons in the
community. but believes that those regulations cannot be so restrictive that they
preclude effective atnatew communications.
2. Interested panics were advised that they could fW ammema In the matter.'
With extension. comments were due on or before December 26. 1986.' with reply
comments due an or before January 23, 1983' Ova siateea hundred comments were
filed.
Laeal OrWasaas
3. Coanicts between amateur operators regarding radio amenau and local
authorities regarding restrictive ordinance are common. The amateur operator b
1 governed by tM regulations coataiued In Part 97 of our rules. T}wa stale do not
limit the height of an amateur antenna but they require, for aviation safety pgsons,
that certain PM notification and FCC approval procedures must be followed for
R y amennu which exceed 200 feet In bright above ground level or antmoas which We
to be erected near airports. Thus. under FCC ruin some amateur antenna atpoo't
stnetwo require obstruction marking and lighting. On the aha hand. ` local tbrif palities or governing bodies frequently earn regulations limhIngntenna
as l
support structures In height and location, e.g. to side or tar yards. for le21111. safety
or aesthetic eonsWeratlo s. There limiting regulations an result In conflict because
the effectiveness of the communications that emanate from oto amatear radio station
are directly drpendent upon the location and the height of the amrmse. Amateur
r operators maintain that they we praded from opetatrng kit certain kinds e0oatrd
h
for their use If the height of their antennas Is Embed by a local ordinance.
6. Examples of restrictive hal ordinances went submitted by seal amateur
operalms in thin Moceenhitrg. Stenlev ;, Ckhy, San Diego. Cahfomis. noted that in
San Diego natrut radio antennas came undo a stmeturm ruling which limits building
beighu to 3o feet. Thus. antennas time are also limited to 30 fen. Alexander Vrtmios.
Mundelein, Illinois surae that an ordinance of the Village of Murdeiein provides
that an ammns must be a distance from the property line that is equal to one and
ore -half time its height. In his we, he is limited to an ameerna tower for hbamatenr
station jute over 33 fen In height.
S. Jim C. Chapman. an amateur living in Bloomington. Minnesota. mmmmted
that be was trot able to obtain a building permit to install an amafew radio antenna
moeediag 33 feet in height because the Bloomington city ordinance restricted
"structures" heights to 33 fat. Mr. Chapman said that the ordinance, when written,
tmdoubcatr appbal to buildings but was nor being apptied to amennas in the absence
of a tpedfk ordinance regulating them. There were two options open to him if he
warned to engage In amateur communications. He could request a variance to the
ordinance by way of a bearing before the City Council. or he could obtain affidavits
from his Withbors swearing that they bad no objection to the proposed amenne
instafladoo. He got the building permit after obtaining the cooperation of his
a cighbors. His concern, however, is that he had to get permission from several people
before becould effectively engaae in radio communications for which hew a valid
FCC amucur Bance.
6. to addition to height restrictions, other Benin are coached by hal
handlaiom--amletimb device on tow- or fence crowd them; ndnhnum dfautcm
from 1111111 voltage poser line; minimum distances of Cowen from property lines;
and reguhllom pertaining to the am aufai soundness or the amenna Installation.
By and W11e. amueun do tot fid thew safety precautions objectionable. What they
do object to am the sometime prohibitive, non-refundable application IIBn11 foes
to obtain a permit to erect an antenna htsu0ation and those provisions in ordinances
which regulate antenna for purely scubmic reasons. The amateurs contend, almost
universally, that "beauty Is in the eye of Lbs beholder." They auert that An antenna
Installation Is not more aesthetically dkpknina than other objects that people keep
on their property. e.g. motor homes, uallm, pick-up truck,, sold colkcton and
audedod equlpment.
Ratrleft Coaaanb
7. Amateur operaton also oppose ftmhiiom on their amateur operations which
an contained In the deeds for theb harm or In their apartment lease. Since thea
relrictilecowewas are contractual agreements between private parties. they ue not
aeneraDY a ranter of cpnara to the Commission. However, since soros amateurs
who commented In this proceeding provided us with examples of restrictive covenants.
they an Included for Information. Mr. Eugaa 0. Thome of HoWster, California
Inducted In his contmmu as extract of the Decluufon of Comumu and Restrictions
for Rid{ -ark Estates. County of San &alto. Stas of California. It provides:
NO aetrea to trammhdm or reception draft danah shall be nerved outdoors to
ter ley say Owa01ry salt euaq upoe approval of the McCort. No radio a tArHdaa
skpuh a ger elites form Of elenramagntk ndlallon dull a pct Wised is etylaata
from teY lot which may uoessmubly intatfma with the feceptbn or televirkaa radio
tlpab upon any other fa.
Man%,O Wilson, Jr, provided a copy of the restrictive covenant contaked in deeds
for the Bell Martin Addition e2. Irving, Traces. It Is binding upon all of the owners
or purchasers of the las In the said addhloa. his of their heirs, executors.
adminicnton or assigmu. It reads:
tin aateantece coma shag be erected upon say IN to tet purpotem of tdb opamium.
