Planning Commission Agenda Packet 08-02-1988AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, August 2, 1988 - 7:30 p.m.
Members: Richard Carlson, Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Mori Malone,
Dan McConnon.
7:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order.
7:32 p.m. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting held July 12,
1988.
7:34 p.m. 3. Public Hearing - A variance Request to Allow Construction of a
Garage Addition within a Front and Side Yard Set Back
Requirements. Applicant, James Cellette.
7:49 p.m. 4. Public Hearing - A variance Request to Allow Construction of a
New Detached Garage within the Side Yard Set Back
Requirement. Applicant, Kermit Bensen.
8:04 p.m. 5. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow Two Driveway Curb
Cuts in excess of the maximum allowed. Applicant, M 6 P
Transport.
8:19 p.m. 6. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow a Driveway to be
Reconstructed within the Side Yard Set Back Requirement.
Applicant, Michael Wieber.
8s34 p.m. 7. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Allow Placement of a
Pylon Sign within the Set Back Requirement from a Public Right
of Way. Applicant, J 6 K Properties.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS:
8:49 p.m. 1. A Site Plan Review. Applicant, David Hornig.
9:09 p.m. 2. Review Proposed Ordinance Amendment on Landscaping
Requirements.
9:24 p.m. 3. Review Proposed Ordinance Amendment on Regulating Type of
Exterior Building Construction.
9:39 p.m. 4. Simple Subdivision Request to Subdivide Three Residential Lots
into Two Residential Lots. Applicant, Don Bauer. Council
Acticn, approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
9:41 p.m. S. Variance Request to Allow Erection of a Pylon Sign in excess
of the Maximum Height and Square Footage Allowed and to be
Allowed to place a Pylon Sign within a minimum Set Back from a
Public Right of Way. Applicant, Coast to Coast Store.
Council Action. No Action needed as there was no appeal.
9:43 p.m. 6. Variance Request to Allow a Detached Garage within the Front
Yard Set Back Requirement. Applicant, Merrill Busch. Council
Action. No Action needed as there was no appeal.
1
AGENDA — M7 MCEIM PLANNING COMMISSION, PAGE 2
9:45 p.m. 7. Replatting Request to Replat an Existing Lot into Eight
Townhouse Lots and One Common Area Lot. Applicant, Jay
Miller. Council Action. Approved as per Planning Commission
Recommendation.
9:47 p.m. 8. A Tabled Conditional Use Request to Allow more than Twelve
Apartments in a Downtown Commercial Building. A Variance
Request to Allow Five Existing Apartments to Remain on the
Pirst Ploor of a Downtown Commercial Building as a
Non-oonforming Use. Applicant, Gary Hammer. Council Action.
No Action needed as request did not come before City Council.
Applicant has put the former restaurant space up for lease or
rent.
9:49 p.m. 9. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission for September 6, 1988, 7:30 p.m.
9:51 p.m. 10. Adjournment.
y
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, July 12, 1988 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Cindy Lem, Richard Martie, Mori Malone,
Dan McConnon.
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill.
1. Meeting called to order by Chairman Richard Carlson at 7:33 p.m.
2. Motion by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Richard Martie to approve the minutes
of the regular meeting held June 14, 1988. Motion carrie2 unanimously.
3. Simple subdivision request to subdivide three residential lots into two
ressidential lots. Applicant, Don Bauer.
Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, explained to Planning commission
members Mr. Bauer's request to subdivide three existing platted lots of
the original plat of the City of Monticello into two residential lots.
The existing three lots are currently 66 feet by 165 feet. Mr. Bauer is
proposing to subdivide the lots the other way in an east/west direction
to accomodate a size of 82 1/2 feet by 198 feet in depth. The newly
subdivided lots would meet the minimum lot width, 80 feet, and meet the
minimum lot square footage, 12,000 square feet.
Chairman Richard Carlson then opened up any input from the public, with
no input from the public he turned it over to the Planning Commission
members for any questions they might have. Mori Malone questioned Mr.
Bauer as to what type of housing he is proposing to use on these two
lots. Mr. Bauer indicated he would like to construct two single family
homes on these lots.
With no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion by
Richard Martie, seconded by Dan Mcconnon to approve the simple
subdivision request to subdivide three residential lots into two
residential lots. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Public Hearinq - variance Request to allow erection of a Ion sign in
excess or the maximum night allow and to be allowed to lace a Pylon
sign within the minimum 6A -back from a publie iight of way. Applicant,
Coast to Coast Store.
Zoning Administrator, Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members
Mr. Larson, owner of the Coast to Coast Store, request to be allowed to
place a pylon sign within the set -back from public right of way also to
be allowed to exceed the maximum height and square footage allowed by
ordinance. Mr. Larson is proposing to construct the Pylon sign within
10 feet of a public right of way and to be allowed to construct a Pylon
sign of 20 feet in height, which the sign square footage would be 64
total square feet.
Planning Minutes 7/12/88
With no further input from the City Staff, Chairman Richard Carlson
opened up any input from the public. There was no input from the
public, therefore Chairman, Richard Carlson opened up for any questions
from Planning Commission members.
Mr. Richard Martie questioned Mr. Larson as to if the pylon sign to be
erected would be lighted and to what hours the sign would remain lite.
Mr. Larson indicated, yes the sign would be lighted and it would be put
on a time clock to come on at dark and shut off approximately 45 minutes
to an hour after the store closes in the evening, similar to his
exterior parking lights.
Dan McConnon questioned the set -back in regards to how far the sign
would be set back from the actual travel portion of the road. Zoning
Administrator, Anderson indicated to Mr. McConnon and Planning
Cbmmnission members that the public street is platted with an So foot
platted street. Prom the center of the street to the curb we have
approximately 16 to 18 feet of asphalt, therefore, from the face of the
curb to the end of the public right of way or front lot line of Mr.
Larson's lot, we would have approximately 22 to 24 feet of boulevard or
green space. Mr. Larson is proposing to place the pylon sign post in the
center of two parking spaces which are together.
Chairman Richard Carlson questioned the need to go with the additional
height in the sign. Mr. Larson countered that the additional height of
the sign was needed to get the exposure that would be needed from Walnut
Street and Highway 25 or Pine Street for the view of the public
traveling on portions of these streets.
Another reason for the additional height is that the sign, when
constructed as it's proposed height, would allow a vehicle to travel
underneath the sign and not incur any damage to the sign. In reality,
looking at the proposed sight of this pylon sign the elevation of the
center of the street which the sign would get it's major exposure, to
the elevation of the sign, As a possible 2 foot differential.
Therefore, the sign itself would probably only need a 2 foot variance
instead of a 4 foot variance. Mr. Dan McConnon questioned how Mr.
Lareon's sign would receive visibility with all the trees that are
planted along Third Street in the Boulevard area. Mr. Larson indicated
that they would still be able to get the exposure needed on this pylon
sign from people traveling on Highway 25 or Walnut Street with the
visual contact to be before they get to the 1lmird Street intersection.
With no further input from the Planning Comamisaion members, motion by
Dan McConnon, seconded by Mori Malone to approve the variance request to
allow erection of a pylon sign in excess of the maximum height and
square footage allowed and to be allowed to place a pylon sign within
the minimum set -back from a public right of way. Motion carried
unanimously. Dan McOonnon indicated the reason for granting of the -
variance is that there would be no encroachment in the green area and
the extra sign height and-egwasa..tmtage -would be needed to receive
q exposure from the public right of way streets of Walnut and Pine.