97•
.•imaw ,. 1nuuu.nt made, art in updrtmcnl budding art tdadswne. Alnwmr. He
cite - clause in his lease prohibiting the erection of an antenna. He states that h
hr a forced to give up operating amateur radio equipment except a hand -he
2 &W (I44-148 MH4 radio transceiver. He maintains that he sbmW not be pmalizs a
jun because he lives in an apartment.
Other restrictive covenants are las global in scope than those cited above. For
example. Robert Webb purchased a home in Houston. Texas. His deed restriction
prohibited "transmitting or rcMvisq antennas extending above the roof line."
B. Amateur operators generally appose restrictive covesantr for several reasons.
They maintain that such restrictions limit the places that they an reside if they want
to pursue their hobby of amateur radio. Some state that they impinge on First
Amendment rights of free speech. Others believe that a coastitutional right is being
abridged benne. in thew view, everyone has a right to access the airwaves regardless
of where they live.
9. The contrary belief held by housing subdivision communities and
condominium or homeowner's usociubw is that amateur radio Installations
constitute safety hazards, awe interference m other electronic equipment which may
be operated in the bona (television, radio, stereos) of are eyesores that detract from
the aesthetic and tasteful appesusu a of the housing development or apartment
complex. To counteract these negative oanepuemots. the subdivisions and aswdubro
include in their deeds• leases or by-hws, restrictions turd limitations on the location
and height of antennas or. In some am. prohibit than altogatin. The restrictive
c:orcnants are contained in the contractual agreement ent,med into at the time of the
sale or lease of the property. Purchasers or lessees we free to choose whether they
wad to reside where such restrictions on amateur amennas aro In effect or settle
elsewhere.
flappanlag Comments
10. The Department of Defense (DOD) supported the ARRL and emphasized
In its comments that continued success of existing national security and emergency
preparedness telecommunications pians Involving amateur stations would be severely
diminished If state and hal ordinances wen allowed to prohibit the construction
and usap of effective amateur transmission facilities. DOD utilities volunteers In the
Military Affiliate Radio Service (MARS).' Civil Air Patrol (CAP) arid the Radio
Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RAC13S). It points out that these volunteer am-
muakators are operating radio equipment Installed In shelf homes and that undue
restrictions on antenna by local authorities adversely affect their efforts. DOD states
4 11W the respondi eness of them volumm systems would be impalfed If foal ord ogrnces
Interfere with the effectiveness of these important national telecommunkuion
resources. DOD favors the issuance of a ruling that would get Waits for local gid
• state regulatory bodies when they are dating with amateur atmos.
11. Vulgus chapters of the American Red Cross mho cane forward to support
that ARRL's request for a preemptive riding. The Red Guru works dsely with amateur
radio volunteers. It belleva that without amateun' dedicated svppoo . dUw relief
operationsarould significantly suffer and the its tbititytosave dWunvictims would
W hampered. 11 feels that antenna belght limitations that might be imposed by loaf
• bodies will negatively affect the service now rendered by the volunteers.
12. Cities and counties from various puts of the United States filed comrranls
.ty
to guppon of the ARRL's request for a Federal preemption ruling. The comrnau
from the Director of Civil Defense, Pon Arthur. Texas arty represemuive,
TM Amateur Radio Service lieys s vIW role whh our CivU Dtsft w propam best lo
Pon Anhw and the design of teats astearas sed towers kids greatly to ow ability to
a rmmswtkale during times of diseases,
sec docaw Irho, a thc,e 1-1dt, any reMeKnnn, on nhtarnenna, mrd in n.mapi
I- rnsonablt fain, mecautwm. Tfoprat uurms. hurricanes an /r don art a gay
d lift hese on nit Te"t Gull Coasts and good communications a. _Mutely aumial
then preprint for a hurricane and evm mon so during recovery opaatio'glees the
hurricane bar past.
ll. The Quarter Century Wireless Association took a strong stand in favor of
the Issuance of a declaratory ruling. It believes that Federal preemption is necesvy
so that there will be uniformity for all Amateur Radio Installations on private property
throughout the United States.
la. In its comments. the ARRL argued that the Commission has the jurisdk.
tion to preempt certain total land use regulations which frustrate or prohibit amateur
radio communications. it said that the appropriate standard in preemption cases is
M the "tent of rite and log1 intercu in a given regulation, but rather liK unpan
of that regulation cd Federal goals. In position 6 that Federal preemption Its warranted
whenever local governmental regulations relate adversely to the operational aspects
Of amateur communication. The ARRL maintsim that localities routinely employ
a variety of cud use devim to preclude the iaraUnion of effective amateur amemtu,
Including height restrictions, conditkmal use permits, building setbacks and
dimensions! 0mitadons on tunennas. It sea a declaratory ruling of Federal preemption
as rxceUM to cause municipalities to accommodate amateur operator needs in had
use planning efforts.
IS. James C. O'Connell• an attorney who has represented several amateurs before
local zoning authorities• said that requlsing amateurs to seek variances or special use
approval to erect reasonable antennas unduly restricts the operation of amateur
ttalloas. He suggested that the Commisdotm preempt tonhg ordinances which impose
amenia helght limits of less than 61 feu. He said that this height would represent
e reasonableaccotlmodation of the communication needs of mou amateurs and the
legitimate concerns of local zoning authorities.
Opposing Comments
16. The City of La Mesa, California has a ening regulation which controls
amateur antennas. Its comments reflected an attempt to reach a balanced view.
Thio regulation has neither the W me. nor thr effect. of prMuding or inhibiting effective
and reliable communication. Such ame n rs may W bush u long a, their awrunion
dos nor ownsoaably block views Of cmuthalf eyesores. The raronabts auumptloa
b that thea ars AMys atEmlaim u a gi a she fur different Ptaeernem, and/or methods
fa aesmbelk treatment. Thur, both public objtctlyes of caeuoWng kind use for the public
holds. safety, and convenience. and povking an efftesi" eommunlwiom r rework.
ssa be w4f ed.
A Maatts ruling to completely sin aside local cannot. or a ruling thick recognim
eemrol daft for The purpose of safety of ammaa eonurunion, would be consists,
to ... lcomate bad control.
IT. Comments from the County of San Diego nue:
%VW'f "Views" of the lamfhs provided by amateur opertsars, at oppose the km"
of a Preemption rwtag which woaW ekvur'ammna clfenl" en, to a position above
40 other eomiderstions. We mug, his weser, argue the, the local gmauacnt must has
Uw abldtr m plan ressorabk Unatatiem npgn th plsttyaesa and Configuration or unatntsr
radio uaaradtttg sad reeeivhg asuanss. Such ability is aeeessary to assure that the
local decitiottmW m have the whanky to poets obs public health, safety aced wslrut
of a0 chlam,
In etndusksa, I would like to emphada, an Important difference bet -rim your
regatalOrl pests. and that of local gowmenaan. Your Commiaston's approval of the
4 ;;b-
71
preempt",mquta, wouldmabheh a"aatmwlpu14;." Hownn, am rc;idati—a k0,d
by a local jurisdiction could be overturned by your Cnmmhsiot or a con if such
regulation was dournmed to be umtnooabir.
18. 71se City of Anderson, Indiana, summarized some of the problems that face
local communities:
1 am sympmbetic to the c am of three amettnu owners and I uadersund trot to Pia
the maxis ma reeMLiw from their dvkea, optimal batiom h necessary However, the
preservation, of midentW toeing Narku as "Hvabk" ndghborboods Is care
by piadns that ammaas in from yards of homes. Major Probkma
y Debt
ben, mcouffend, pankatarly visiun, blockage for auto and pedestrian access. In ad-
dition. an communities w faced with vatbm bUddtasy bu�qusnn as and
lots me
M anusit that established setback retphememt 1
fight) ate vulnerable to the owregutard pearsrwrm of amemau.
... thr exercise of Vermpthw sutbority by the FCC to slaughter this request would
am be In the bets lutea of the gnwW prnatie.
19. The National Association of Counties (NACO), the American Plsnnlag
Association (APA) and the Nulaul league of Cities (NCL) all opposed the issuance
of an auenas preemption ruling. NACO emphasized that federal and state power
must be viewed in harmony and wane that Federal Intrusion into local concertta of
beahh, safety and welfare could weaken the traditional polke power exercised by
the auto usd unduly hateffene with the legitimate aetivhfa of the aceta. NLC beUeved
that both Federal and local interests sof be acoonfmodated without preempting local
authority to regulate the Instalition of amateur radio antenna. The APA Wd that
the FCC should continue to leave the issue of regulating amateur antennas with the
local government and with the state and Federal courts.
Dbea does
20. When considering preemption, we must begin with two constitutional
provisions. The tenth amendment provides that any powers which the constitution
either don rot dehgete to the United States or does not prohibititfeas
the
states
from
from
are reserved to the two. Them are nithe police Por
Supremacy Cham, however. provides that the constitution and the taws of the United
States shall supersede any state law to the contrarythree
neI
se . AAnlcleI Ys FiN Section
I. Givess may
en drugs
basic promise. lute Laws may be preempted
expressly preempt the slue is.. See Jona v. Rath Pbctiwg Co.. 430 U.Sl�ld523
so
(1977). Or. Congress may halicue its Latent to completely occupy a ttfven
that any mato taw encompassed within that field would Implicitly be preempted. Seuh
intent to preempt could be found to a congrealonal regulatory scheme that was an,
pervasive that it would be reasotubM to autma that Congress did ata Intend to Permit
the states to supplement h. See F&Wiry Fadnol Savings d Loaf An v. de to CWOM
45a U.S. lel. I58 (1982). Finally, preemption may be warranted when nue Law
conflicts with federal Law. Such oonnictz may occur tw� � Lfaa 6 Averbach
lWace with both
Fedrral and nate regulations U • physical 4opos
Growers. far. v. Mai. 777 U.S. U2. 142, 143 (1963). of when state Law "wands at
an obstacle to the accomplishment acid execution of the full Purposes $ltd objectiva
of Congress." Himes Y. Davidowirt. J12 U.S. S2.67 (1941). Furthermore, fed"
reguLatlou have the same PrmnPtive effect as ledaal sutufo, F7defiry Fidnd Spv'feft
d Loaf Assocklioa Y. dr to Cksma. Moro,
21. The situation before us requires us to determine the extent ro which OW
god local zoning regulations may conflict with federal policies conearniftg smatter
radio operators.