� St{��et�fM9pw8Y•25.
^��tay� a � • r►�\ rte, �+�►�h#r - � o I � o
04.U&U64!
Planning Minutes - 7/12/88
5. Public Hearin - Variance request to allow a detached garage within the
tront yaro set -sack requirement. Applicant, Merrill Busch.
Merrill Busch was present to propose his construction of a detached
garage within the front yard set -back requirements. Busch indicated to
the Planning Commission members the location of his proposed garage
would be within 3 feet of the front property line and 5 feet of the side
property line. Mr. Busch asked consideration for the placement of this
detached garage in this location because it is were the old Carriage
House which stood for many year before it was distroyed. Also the house
is on the National Historical Register and if he is allowed to construct
the garage in the location proposed the garage would be recreated to
resemble the old Carriage House.
Chairman Richard Carlson opened up any input from the public, with no
input from the public he then opened up any questions from the Planning
Commission members. Richard Carlson questioned if we have received any
input from the public or the &joining property owner to the south.
Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson indicated to Mr. Carlson that he had
talked to the adjoining property owners, the Malones, and had no problem
with the location of the garage as proposed.
Dan Mcbonnon questioned Mr. Busch to indicate on his site plan were the
existing natural tree cover is around the garage. Mr. Busch indicated
in driving up to the site, that the proposed location of the garage
would be placed in amoung the existing lilac bushes which are on the
west aide of the property and existing trees which are to the east of
the proposed garage site in along the south lot line of the existing
site, you will find many trees which are located in�thi8 ar`e` iiSwr�G��a�
With no further input from the public a motion by indy Lemm, seconded P 94 •1
by Richard Martie to approve the variance request to allow a detached rr,wl4
garage within the front yard set -back requiremen . Motion carried 7
unanimously. �•a R jt�•••.1.
6. Public Hearing - Replatting request to reglat an existing lot into eight
tdi townnouse lots and one (1f common area lot. Applicant, Jay Miller.
Mr. Jay Miller was present before the Planning Commission members to
explain his proposed replatting request to replat an existing
residential lot into eight townhouse lots and one common area lot. Mr.
Miller indicated this is the fourth such time he has been before
Planning Commission members to request a replatting an existing platted
lot. Mr. Miller indicated the reason for starting the project and
replotting the project of the proposed townhouse project is that they
cannot establish actual lot lines for each additional townhouse until
the foundations are in and constructed.
Chairman Richard Carlson opened up any input from the public. Mr. Doug
Dehmer questioned why Mr. Miller is coming in to replat the existing
lot into eight townhouse lots and one common area lot if he has already
been issued a building permit to start construction. The Zoning
Administrator, Anderson indicated to Mr. Dahmer that the certificate of
survey was required of the developer prior to the construction of the
Planning Minutes - 7/12/88
actual townhouses. The requirement of the cerificate of survey basicly
sets the placement of the building on the lot. Before Mr. Miller can
come before the Planning Commission members, he had to have the property
resurveyed again to show the actual locations of the foundations of each
townhouse on this particular lot. That is the reason Mr. Miller is
coming before the Planning Commission after he started the construction
of the townhouses.
Mr. Dehmer also questioned the off street parking which is occuring out
there and who is responsible for the removal of the snow now that there
are three townhouses occupied with potential of the fourth one being
occupied by snowfall of this year. Zoning Administrator, Anderson
indicated to Planning Commission members that each of the townhouses as
a minimum requirement prior to them being built are required to have at
least two off street parking, which one space can be enclosed and one
opened, both spaces enclosed, or both spaces open. In regards to Mr.
Dehmer's question on the parking, the public street which goes by the
townhouse on Jerry Uefert Drive is for the intended use of off street
parking of all residents and non—residents of the city. We cannot
dictate to the public were they can or cannot park on the city street.
Mr. Dehmer was quite concerned with the residences of the townhouses
with the people that come to visit them, and parking their vehicles in
front of their house. As to the snow removal, when the snow becomes a
significate amount and has to be removed off the driveway and cannot be
stack anymore, it has to be loaded and hauled away from the townhouses.
It is the responsibility of the townhouse association within their
restrictive convenante are responsible to contact someone for the
removal of the snow from each of the driveways and sidewalks in the
eight unit townhouse association project.
Michelle Dahmer reinterated the question of parking in front of the
residences. Zoning Administrator, Anderson indicated to Mrs. Dehmer
that we cannot distinguish within public right of way which of the
public may or may not park their vehicles, as long as they are parked
off to the side of the road within the public right of way. Anderson
also indicated to the developer, Mr. Miller, that he contact the three
townhouse associations, Colony by the Greens let Addition, Colony by the
Greens 2nd Addition, and Colony by the Greene ]rd Addition, and notify
them of the problem they are currently having with the off street
parking. each of the individual owners of the existing 20 townhouses
could encourage their visitors to utilize the driveway areae of their
townhouses for the off street parking as much as possible.
With no further input from the public, public hearing portion closed.
With no further input from the Planning Commission members a motion by
Dan McConnon, seconded by Richard Martie to approve the replotting
request to replat an existing lot into eight townhouse lots and one
common area lot. Motion carried unanimously.
7. Tabled Conditional used request to allow more than twelve (12) apartment
units in a downtown commerical bUlldlnl. A variance request to allow
rive 151 existlnP apartments to remain on the rirot moor or a downtown
commrclai Du lloing is a non-Conrorming use. Applicant, Gary Rammer.
Planning Minutes — 7/12/88
Mr. Gary Rammer was present to proposed to Planning Commission members
that he be allowed to remove the resturant business portion of his
building and be allowed to convert it into other office/retail type of
rental space. The resturant business in this location has a very poor
track record in that the original owner, which was his father, lost
several hundreds of dollars trying to run a resturant. Mr. Hammer also
siting increase of $300 per month insurance only has to be past onto the
leasee or renter of this portion of the building.
Chairman Richard Carlson opened up arty input from the public, with no
input from the public, opened up for any questions from the Planning
Cammmission members. Mr. Richard Carlson asked Zoning Administrator,
Gary Anderson to indicate the background to this becoming a use allowing
the resturant in the front and the five apartment units in the rear
portion of this building. Anderson indicated to Mr. Carlson that the
building was allowed to be used in that way through the conditional use
process. Renovation of this existing building started in late fall of
1982 with a permit issued to revonate the upstairs portion of this
building into 10 efficiency apartments. Then Mr. Hammer came back with
a separate permit to renovate the front portion of this building into a
resturant business. Mr. Hammer then applied for a permit to renovate
the rear portion of this building into five (5) additional apartment
units. His building permits were denied on the grounds that we do not
allow apartment units on the main floor of a retail business building.
Mr. Hammer then sought legal council and his attorney advised him to
contact the city if they could amend the ordinance to allow this type of
use as a boarding house. The proposed ordinance amendment was approved
by the Monticello Planning Commission and the Monticello City Council in
1983 allowing additional apartment units on the main floor of a business
building. After the ordinance amendment, Mr. Hammer obtained his
building permit to renovate the rear portion of this building into five
apartment unite. That had remained and still remains as his current use
accept with the front mast portion of the building having lost it's
leasee or renter for the resturant portion.