:. Few muuai coming before us present such a clear dichotomy of view point
as does the instant issue. The cities. countrio, local communities and housing
associations we an obligation to all of i heir citizens and try to address their concerns.
This is accomplished through regulations, ordinances or covenants oriented toward
the health, safety and general welfare of those they regulate. At the opposite pole
are the individual amateur operators and thea support groups who are troubled by
local regulations which may inhibit the use of amateur stations or, in some instances,
lousily preclude amateur communiculoru. Aligned with the operators are such entities
as the Department of Defense, the Arnerican Red Cron and local civil defense and
emergency organizations who have found in Amateur Radio a pool of skilled radio
operators and a readily available backup network. In this situation, we believe it is
appropriate to strike a balance between the federal interest in promoting amateur
operations and the legitimate interests of local governmesu in regulating local zoning
matters. The cornerstone on which we will predicate our decision is that a reasonable
accommodation may be made between the two sides.
23. Preemption Is primarily a furnaion of the extent of the conflict between
federal and state and local regulation. Thus, in considering whether our regulations
or policies can tolerate a pate tegutatiort, we may consider such factors as the severity
of the conflict and the reasons underlying the slate's regulation. In this regard, we
have previously recogtdted the legitirnme and important nate interests reflected in
local zoning regulations. For example. in Earth Satellite Communications, Inc.. 93
FCC 2d 1223 (1"1), we recognized that
...countervailly am interests intoe in the present dimlon... For rumple, we do
ser wish to preclude a ante or locality from exercising Jurisdiction o rr cousin elements
of an SMATV operation that property may fall whhm its authority. web as soaing or
public safety and hnhh, provdM the rrgiguhtion in question Is net tmdertaken as a pra[er
fa the actual purpom of frusumimg achievement N the preeminem federal objective
and so long u the nondedenl regulation is applied In a warlittrieduaery mauncr.
24. Similarly, we recognize heft that there are certain general state and local
ianeas which may. In their even-harsded application, legitimately affect amateur
radio facilities. Nonetheless. there Is also a strong federal interest in promoing amateur
eommunjatioas. Evidence of this interest may be found In the comprehensive tut
of ruks that the Commission has adopted to regulate the amateur service.' Thou
rules an forth procedures for the licensing of stations and operators, frequency
allocations, technical standards which amateur radio equipment must mea and
operating practices which amateur opecratore must follow. We recognize the amateur
radio service as a voluntary, no commodal communication service, paticululy, with
res peu to providing emergency communications. Moreover, the unbar radio wrvke
provides, a reservoir of trained operators, technician and electronic experts who can
be called on in tames of national or local emergencies. By its nature, the Amateur
Radio Service oho provides the opponunhy for individual operators to further
hurnastional goodwill. Upon weighing these interests, we believe a Whited preemption
policy Is warranted. State and local regulations that operas to preclude amateur
communications in their communities are In direct conflict with federal obiectives
and must be preempted.
28. Because amateur station communications are only as effective as the antenna
employed, antenna height restrictions directly affect the effectiveness of amateur
communications. Som amateur antenna configurations require more substantial
hmallations than others If they are to provide the amateur operator with the
Communications that height desires to engage in. For example, an antenna array for
international amateur communications will differ from in ameans used to contact
r...tr,�-.vw^.T+'vw�y:;•,h,�.ir�,; T+.J.Fyr�il• t'�!'r.: r
�r1•:!.�6'`.1eS.~���t1i►+yt,�`Q'r{�' s r�i�;�:•i yOf
y � s
Other amateur operators at shorter distances. we will cot, however. specify ant
particular herbs limitation below which a local government may not regulate, not
will we suggest the precise language that must be contained in local ordinanm, god
as atexhatdsms for tptclal eaaptbns, varismes. or canditiontat use permits. Neva•
thelest, local regulations which Involve placement, uranins, or height of antemw
baud on butth, gray, or aesthetic cmniderstiom mast be crafted to acammodan
reasonably amateur communkatlorn, and to repaint the minimum practlubb
regul-do to accomplish the local authority's kgithsate purpose. -
26, Obviously, we do not have t1N staff or financial resource to review all gats
and local laws that affect amateur operations. we an confident. however. that stats
and local government will endeavor to legislate in a canner that afraid% appropriate
recognition to the Imponam federal Interest at state here and thereby avoid un-
necessary conflicts with federal policy. u well at tMatonsuming and eapmtl+t
Ueigatbn In this area. Amateur operaton who bdkvi that bat or star govcmxau
have been overreadQa6 and thereby have precluded aaomplishmem of their
communications gab, may. in addition, use ittb document to bring our POW" ts
the attembn of lou! tribunals and forums.