Jeff O'Neil questioned Mr. Hammer if he had a retail outlet planned for
this former apace occupied by the resturant portion. Mr. Hammer
responded that he had no renter or leasee in mind for the front portion
of his building and he has not tried to market it without first getting
approval to do some other type of use with it other than a resturant use
from the Monticello City Planning Commission and/or City Council first.
Mr. Dan MoConnon questioned the reality of renting out the front portion
of hie building for retail space when there currently exists many vacant
retoil spaces already. Mr. Hammer felt with the current retail being
approximately 68 to $10 per square foot which he is currently charging
84 per square foot for resturant space, he felt with soma improvements,
he would be able to secure a possible tenant or tenants for the portion
of the old resturant.
Mr. Richard Carlson responded that he felt sympathetic to Mr. Hammer in
that if you look at the track record of the resturant business in thio
portion of the building not being very good with renters trying to make
a go of a resturant business. Cindy Lem commented that she felt very
uncomfortable with the re3turant portion being removed, because the city
Planning Minutes - 7/12/88
went through a specific ordinance amendment to adopt this type of use
within the downtown area and Mr. Hammer should try everything he can to
keep the resturant portion in his building. Mr. Richard Carlson
reinterated that if another commercial use does go into this portion of
the building that the actual parking requirements would be lessened
considerably as a result.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill questioned Mr. Hammer if the five units in the lower
level are necessary cash flow to meet the actual expenditures of this
building complex. Mr. Hammer responded that, yes the upstairs portion
pays for a good share of the rent but, he does need the lower level ones
also to make all expenses. Mr. Hammer indicated he is currently
experiencing six vacancies within his building complex. Mr. Hammer
indicated it is traditional throughout the summer months to encounter
some type of vacancy, but when it gets into late fall and winter months,
he experiences no vacancies whatsoever. Also, Mr. Hammer felt that the
rent he is charging for these units is far below what it would cost to
get into an apartment building and also he charges on a month by month
renters agreement.
A suggestion by Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, that Mr. Hammier
should come in and meet with the City Staff to possibly work out a
developers agreement that would facilitate this type of use of the
former resturant portion of the building and look into the possibility
of developing the rest of the lower level apartments into some type of
office retail rental space. In doing so, it would bring his building
back into zoning comforments and not needing a conditional use. Having
heard that, it is the consensus of the Planning Commission members
present, Richard Carlson, Cindy Lenin, Richard Martie, Mori Malone, and
Dan McConnon, to report back to them with suggested development plan at
their next scheduled meeting.
ADDITIONAL ITEMS:
1. Review the proposed ordinance amendment on landscaping requirements.
Jeff O'Neill reported that due to time Constraints, he was unable to
have a proposed ordinance amendment on the landscaping requirements.
However, he did reiterate what became of the joint City Council,
Planning Commicaion, IDC, and HRA, meeting on what they were looking for
in landscaping requirements. This was a possible reduction of the
minimum requirements and possible phasing in of the landscaping
requirements, and possible reduction of commercial and industrial
landscaping requirements, the use of tax increment financing to pay for
landscaping requirements, and also the maintenance agreement for
landscaping once it is installed. Also, possibly defering the actual
installation of landscaping until later yearn.
It was the suggestion of City Staff, to report back to Planning
Commission members at their next regular scheduled meeting in August
with a possible ordinance amendment on the landscaping requirements.
Upon favorable review of the Monticello Planning Commiaaion, they could
then not a public hearing for the ordinance amendment on landscaping
requirement.
Planning Minutes - 7/12/88
2. Review the proposed ordinance amendment regulating type of exterior
building construction. , O& ala h
.Jeff O'Neill indicated that what is before them w afoegia of the City
of waconia ordinance regulating exterior types. Manning Commission
members felt uncomfortable with them being put in position of the final
authority on the site plan for the type of building do activito Planning Commission members felt that the applicant should have the a ternative
to appeal a decision of the Planning Commission members to the City
Council t was the consensus of the Planning Commission members
r -----fl ant to have !he-"ty-StaU review the proposed ordinance amendment
change and make a recommendation to them at their next regularly
scheduled August meeting.
3. Planning Commission Applicant Interviews.
Council action approved as per Planning Commission recommendations.
4. Tabled conditional use request to allow construction of more than one
apartment building on an unplatted lot, a tabled conditional use request
to allow construction of two aSartMent buildln s in access of the
maximum number of units allowed, a tabled conditional use request to
allow construction of five apartment buildings in two phases.
Applicant, David Horniq.
Council action. Approved as per Planning Commission recommendations
with conditions.
S. A preliminary plat request for a mobile home park expansion. Applicant,
Don Heikes.
Council action. Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
Jeff O'Neill updated to the Commission that Mr. Heikes withdrew his
request for final plat approval of the preliminary plat for a mobile
home park expansion.
6. Variance request to allow construction of a garage addition within the
Bide yard bet -back requirements. AppllWnt, R1cK wolreteller.
Council action. No action needed as variance was not appealed.
7. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission
:meeting for August 9, 1988, 7:30 P.M.
Jeff O'Neill commented to the Planning Commission members that we are
running into a problem with being able to get both the Planning
Commission and the City Council agendas out on the same date. He asked
the Planning Commission members if they would consider meeting on the
first or third Tuesday of every month or if another day in the week
would work better in their schedule. It was the consensus of the four
Planning Commission members present, as Cindy Lemma left at 10:02 p.m.,
to set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commiaaion
for the first Tuesday in August, August 2, 1988, 7:30 p.m.
Planning Minutes - 7/12/88
Motion by the Dan McCamon, seconded by Mori !!alone to adjourn the
meeting. The motion carried unanimously, with Cindy Lemur absent.
Meeting adjourned at 10:23 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gats Anderson,
Zoning Administrator
�yQ Planning Agenda - 8/2/88
3• A variance Request to Allow Construction of a Garage Addition within a Front
ana Sine Yaro Set Back Requirements. Applicant, James Cellette.
A. REFERENCE AMID BACKGROUND:
Mr. Cellette is proposing to build a 24 foot by 36 foot attached garage onto
his existing house which amounts to 864 square feet of garage space. In
looking at the enclosed certificate of survey, Mr. Cellette is proposing to
place the garage within 28 1/2 feet of the front property line and within 8.8
feet of the northwest corner of his proposed attached garage. Both proposed set
back lines encroach upon the minimum set back required by ordinance. The
minimum front yard set back is 30 feet and the minimum side yard set back is 10
feet set back requirement.
The house when constructed in approximately 1980 was placed on the lot to
accomodate a maximum 22 foot wide garage and still stay within the set back
requirements. The house was set on the lot in an uneven position relative to
the side lot line. Thus the house sits at a slight angle on the lot.
The maximum size garage that can be constructed and still meet set back
requirements would have a length of 2L' at the front and a 1 ' at the side
which createeli I square feet of garage space.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve variance request to allow construction of a garage addition within
the front and side yard set back requirements. Motion to include finding
of fact demonstrating that variance approval does not impair intent of
Zoning ordinance.