27. Aaordtn*, the Request for Declaratory Ruling filed July 16.1004, try the
American Radio Relay Lagos, Inc., IS GRANTED to the extent Indkated herds
and. In all other respects, IS DENIED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William 1. Tdmlco
Secretary
FOOTNOTES
•Pubao Nouee. Aupuq 30. 1064. Mwtteo, No. EZ00. e0 P.R. 35113. Strpanew is, IW
ghkk Nolte. Danntbn 10. loan, Moho No. lata.
10rdr. NOM"V 6, 1064, Marro. No. I'M
4Y%ANS is WWV Wdsr the aUtWes W th. ttaWary when IeCruna vdhmuwr W -f
I .......... . . Th. r w.mI'M *a +'Vot"W m the 4AR9 pa0ie't
---------- -_- -----
r...tr,�-.vw^.T+'vw�y:;•,h,�.ir�,; T+.J.Fyr�il• t'�!'r.: r
�r1•:!.�6'`.1eS.~���t1i►+yt,�`Q'r{�' s r�i�;�:•i yOf
y � s
Other amateur operators at shorter distances. we will cot, however. specify ant
particular herbs limitation below which a local government may not regulate, not
will we suggest the precise language that must be contained in local ordinanm, god
as atexhatdsms for tptclal eaaptbns, varismes. or canditiontat use permits. Neva•
thelest, local regulations which Involve placement, uranins, or height of antemw
baud on butth, gray, or aesthetic cmniderstiom mast be crafted to acammodan
reasonably amateur communkatlorn, and to repaint the minimum practlubb
regul-do to accomplish the local authority's kgithsate purpose. -
26, Obviously, we do not have t1N staff or financial resource to review all gats
and local laws that affect amateur operations. we an confident. however. that stats
and local government will endeavor to legislate in a canner that afraid% appropriate
recognition to the Imponam federal Interest at state here and thereby avoid un-
necessary conflicts with federal policy. u well at tMatonsuming and eapmtl+t
Ueigatbn In this area. Amateur operaton who bdkvi that bat or star govcmxau
have been overreadQa6 and thereby have precluded aaomplishmem of their
communications gab, may. in addition, use ittb document to bring our POW" ts
the attembn of lou! tribunals and forums.
27. Aaordtn*, the Request for Declaratory Ruling filed July 16.1004, try the
American Radio Relay Lagos, Inc., IS GRANTED to the extent Indkated herds
and. In all other respects, IS DENIED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William 1. Tdmlco
Secretary
FOOTNOTES
•Pubao Nouee. Aupuq 30. 1064. Mwtteo, No. EZ00. e0 P.R. 35113. Strpanew is, IW
ghkk Nolte. Danntbn 10. loan, Moho No. lata.
10rdr. NOM"V 6, 1064, Marro. No. I'M
4Y%ANS is WWV Wdsr the aUtWes W th. ttaWary when IeCruna vdhmuwr W -f
I .......... . . Th. r w.mI'M *a +'Vot"W m the 4AR9 pa0ie't
COMMON OUESTIONS•AND-ANSWERS—PR&i
h7. W rlryher On ordinator dhW dmrlyPr#tDdo how mdb amara bumagdo m
p )L does PRB•1 and taw tw I ssr IJ(U ttteow for met
A. PRO.1, cited u "Amatrar Radio Preemption. lot FCC2d 932 (1983?.
i, I --ruled preemption of local toning ordinances. it delincues three rules for
laic tttunidpafitin to room to regulating antenna structures: (1) state and local
err -!cations which operate to preclude amateur communication ere In dim
ae'wK with federal objectives and must be preempted: (2) local regulations which
placement, soccning err height of antennas based on health, safety or
cera bene consideration must be crafted to reasonably accommodate amateur
cnrsuai eriorot and (3) sued local regulations cal authority's rep sent ftegIllou" Pnimum
p j.rl:abk rcguistiom 10 accomplish
pose -
PRF -t is codified in the FCC suits in o concall the ise eye%
c= e, what is "reasonable" depends
eing gotedl For
som about what to do when you
we faced with a further
wUwr as Is restrictive cf%U ranc, we .'IntteratUng with Municipal ()!))cicely,•
Ia:a in this chapter.
Q. Har stn eM/edrmJ gnwrsrurrtf Ibalt the Atwl tnwbrg potaav of clic mayor.
ti+camatua ttmbu bond, wgo awatach dear ro cine goadlsadtnreetedldaer
eat at Intel commrwtlyy
A. PRS -1 reccanites that loaf kaders can regulate amateur lastallstbn
U, «sloe Ow safety and bola of persons in the omamunity. This lateral futdbo
tet+ eco touted pan of a jute and Wal govetnmett's "police powers" M legal
g_-4ttitks.Sw PR&1.exercise by 00
a striking allWohasoliinturomoeen ottiN AmaocurRRadio
of its polls holds,
the regulations cannot be so mor(etive that amateur
3avise. also bolds the such
0,,c suntations are impodble• Nor can the regulations be clan restcietiva that
its necessary to aaotnplbb the purpose of protecting the community.
Thetheory' of PRO -1 and its Incorporation Into the rub u 197• IXe) istbat
thus is a reasonable aecommodsdon to be made between the Amateur'+
ceoutunicatloas needs std the obligation of the main/ athaitln to protea
rya cvmmuadm /cols!, " for and general � town ddoesug uaYbo the outing
ere crashing
oli41's {h(dmate mnamn, fo et IS the
d qtr on Your neighbor9 lantse. it b the FCC`s bgitimate concern (as 4ekgrted
sagbyCoaOtst)aWyoubes0o vtdtolegallyput upatower ofsome in m m t
s'a to that you tat maatraW conduct raartim and International ratio
ae=muNgtbas on the loam hands.
a, Wky deren Y PR&I or %9l.Ilfej gwdfy a 'yemalabgr" hew).
ahoy legal axtbooks have been devoted to trYlnl to deSta wbat's
"tosonable." As discussed befog, the Use betwom kllttaude amateur
otamutthatlon gals and the foal authoity-s tol"cus must be detenaimed a0
a aw.bypss bash on a local level. It's tete that the FCC declined to Indicate
.to is U considered a reasonable height below which a city cannot regulate
amsau- prat —1-1 hw �yoryble in one sea might not be reasonable in otbem
hT sample, n a & a faWy populated suburb would probably ad mudderod
a =on". elate am antenna t be embefy acs�tdt(t is a am aunt
oviroamo Yet the sena amenia might
ezv7onmcnt. As & general principle, however, a municlpanry that estsbUshra
a lanket bright limitation of any type. especially are which doe not Ierush
at leans ben ren of antenna heiglu, will We a difficult time justifying that halation
as a technical matter in light of PR& L
Q. Now thee PRB-I and J97.150) Ana put dor braAes on local tonbtg andmNtlo,
can I just pet my ametmer up to+dar I condder o reawnabte hrighs andammu,
duff the wdNow br my dry it IA violation of the FCC's off elal Polhy'
A. Absotarely not! The PR&i order and its codification in (197.11(t) is
nes a panacea k's an an overnight cure by any means. If you believe you city's
ordinance is not valid in light of PRB-L it's up to you to establish that and ger
the ordinance changed by the city council or have Rhe existing ordinance &clued
invalid by the courts. To violate the ordinance, or to put up an ameona without
a permit, out subject you to serium fines and even criminal penoliks. In
encouraging local munkWkks to pay appropriate attention to the rederal knot
in antattur communications. the FCC taid that If you believe the coal toning
authorities have been overreaching in terms of interfering with your ability to
operate Amateur Radio, you an use the PRB-I document and the FCC rule
to bring FCC policies to their attention. The bottom line Is that it's 9111 up to
you to prove that the existing ordinsoce Is nos in accord with PRB-I.
Q. 9%0 do I Hard to do to prose fbtr for ardWancr in my dry Is In vblwb
of PRB-ly
A. Essentially. the Inua Is one of engineering evidence. You should be able
to establish the you need an summos of s cotaln height to rdlabty wee munkast
on HF. VHF sad/or UHF as the ease may be. Your city is usually eonmoed.
moreover, with tstues or aesthetics, safety, property values and RFI. As to the
interrelated bon of aeuhetin and property values, the dty's Interesu cum,
of mora, be balanced aghast ymus. You probably can't convince gaff busybody
neighbor that a thuceekment nibander looks "good" H he or she fah other.
wise by hutlastlaa. It an. however, be evabfish ml one way or another what
effect. U troy. an antras of a couln height will have on progeny values. Stndles
conducted by ARRL have chose that Corby ametuau have no cgwf whanerrer
on property values (comses ARRL HQ toy details), The written opinion of a
local praretsional appraiser eta be s croclal pleat of evidence for your tide. The
safety floor an best be addressed through exhibition of tower manufactoret's
specifipuioro for proper ItwduadW pe slue to explain the there Is no
relationship between &stoma bright and safety. The safety issue is beg draft
with by antrbtg the integrity of your installation. especially relative to the size
Of the baa section and propel guying. Finally. as to RFI. you might wen
(although remember that Interference Is a sensitive subject to your Det0bon)
that RFI b an FCC muter cats& not apploprime roe local zoafal repletion. (Sec
Chapter 9 of this Rwie Boat fm more Information on RFI.) But hasten to add
Uses Your modem oplipmem has len chance of causing interference to tekeehice
ICU than a radghbor's bkswdryes.