2. Deny variance request to allow construction of a garage addition within
the front and side yard set back requirements. Motion to include finding
of fact that variance impairs intent of Zoning Ordinance.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The proposed 24 foot by 36 foot garage addition does lay within the minimum 30
foot front yard set back and the northwest corner of the proposed addition
would fall within the 10 foot side yard set back requirement. Please refer to
the attachment which outlines criteria for granting variances for guidance with
your decision.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request, copy of a certificate of
survey of the proposed variance request, copy of the Ordinance section on
minimum front and side yard set hack requirements. Copy of section of Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to criteria for granting variances.
q
23-1
CHAPTER 23
ADMINISTRATION - VARIANCES AND APPEALS
SECTION:
23-1: Board of Adjustment and Appeals
23-2: Planning Commission and City Staff Reports
23-3: Finding of Planning Commission and City Staff
23-4: Non -Economic Hardship
23-5: Appeals
23-6: Procedures
23-7: Lapse of Variance or Appeal
23-8: Performance Bond
23-1: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS: The Planning Commission
shall act as a Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
23-2: PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY STAFF REPORTS: All
written reports and recommendations to the Planning
Commission serving as the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals from the City Staff shall be entered in and
made part of the permanent written record of the
Board's meeting.
23-3: FINDING OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY STAFF: In
/ considering all requests for variance or appeal,
and taking subsequent action, the City Staff and
the Planning Commission, serving as the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals, shall make a finding of fact
that the proposed action will not:
N p (A) Impair an adequate supply of light and air
1 to adjacent property.
1 N a (01 Unreasonably increase the congestion in the
1 public street.
I N p [C1 Increase the danger of fire or endanger the
public safety.
(0)nreaeonably diminish or impair -established _
property values within the neighborhood, or
in my Otherway a c_on_trary to the intent
a tt11is 'Oidirisnce.
23-4: NON-ECONONIC HARDSHIP: The Planning Commission,
servieg'aG the 8oard'of Adjustment and Appeali she'll,
Uter receiving the written reports and recommendations
of the City Staff, make a finding of fact and decide
upon rspuiiU for a variance bo -approving or denying
the same; in part or in chola, where it is 4iliwid
by the applicant that a non -economic hardship in
thetraisonabie ujslot a specific parcil oL propiity
exists. A hardship that.b�some mason of cugc!.-�
ihillovnibi or shape of a specific parcel of property
23-4
23-6
or a lot existing and of record upon the effective
date of this Ordinance or that by reason of exceptional
topographic or water conditions of a specific parcel
of land or lot, the strict application of the terms
of this Ordinancs the-
result in exceptional difficulties
wheilizi
n utng the parcel or lot in a manner customary
and legally permissable within the district in which
said lot or parcel is located, or would create undue
hardship upon the owner oL such lot or parcel that
tie owner of another lot or parcel within the same
district mould not have 1! he were to develop his
TE of parcel in amennat propoaed�the applicant.
Should"the Planning Commission zinc that the conditions
outlined hareiofcie apply to the yroposed lot or
1;e1 --the planning Commission may grant a variance
from the strict application at tnis Ordinance so
as to relieve sucn ditticulties or hardships to the
'Cegree considered reasonable, providing such relief
may be granted witnout impairing the intent of this
Zoning Ordinance.
23-5: APPEALS: The planning Commission, serving as the
Board of Adjustment and Appeals, shall after receiving
the written report and recommendation of the City
staff, make a finding of fact and make a decision
on appeals where it is alleged by the applicant that
error has occured in any order, requirement, decision
or determination made by the Building Inspector
in the enforcement of this Ordinance. However, said
appeal shall be filed later than ninety (90) days
after the applicant has received a written notice
from the Building Inspector or said appeal shall
be considered void.
23-6: PROCEDURES:
(A1 Request for a variance or appeal shall be
filed with the Zoning Administrator on an
official application form. Such application
shall be accompanied by a fee as outlined
in Chapter 26 0! this Ordinance. This fee
shall not be refunded. Such application sholl
also be accompanied by written and graphic
materials necessary for the explanation of
the request.
[e] Upon receiving said application, the Zoning
Administrator shall refer the application,
along with all related information, to the
City planning Commission.
(C1 The Planning Commission shall consider the
variance or appeal at its next regular meeting
unleas the filing date falls within fifteen
(IS) days of said meeting, in such a case
the request would be placed on the agenda
at the regular meeting following the next
regular meeting.
23-6 (C]
A variance request to allow eonstuetion of a
garage addition within the front and sideyard
setback requirements. Location is Block 1,
Lot 7, Balboul Addition in the City of Monticello.
Applicant: lames Collette.
l
i G
a
t i
Y.,� • � /�' P GOVT l 0 T I A
LOT
FZC
i
`�i I I .r ' i`'
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be hold by the City
Of Monticello Planning Commission on W,— 7 . 19.AH_-, at
7:10 P.M. in the Monticello City Mall to conaidar tho'folloriag matters:
PUBLIC HEARING: A Variance request to allow construction of a new
detached garage within the sideyard setback re-
quirement. Location is Block 56, Lots 2 6 9.
Original Plat Addition in the City of Monticello.
APPLICANTg Kermit Hensen.
PUBLIC HEARING: A Variance request to allow construction of a
garage addition within the front and aldeyard
setback requirements. Location in Block 1,
Lot 7, Balboul Addition In the City of Monticello.
APPLICANT: .lames Collette.
PUBLIC BEARING: A Variance request to allow 2 driveway curb
cut@ in excess of the maximus allowed. Location
it Block I. Lot 7. Oakwood Industrial Park
Addition in the City of Monticello.
APPLICANT: M i P transport.
Written and oral testimony will be accepted on above subjects and all
persona desiring to be hoard on referenced subjects will be heard at this
meeting.
MOTE1 Decisions of the Planning ', Lesion will be final unless appealed
by any lndivldual by 9100 A.M. on Wednesday. August 5 , 19.AL. Appeals
must be in writing, signed and state reasons for appeal. It appeal to
tiled, the City Council @hall hear appeal on Monday. .Agauxr Fj . 19 J&,
at 700 P.M. at the Monticello City Ball. Natlaa of any appeal shall appose
in the Monticello Timer on Thursday, _Auaunt 4 , 19 1L•
Oar AMuson, Eonleg Administrator
INSTRUCTIONS
Post on bulletin/ a 6.
2. Publish (taken to Times office It least 2 day prior to
this date).
O Mailing tog
A. Applicant
B. Abuttl ng Property —ara
T. Property owners ,thin 350 test '
Other
(lave Affidavit of Mailing prepared. executed and tiled.
Copy of Notice to Planning Commission agenda tile, tree and Tom.
I . Clothes line pole and vire.
2. Recreational equipment and vehicles.
]. Construction and landscaping material currently
being used on the premises.
4. Off-street parking of passenger vehicles
and trucks not exceeding a gross capacity
of nine thousand (9,000) pounds in residential
areae.
5. propane tanks, fuel oil Lanka, and other
similar residential heating fuel storage
tanks which do not exceed 1,000 gallons
in capacity and shall not be located within
five (5) feet of any property line.
6. Wood piles in which wood is stored for
fuel provided that not more than 10 cords
shall be stored on any property. A cord
shall be V x 4' x 81. A11 wood piles
shall be five (5) feet or more from rear
and aide yard property linea and shall
be stored behind the appropriate set back
line in front yards.
7. Solar heating systems.
7-3: YARD REOUIREME.Nj$;
(A) PURPOSE: This @action identifies minimum yard
spaces and areas to be provided for in each
zoning district.
(B) No lot, yard or other open space shall be reduced
in area or dimension so as to make such lot,
yard or open space less than the minimum required
by this Ordinance, and it the existing yard
or other open space as existing is less than
the minimum required it shall not be further
reduced. Ab required *pan space provided around
any building or structure shall be included
as a part of any open space required for another
structure.
(C) A11 satback distances, as listed in the table
below, shall be measured from the appropriate
lot line, and shall be required minimum distances.
Front Yard Side yard Rear Yard
A-0 50 10 50
R-1 ® ® 30
R-2 70 10 20
R-2 10 20 20
R-4 30 20 30
DZ -A See Chapter 10 for specific regulations.
PZ -N Sas Chapter 10 for specific regulations.
5-1 70 15 20
5-2 30 10 20
8
Certificate
.6 .
6r d
aoo n
a ar.ya'trr f
� � NedM�nr
Lone
..of Survey
I
Js
0 denote, .rann! IN
1rlareed RL.9.T�
$
LFxA1. Dfi5C2IPf2011t
e
. t *
Lot 7. 61oak 1. BALOOYL LYfA?Dr according yI
!f
to the plat thereof on file and of record
„ _ r
in the Office of the County 8eooroer in
e�
aw for Wright County, M m"Ota,
1 e
a.aN.ee b'
JAMES CELLS T TE
o.r.•
9/10/1982.
Y �
oe.. n•
teNe•
eJO'
j+ras « a?i ran ra. a.+n,+e -Q.SOGATES
Nr•eeftw
and S� wyam ceeeH/ b
e+rep ww. 4" +»+r—, e."
F.O. Sae 2a1 Suftab, Omme wo M3 ea2-4?2?
id4(ddkTGr��Ldd.rEad`eeY•we•
Survey Lot 7, EMtk i,
s.we d�
8AL&CUL ESTATES e.e •
aep t d,at1»neebMlse
WHOM cooly, wnnesoro. 82129
Planning Agenda - 8/2/88
4. Variance Request to Allow Construction of a New Detached Garage within the side
Yard Set Back Requirement. Applicant, Kermit Bensen. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROM:
Mr. Hensen is proposing to remove his existing detached garage and is
requesting to be allowed to replace it with a new 24 foot by 26 foot garage to
match his existing neighbor to the west, Mr. and Mrs. Don Smith's garage.
Benson's proposal will place his garage 3' inside his property line and within
5' of the wall of the garage on the Smith property. Benson's plans call for
placement of the new garage in same location as the existing garage thereby
continuing a non -conforming situation.
The minimun side yard set back for an accessory building is 10 foot side yard
set back. If we were going to allow Mr. Bensen's garage to be within 10 feet
of another garage, the area within 10 feet of an existing structure would have
to have a fire wall interior.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
1. Approve the variance request to allow construction of a new detached
garage within the side yard set back requirement. Motion to include
finding of fact which supporta position that granting of variance will not
Impair intent of Zoning Ordinance.
2. Deny the variance request to allow construction of a new detached garage
within the side yard set back requirement. Motion to include finding of
fact which supports position that granting of variance will impair intent
of Zoning Ordinance.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
The location of Mr. Bensen's proposed garage will be within 3 feet of the
minimum side yard set back for a detached accessory building. Please refer to
attached section of Zoning Ordinance outlining criteria for granting of
variances to the Zoning Ordinance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request, copy of the site plan of
the proposed variance request, copy of the ordinance section of the minimum set
back for accessory buildings, and copy of ordinance section outlining criteria
for granting of variance.
23-1
CHAPTER 23
ADMINISTRATION - VARIANCES AND APPEALS
SECTION:
23-1: Board of Adjustment and Appeals
23-2: Planning Commission and City Staf! Reports
23-3: Finding of Planning Commission and City Staff
23-4: Non -Economic Hardship
23-5: Appeals
23-5: Procedures
23-7: Lapse of Variance or Appeal
23-8: Performance Bond
23-1:
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS: The Planning Commission
shall act as a Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
23-2:
PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY STAFF REPORTS: All
written reports and recommendations to the Planning
Commission serving as the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals from the City Staff shall be entered in and
made part of the permanent written record of the
Board's meeting.
f 23-3:
FINDING OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY STAFF: In
considering all requests for variance or appeal,
and taking subsequent action, the City Staff and
the Planning Commission, serving as the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals, shall make a finding of fact
that the proposed action will not:
N p (A1 Impair an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent property.
t1
N p (B1 Unreasonably increase the congestion in the
`
public street.
N p (C) Increase the danger of firs or endanger the
public safety.
(0) Unreasonably diminish or impair established
property values within the neighborhood, or
in any otner way be contrary to the intent
or this ordinance.
23-4:
NON -ECONOMIC HARDSHIP: The Planning Commission,
serving as the Board of Adjustment and_AeQsals shall,
srtsr recacv ing_tni wrALten raeorts and recommanda`iy o
f
othe City Staff, make a finding of fact and decide
upon requests for a variance be approving or denying
Che same, in part or in wnois, where it is alleged
by the applicant that a non -economic hardship in
LhelreasonaDle uas'of a specitic parcel or property
exists. A hardshiQ that by some reason of narrowness,
shallowness or snap• of a specific parcel of property
23-4
23-a
23-6 [C]
or a lot existing and of record upon the effective
i date of this Ordinance or that by reason of axceotional
topographic ci water conditions of a Specific parcel
of land or lot, the strict application of the teras
of thla OrL;.nance would result in exceptional difficulties
when utilizing the parcel or lot in a manner customary
and legally parmissable'vithin the district in which
said lot or parcel is located, or would create undue
hardship upon the owner of such lot or parcel that
the owner of another lot or parcel within the same
aiatrtct would not have if he were to develop his
0 or pi=cil in a manner proposed by the applicant.
6nouaa tae iianning Commission zi::a Last the conditions
outlined neretorcre apply to the proposed lot or
parcel, 1.16 71anning Coamidmion may grant a variance
from the strict appiication or this Orainance so
*to relieve such difficulties or hardships to the
degree conaldered reasonable, providing such relief
may as granted without impairing trio intent of this
Zoning Ordinance.
23-5: APPEALS: The Planning Commission, serving as the
Board of Adjustment and Appeals, shall after receiving
the written report and recommendation of the City
staff, make a finding of fact and make a decision
on appeals where it is alleged by the applicant that
error has occured in any order, requirament, decision
or determination made by the Building Inspector
in the enforcement of this Ordinance. However, said
appeal shall be filed later than ninety (90) days
after the applicant has received a written notice
from the Building Inspector or said appeal shall
be considered void.
23-8: PROCEDURES:
[A] Request for a variance or appeal shall be
filed with the Zoning Administrator on an
official application form. Such application
shall be accompanied by a fee as outlined
in Chapter 26 of this Ordinance. This fee
shall not be refunded. Such application shall
also be accompanied by written and graphic
materials necessary for the explanation of
the request.
(B) Upon receiving said application, the Zoning
Administrator shall refer the application,
along with all related information, to the
City Planning Commission.
(C) The Planning Commission shall consider the
variance or appeal at its next regular meeting
unless the filing data falls within fifteen
(15) days of said meeting, in such a case
the request would be placed on the agenda
at the regular meeting following the next
regular meeting.
A variance request to allow
construction of a new detached
garage within the sidayard
setback requirement. Location
is Block 56, Lots 2 & 9.
Original Plot Addition in the
City of Monticello.
Applicant: Kermit Benson.