Varkms materials at available Ram ARRL HQ to &Wal you to this tuned,
rdSASE with oa Regulatory to rise Information B
a�0 fadettils onbow obtain "PRU.IitHQ refer
to
ARRL Volumser Counah In your ata. These we ham -attorneys who will be
ailhng to provide an Initial consultation about Your toning matter free of large.
For further tuncalon abaft roolvine yaw inning muter in it friendly folurso.
sea "Inlenaioo with Municipal OfRdsb," later in this chapter,
Q- µ111+U f eat ger any aaflgWdon Imes ted BuAding hupecror rad/w Of
f'oabq Beed of Appeah, and I dtd* m age the dry to roan. Has PRO -1
bion used Ice any court aro swcc•xtJady!
A,Yer.tohnTtmnn WMtT suer+efufti4 &1hecitvofl-sk-1491ank,._
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Licht
FROM: Allan Hunting
DATE: 1 April 1992
RE: Monticello - Zoning Ordinance Revision -
Conmunication Devices
i PILE NOi 191.07
C4
I have contacted the PCC to answer your question of antenna
height.
Cities may limit the height of antennae so long as local controls
do not impose unreasonable limitations which affect the reception
of antennae. Since the PCC does not define "unreasonable", it
would be up to the applicant to show that due to the City's
height limit, the antennae cannot fully function as designed.
N
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN THAT
CHAPTER 10, SECTION 8, OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
CONCERNING CONDITIONAL USES IN A PZM ZONE BE AMENDED BY ADDING THE
FOLLOWING AND SHIFTING ALL LETTERING FOLLOWING THIS ADDITION:
(L] Radio antennas and other communication transmission
devices provided they meet the following conditions:
1.
Height: A ground -mounted communication device
height shall not exceed 60 feet when fully
extended.
2.
Yards: The communication device shall not be
located within a front yard setback, a required
side yard, or any side yard abutting a street.
Communication devices shall be located five (5)
feet or more from rear lot linea and shall not be
located within a utility easement.
3.
Roofs: The communication device may be placed on
the roof of any authorized structure on the
premises. The height of the communication device
shall not exceed 20 feet above the peak of the roof
or roof line.
4.
Neighboring Property Impact: The communication
device shall be so constructed and located that in
the event it falls, it will not fall on adjoining
property. The communication device may be set back
from adjoining property at a distance that Is less
than the height of the communication device if a
certified engineer certifies that the device as
constructed will not fall on adjoining property.
5. Building Permits: A building permit shall be
required for the installation of any communication
device which requires a conditional use permit, or
for any device which has a structural surface
exposure of greater than nine (9) square feet.
Building permit applications shall be accompanied
by a site plan and structural components data for
the communication device, including details of
anchoring. The City Building Official must approve
the plans before installation.
6. Color/Content: Communication devices shall be of a
neutral color and shall not be painted with scenes
or contain letters or messages which qualify as a
sign.
60
Ordinance Amendment No.
Page 2
7. Lightning Protection: Each communication device
shall be grounded to protect against natural
lightning strikes in conformance with the
applicable state and local codes.
8. Electrical Code: Communication device electrical
equipment and connection shall be designed and
installed in conformance with the applicable state
and local codes.
9. Use or the physical presence of the communication
transmission device shall not interfere with the
operation of electronic equipment, including
televisions, radios, computers, etc.
Adopted this 13th day of April, 1992.
Mayor
City Administrator
o
1
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/8/92
7. Public Hearinq--Consideration of a conditional use allowinq
development of a shortwave radio tower in a PZM zone.
Applicant, Tom Mare. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Action on this item is dependent on the Planning Commission's
decision on the previous agenda item. If the Planning
Commission adopts the ordinance amendment allowing radio
towers to be installed as a conditional use in the PZM zone as
proposed by Tom Ware, then it would make sense that the
Planning Commission approve Tom Ware's request for a
conditional use permit which would allow him to install his
radio antenna. If, on the other hand, the Planning Commission
does not recommend approval of the zoning ordinance amendment
as described in the previous agenda item, then this agenda
item becomes moot.
8. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Notion to approve the request for a conditional use
permit allowing development of a 58 -foot retractable
radio antenna in a PZM zone. Motion is based on the
finding that the proposed radio tower structure and
operation is consistent with the conditions as required
b by ordinance= therefore, the request should be approved.
2. Motion to deny the conditional use permit allowing
development of a 58 -foot retractable radio antenna.
It is possible that as part of the discussion with the
previous agenda item, Planning Commission could recommend
that the maximum radio antenna height be established at
a height less than 58 feet. If Ware is not willing to
reduce the height of his antenna to a lower height as
recommended by the Planning Commission in the ordinance
amendment, then the Planning Commission would be
compelled to deny the conditional use permit request.