0
47
x � \ /{•9a +• .ot ,i/ ylt +/i .t /{�4f ���'^Xi ,
fy
4r
94 S.
mow
NOTICE Of PUBLIC REARING9
Notice is hereby glean that public hearings will be held by the City
of Monticello Planning ComisaLm on _Aupw, 7 . 19 -as, at
7:10 P.N. 1n the Monticello City Nall to consider the'following mtters:
PUBLIC BEARING: A Variance request to allow construction of a now
detached garage within the sidayard setback re-
quirement. Location is Block 56. Lots 2 A 9,
Original Plat Addition in the City of Monticello.
APPLICANT: Kermit Bosses.
PUBLIC BEARING: A Variance request to allow construction of a
garage addition within the front and sidoyard
setback requirements. Location is Block 1,
Lot 7. Balboul Addition in the City of Monticello.
APPLICANTt Jame Collette.
PUBLIC BEARING: A Variance roqueat to allow 2 driveway curb
cuts in excesv of the maximum allowed. Location
L Block 1. Lot 7, Oakwood Industrial Park
Addition in the City of Monticello.
APPLICANT: M A P Transport.
Written and oral testimay Will be accepted on Above subjects and all
persons demlring to be hoard on referenced subjects will be board at this
meting.
NOTK1 Doolelom of the Planning Comission will be fLnal unless appealed
by any individual by 9:00 A.N. on Wednesday, Aukuet ] . 19JM. Appeals
must be in wrlting, signed and state reasons for Appeal. If appeal In
filed, the City Council shall hear appeal on Monday. Auauat B . 19 1L.
at 7130 P.M. at the Monticello Clty MAIL. Notice at any appeal shall appear
in the Monticello Tire on Thursday, Amount { . 19 JL.
Qa Anderson. Zoning Administrator
INOTRt1CTIONS
Post on bulletin board.
2. Publish 7/21 A 7/28/de (taken to Tlsr office at le -est I aye prior to
this do tel.
Q Nalllno tot .J
A. ApplLcant
B. Abutting property owners
CP Property owners within 150 feat '
0, Other
t� uays Aflidevlt of Melling prepared, executed and tiled.
`T Copy of Notice to planning Comtulon agenda t1U, Lorcet and Tom.
3. Accesnory buildings and garages ahali ng*
exceed Fifteen (151 feet in heicht and shall
be ten (10) feet or more from All aide lot
it— " wdi,1nU2 to a five (5) feet or
more from the rear lot line, shall be ten (10)
feet or more from any other building or
structure on the same lot and shall not
be located within a utility easement.
6. No accessory building or garage shall occupy
more than twenty-five (25) percent of a
rear yard, nor exceed one thousand (1,000)
square feet of floor area.
5. No permit shall be issued for the construction
of more than one (1) private accessory structure
for each dwelling. Each applicant for a
building permit to'construct any dwellings
shall be required to provide off-street
parking space for at least one ( 1 ) automobile
per family to be housed in addition to any
garage space to be used. Every dwelling
unit hereafter erected shall be so located
on the lot no that at least a two (2) car
garage, either attached or detached, can
be Located on said lot without variance.
Site plane shall indicate location of potential
garage.
6. No accessory uses or equipment such as air
conditioning cooling structures or condensers
which generate noise may be located in a
aide yard except for side yards abutting
streets where equipment to fully screened
from view.
[B1 DRAINAGE PLANS: In the case of all apartment,
business and industrial developments, a minimum
of 3 sets of drainage plans shall be submitted
to the City Engineer for review and the
final drainage plans shall be subject to
written approval.
All dwellings and commercial and industrial
buildings shall be constructed such that the
ground elevation at tho building site will be
a minimum of twelve (12) inch*& above finished
street elevation at the building access point.
The exact *lavation will be determined by the
Building Inspector.
All garages and parking facilities shall be
situated such that there Will be direct and
positive drainage to the street access at finished
grade elevation. ALI elevations shall be established
Prior to issuance of a building permit.
P�.
(a tw It",) A wo g, ice �— ----
i
�
j v16' _TGata4e..— �_ �
I F 1
- - ----- - ---- --- --- -
� � R
P�.
(a tw It",) A wo g, ice �— ----
i
�
j v16' _TGata4e..— �_ �
I F 1
- - ----- - ---- --- --- -
� � R
• /r •''r A variance request to allow Z driveway
`�:,�• �„ •'�:,�.;' curb cute in excess of the maximum
allowed. Location is Block 3. Lot 7.
'i%y (/'•'/ /•�'r�.. '� V� Oakwood Industrial Park Addition in
the City of Monticello.
7 �„/�!, ••,�,.•� r / /. ! Applicant: M B P Transport.
// Z
' NS
ice. ter' /• / '! // / !+er J
r Vii/ (• ''/i' ; , �� ri7 /,�//,'`,!/�CJ[�7;�� . �'J / ; ��• //
94
J r
^ � / ' _ �•"�• * waw / •E'/!
a0rICE or Pon= immiNOs
Notice is hereby given that public hearings will be held by the City
of Monticello Planning Commission on _AW ) 19-a&-., at
7:30 P.M. in the Monticello City -Ball to consider the'folloving matters: J
PUBLIC BEARING: A Variance request to allow construction of a now
detached garage within the sidayard setback to -
quiescent. Location is Block 56. Lots 2 6 9.
Original Plat Addition in the City of Monticello.
APPLICANT: Carmit Benson.
PUBLIC REARING: A Variance request to allow construction of a
garage addition within the front and sideyard
setback requirements. Location is Block 1,
Lot 7, Balboul Addition in the City of Monticello.
APPLICANT: James Collette.
PUBLIC HEARING: A Variance request to allow 2 driveway curb
cute In arcus of the maximum allowed. Location
Is Block 3. Lot 7, Oakwood Industrial Park
Addition in the City of Monticello.
APPLICANT: M 6 P Transport.
written and oral testimony will be accepted on above subjects and all
persona desiring to be heard on referenced subjects will be board at thin
meeting.
MVEC3E1 Decisions at the Planning Commission will be final unless appealed
by any individual by 9100 A.M. on lhdassday,..t%uvuet ) . 19_1L. Appeals
mut be in writing, signed and state reasons tar appeal. It appeal is
filed, the City Council shall hear appeal on Monday. Aurust 9 . 19 JLL.
at 7:20 P.M. at the Monticello City wall. Notice of any appeal .hall appose
In the Montloello ?lees on Thursday, Au[uar ♦ . 19 AL.
W Andsraon. Coning Administrator
IMB?9UCTIONB
Post on bulletin booed.
7. Publish 7/21 a 7/28/00 (taken to Tips office jLt least 2 days prior to
this date).
wiling to:
A. Applicant
N. Abutting property owners
(C� Property when within 230 fest
other
ia7 nava Affidavit of nailing prepared, executed and filed.
`T' Copy of Notice t0 Planning Commission agenda Ella, Loren and Tom.
Except in the case of single, two
family and townhouse dwellings, parking
area design which requires backing
into the public street is prohibited.
(d) No curb cut access shall be located
less than forty (40) feet from the
intersection of two (2) or more street
right-of-ways. This distance shall
be measured from the intersection
of lot lines.
(e) Except in the case of single family,
two family and townhouse dwellings,
parking areas and their aisles shall
be developed in compliance with the
following eanderds:
• WAIS WALL TO IYTERL= TO
TO INTEAI= INTERIAQC
A:YI.B MINImam MINIDII.•. MI twm
30 48.61 46.5' . 40.31
65 56.80 53.4' 50.0'
60 62.01 59.71 57.4'
(,
90 64.0' 64.0' 64.0'
Parallel Parking : Twenty-two (22) feet in length.
- (f)
jjo curb qt access shall exceed twenty-four (24)
feet in width.
(g)
Curb cut openings and driveways shall
be at a minimum three (3) feet from
the side yard property line in residential
districts end five (5) fast from the
side yard lot line in business or
industrial districts.
(h)
Driveway access curb openings on a
public street except for single, two
family and townhouse dwellings shall
not be located less than forty (40)
feet from one another.
(i)
The grads elevation of any parking
arae shall not *used five (5) percent.
(!)
Cach property shall be allowed one 0 curb cut per
one hundred twenty-five ( 125) fast
of street frontage. All property
shall be entitled to at lust one (1)
curb cut. Bingle family uses shall be limlt*d
to one (1) curb cut access per property.
(k)
SOAIACIt10: All areas latsnded to
be utilised for parking spa" and
driveways shall be surfaced with materials
suitable to control dust and drainage.
Planning Agenda - 8/2/88
IL 6. Variance Request to Allow a Driveway to be Reconstructed within the Side Yard
Set Back Requirement. Appticant, Mlcnael Wleoer. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AMID BACKGROUND:
Mr. Wisher is proposing to reconstruct his existing driveway as shown on the
site plan and also add an additional parking area along aide of his garage.
The area in which Mr. Wieber is proposing to create a parking area along aide
the garage would mean he is trying to have hard surface parking area right up
to the property line. By ordinance, the minimum set back of a driveway parking
space can be from the side lot line is a three foot side yard set back.
One thing to note, is that Mr. Wieber is proposing a 12 foot wide parking space
where the minimum parking space requirement by ordinance is a 9 foot by 20 foot
space. If Mr. Wieber reduced his parking space to a 9' width, a variance would
not be needed.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow a driveway to be reconstructed
within the aide yard set back requirement. Motion to include finding of
fact which supports position that granting variance will not undermine the
intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Deny the variance request to allow a driveway to be reconstructed within
the side yard set back requirement. Motion to include finding fact which
supports position that granting variance will undermine the intent of the
Zoning Ordinance.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Mr. Wieber is requesting to be allowed to place the newly created parking space
right up to the property line, were the minimum requirement by ordinance is a
three foot set back. Planning Commission must determine if there is a special
circumstance or hardship that provides justification for granting the variance
as proposed. Planning Commission should consider the precedent that will be
set if the variance is granted.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request, copy of the site plan
for the proposed variance request, and copy of the ordinance section with
driveway parking space set back requirements, and copy of ordinance section
outlining criteria for granting variances.
to Do
a ar So "6x
ax oc i.*%%
at as. el, i
00 st
Ce jtll
t'Jarit% "edge
UOC i-011 for
1.06
str-ac
tem
all. ai
cel
ypL 2 a ot
the
tY SA Ny,oppe
vl'l
v
11" T-1 -/;.,
PZ17
4i
—E7
tp�
6 1. 21-
E:4L
4ki
Iq
k
is i 73NP
7*/
I GHWAY NO. 94
Except in the case of single, two
family and townhouse dwellings, parking
area design which requires backing
into the public street is prohibited.
(d) No curb cut access shall be located
less than forty (40) feet from the
intersection of two (2) or more street
right-of-ways. This distance shall
be measured from the intersection
of lot lines.
(a) Except in the case of single family,
two family and townhouse dwellings,
parking areas and their aisles shall
be developed in compliance with the
following sandards:
• WALL W&L TO T:7TERLOC*t TO
TO 217TERLO 1 IYTERL=
MGL8 MINIMUM MINE) M MINIMM
30 48.6' 44.5' .40.3-
40 56.8' 53.4' 50.0'
60 62.0' 59.7. 57.4-
90 64.0- 64.0' 64.0 -
Parallel parking : Twenty-two (22) feet in length.
(f) No curb cut access shall exceed twenty-four (24)
feet in width.
(9) Curb cut oveninaA_and d;ivewgvo shall
be at . 21"234 throe (]) feet from
tt%Ajde vard arm _4Lrty 14— in residential
101" .Jto and Live (5) feet from the
side yard lot line in business or
industrial districts.
(h) Driveway access curb openings on a
public street except for single, two
family and townhouse dwellings shall
not bo located lass than forty (40)
feat from one another.
(1) The grade elevation of any parking
area shall not exceed five (5) percant.
(�) Each property shall be allowed one 0 1 curb cut per
one hundred twenty-five ( 125 ) feet
of street frontage. All property
shall be entitled to at lust one (1)
curb cut. Bingle family uses shall be limited
to one (1) curb cut access per property.
(k) SURIACINO: All &rase intended to
be utilized for parking space and
driveways shall be s=faced with materials
suitable e� c�ntr-_jl duet and drainage.
23-1
CHAPTER 23
ADMINISTRATION - VARIAi:C:S AND APPEALS
SECTION:
23-1: Board of Adjustment and Appeals
23-2: Planning Commission and City Staff Reports
23-3: Finding of Planning Commission and City Staff
23-4: Non -Economic Hardship
23-5: Appeals
23-5: Procedures
23-7: Lapse of Variance or Appeal
23-8: Performance Bond
23-1: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS: The Planning Commission
shall act as a Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
23-2: PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY STAFF REPORTS: All
written reports and recommendations to the Planning
Commission serving as the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals from the City Staff shall be entered in and
made part of the permanent written record of the
Board's meeting.
23-3: FINDING OF PLANNI.= COMMISSION AND CITY STAFF: In
considering all requests for variance or appeal,
and taking subsequent action, the City Staff and
the Planning Commission, serving as the Board of
Adjustment and Appealo, shall make a finding of fact
that the proposed action will not:
N P [A] Impair an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent property.
�1 N A (81 Unreasonably increase the congestion in the
` public street.
I N A [C) Increase the danger of fire or endanger the
public safoty.
ID) Unreaannably diminiah or imoair eatabliched
property values within the neighborhood, or
in any other way be contrary to the intent
or this Ordinance.
23-4: NON -ECONOMIC HARDSHIP: The Planning Commission,
serving as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall,
anter receiving the written reports end recommenda%ions
01 the City Staff, make a finding of tact and decide
upon requests for a variance be approving or denying
the same, in part or in wncie, wnere it is alleged
by the applicant that a non -economic hardshi? if.
Chs Treisonaoie usa)of a specific parcel of property
exists. A hardship that by some reason Of narrowness,
shallowness or snaps of a specific parcel of property
23-s
23-a
or a lot existing and of record upon the effective
date of this Ordinance or that by reason of exceptional
topographic oz 'viii- conditions of a specific parcel
of land or lot, the strict application of the teras
of this Orainanee would resultin exceptional difficulties
when utilizing the parcel or lot in a manner customary
and legally paraisnable within the district in which
said lot or parcel is located, or would create undue
hardship upon the owner of such lot or Parcel that
the owner of another lot or parcel within the sa=e
district would not have if he ware to develop his
-M of parcel in a manner proposed by the applicant.
bnouid the alarming Commission:ina that the conditions
outl of -*2 eret-o-To—ra apply to the proposed lot or
parcel, the eianning Commission may grant a variance
from the strict_application or this ordinance to
as to relieve such difficulties or hardships to the
degree considered reasonable, providing such relief
may be granted without impairing the intent of this
Zoning Ordinance.