3. No action. If the Planning Commission has not approved
the ordinance amendment allowing the development of the
radio antenna, then no action on this agenda item can be
taken.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
Planning Co—Lesion Agenda - 4/8/92
8. Public Hearin --A variance reguest to Section 20-2-C of the
Monticello Zonina Ordinance which requires that a planned unit
development include an area of at least 3 acres. Applicant,
Investors Tooether.
9. Public Hearin --A replattinq request to subdivide Outlot A of
the Zest View residential subdivision. Applicant, Investors
Together .
10. Public Hearin --A conditional use request allowinq a townhouse
development in an R-2 zone. Applicant. Investors Toaether.
Information regarding items 8 - 10 will be provided at the
meeting. Because the information is late, the Planning
Commission will not be expected to make a recommendation on
the preliminary plat application, but will be asked to review
the townhome concept plan. Planning Commission does have the
option of a making a formal recommendatifo, if desired.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Letter of April 3, 1992, to Dean Hoglund and Ken Schwartz of
Investors Together, Inc.
C8-9-10�
250 East Broadway
P. O. Box 1147
Monticello, MN
55362.9245
Phone: (612) 295-2711
Metro: (612) 333.5739
Fax: (612) 295-4404
4;�
April 3, 1992
Dean Hoglund and
Ren Schwarz
Investors Together
P.0 Box 295
Monticello, HN 55362
Dear Sire,
The information provided in the sketch plan
sufficiently describes the development concept and
represents a good start on the preliminary plat and
grading and drainage plan. However, it does not
provide sufficient detail necessary to comply with the
City's preliminary plat information/application
requirements. Following is a list of information that
needs to be provided to the City before the
preliminary plat application can be considered by the
Planning Commission. In addition, I have provided
some preliminary observations regarding the plan
design which you may wish to incorporate into your
updated plans.
Please review the list of information requested below
and update your plan work accordingly. In the
meantime, staff will plan on conducting a sketch plan
review with the Planning Commission on Wednesday,
April 8, 1997, using the information we have now. As
part of our presentation to the Planning Commission,
we will be recommending that consideration of the
preliminary plat be delayed until necessary
information noted below has been reviewed by staff.
Also, once the preliminary plat application is
complete, we would be happy to set up a special
meeting of the Planning Commission if you so desire.
DATA TO BE PLACED ON PRELIMINARY PLAT
1.
Name the subdivision and north arrow.
2.
Fee owner: Does Halliger still own the property?
3.
Existing zoning of the subject property along
with zoning of adjoining property.
4.
Minimum width of drive areas unobstructed by
parking areas.
S.
Dimensions of the individual parcels.
6.
All existing and proposed easements including
location of the major storm sewer easement
between Blocks 3 and 4.
ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON GRADING, DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES
PLAN
1.
Provide a separate grading and drainage plan.
Please respond to information requirements
outlined by the City Engineer. On Monday, April
6, 1992, he will be faxing the requirements to
you directly.
OTHER INFORMATION
1.
In written form, describe your plan for phasing
the development. In your description please
include the following information:
a. What buildings will be constructed first7
b. will the driveway development be phased, if
so how?
C. What measures will be taken to control
disturbed areas waiting for development.?
2.
In written form, provide a description of the
association responsible for maintaining the
common areas including green space and drive
areas. This should include the following;
a. Provide a copy of the association rules.
These rules should be consistent with the
City Ordinance governing PUD's (copy
attached) .
b. Provide a copy of restrictive covenants if
i any.
c. will there be any architectural standards
included in the restrictive covenants?
d. Provide agreements/easements allowing the
owner of Lot 4, Block 1 to use the driveway.
3. Provide 14 seta of information for Planning
Commission and City Council review.
The items above are required prior to consideration of
preliminary plat by the Planning Commission and City
Council. Please prepare this information for review
by City Staff. As soon as the information is
available, we will schedule a special meeting of the
Planning Commission if you so desire.
The items above relate primarily to information
deficiencies; below are comments on the plan as
preparsd to date. Please note that this is a
preliminary review only. Once the preliminary plat
application is complete, we will review the plan again
and finalize staff comments.
PARKING/DRIVE AREAS
1. The island delineators separating parking areas
in front of each townhome need to be extended
farther into the drive area so as to delineate
the driving aisle.
2. There is a concern that there is insufficient
distance between the storage garages and the
parking for Lots 3 and 4, Block 2. A car parked
in front of the storage buildings in this area
will create congestion. How do you propose to
address this problem?
3. Design the driveway entrance so that it is at a
right angle to County Rd 39.
4. Please indicate which drive areae will be curbed
and which areae will not be curbed.
If you should have any questions regarding the next
step, please call.
Yours truly,
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
JO/cros
cc: Bret Weis, OSM
John Simola
Gary Anderson
Planning Commission
Rick Wolfsteller
✓file
9