23-5: APPEALS: The Planning Commission, serving as the
Board of Adjustment and Appeals, shall after receiving
the written report and recommendation of the City
staff, make a finding of fact and cake a decision
on appeals where it is alleged by the applicant that
error hoe occured in any order, requirement, decision
or determination made by the Building Inspector
in the enforcement of this Ordinance. However, said
appeal shall be filed later than ninety (90) days
after the applicant has received a written notice
from the Building Inspector or said appeal shall
be considered void.
23-6: PROCEDURES:
(A1 Request for a variance or appeal shall be
filed with the Zoning Administrator on an
official application form. Such application
shall be accompanied by a fee as outlined
in Chapter 25 of this Ordinance. This fee
shall not be refunded. Such application shall
also be accompanied by written and graphic
materials necessary for the explanation of
the request.
(B) Upon receiving said application, the Zoning
Administrator shall refer the application,
along with all related information, to the
City Planning Commission.
(Cl The Planning Commission shall consider the
7 variance or appeal at its next regular meeting
r unless the filing date falls within fifteen
(15) days of said meeting, in such a case
the request would be placed on the agenda
at the regular meeting following the next
regular mooting.
23-6 (C1
Planning Agenda - 8/2/88
7. variance Request to Allow Placement of a Pylon Sign within the Set Back
Requirement tram a Public Right of Flay. Applicant, J b R Properties. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Jim and Ren Maus, owners of J a R Properties which lease the complex known as
Riverroad Plaza, are proposing to be allowed to replace their existing pylon
sign to within one foot of the set back requirement from a public right of
way. As noted on the enclosed site plan, you will see the proposed location of
the pylon sign in relationship to the pylon sign originated for the River Drive
was extended to the south to go around this property. To get the maximum
exposure from this proposed pylon sign, the location that is requested is the
beat location to get the maximum view from the west on Highway 75.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow a pylon sign within the set back
requirement from a public right of way.
2. Deny the variance request to allow a pylon sign within the set back
requirement from a public right of way.
C. STAFF RECOMENDATIONS:
J b R Properties proposed to be allowed to reconstruct their existing pylon
sign to be placed within one foot of the set back requirement from a public
right of way, which the minimum set back is 15 feet.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request, copy of the site plan
for the proposed variance request, a copy of the ordinance section on sign set
back from a public right of way, and a copy of the pylon sign.
3
—
I
� � • yam_ �, �•
A Variance Request to allo placement of
a pylon sign within the se,
from
requirement
from a public right of way Location is
Block 1, Lot 6, Macarlund;Plara Addition ._
Ci
in the ty of Monticello
\ t••1�P I -
Applicant: J G K Properti s.
'
NOTICE OF PUBLIC BEARINGS
Notice in hereby given that public hearings will be held by the City
of Monticello Planning Commission on August 2 , 1988 , at
7:30 P.M. in the Monticello City Rall to consider the following matters:
PUBLIC REARING: A Variance Request to allow placement of a pylon sign
within the setback requirement from a public right of
way. Location is Block 1, Lot 6, Macarlund Plaza
Addition In the City of Monticello.
APPLICANT: J G a: Properties.
Written and oral testimony will be accepted on above subjects and all
persona desiring to be heard on referenced subjects Will be heard at this
meeting.
NOTE: Decisions of the Planning Commission Will be final unless appealed
by any individual by 9:00 A.M. on Wednesday. August 3 Iy BB Appeals
must be in writing, signed and state reasons for appeal. if appeal is
filed, the City Council shall hear appeal on Monday, August B , 1980 ,
at 7:30 P.M. at the Monticello City Wall. Notice of any appeal shall appear
In the Monticello Times on Thursday, August 1980 ,
Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator
INDTRUCTIONS
1. Post an bulletin board.
2. Publish 7/21/88 G 7/28/88(taken to Times office at lust 2 days prior to
this date).
2. Walling tot
A. Applicant
S. Abutting property owners
C. Property owners within 330 fest
D. Other
a. Have Affidavit of Walling prepared, executed and flied.
S. Copy o7 notice to Planning Commission agenda file. Oary and Rick.
SIT.
RIVER ROAD
PLAZA
ro,
t GAS f /
"lip
CONC.
TIS.
�&ND CURB NO.
396065.41 LT.
'MOVAL
1
Oe LITERATE RD
END CURB SO. I "'"'--IN COMMON EXC
,391.23 RT.
\ �• r ` �i 1 STA. 391+50 rL C
/ NO cuv INF
/' 'q, F9115 X46 CS.P.-
1
.................
....... ,..!!.... _.. ...... ....
NO 6'E DDING
».......... ..».......» »..»..»............»... ......... ...........,...... .....................»�..........»,....».............. ...,..7...... .............. .............. ,.
q.....
.......................
..........»...........
»............ «», ..:.:: :: ............. «: .W,:»: .:.«:»:« " ;:::.:::,»
....................................................
;::.:::::.:::..:
.... :.... .....
..............:"..;.. ":::..'.....:':::,.:.:::::.::::::::::::::::::.'..':......::............
.................................'..''...' ....'.:,:.:....,'.:.............,........::::::::::::::::':::;.:..
B.'
NL
/a'
c
Ye
3-9 [C)A(e)
3-9 [C)8
(f) Not more than two (2) portable signs shall be
displayed at the same time.
(g) Hot more than two (2) attention -getting
devices shall be permitted to be displayed
in conjunction with any portable sign.
(h) A decorative attention -getting device may
bear the name of the businosn, but shall not
bear any service, product, price, etc.,
advertising message.
(i) permit fees shall be set by the City Council
and shall be payable upon application for
said permit. (Amendment No. 150)
S. All signs shall display, in a conspicuous manner,
the ownar's name, permit number, and data of
erection.
6. All height restrictions on signs shall include
height of sign structure.
7. In an district, any sortlon of any sign axceedinq_
two 12) emLara feet shall be set back fifteen (iS)
Leet Izrom env dight-of-vav fins and tan 0 Leet
from any residential (toned) property Lina.
S. Any sign now or hereafter existing which so Longer
advertises. or identifies a bona fids business
conducted. or a service rendered, or a product
sold, shell be removed by the owner, agent, or
person having the beneficial use and/or control
of the building or structure upon which the sign
may be Lound within tan (10) days after written
notice from the Building Inspector.
Planning Agenda - 8/2/88
IA. A Site Plan Review. Applicant, David Hornig. (G.A.)
Enclosed with this supplement is a copy of David Hornig's subsidized family
apartment building project to be known as "Lauring Green". The proposed
landscaping site plan as submitted, is different from the original site plan
which the Planning Commission and City Council had approved. The only change
is that they have relocated Buildings A and B, they have been switched. As the
plan shows now, they have split the 12 garden apartments units up into two 6
unit garden apartments and have placed them on the north side of the property
instead of on the west side of the property. Building A has been moved from
the north side of the property to the west side of the property. These changes
have not effected any minimum zoning requirements. The proposed landscaping
plan as presented does meet all of the minimum requirements of our landscaping
section of the ordinances.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the site plan and landscaping plan for the family subsidized
apartment project to be known as "Louring Green".
2. Deny the site plan and the landscaping plan for the family subsidized
apartment project to be known as "Louring Green".
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The site plan and landscaping plan as submitted does meet the minimum
requirements of the Monticello Landscaping ordinance.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Dopy of the location of the proposed site plan and landscaping plan request,
and copy of the site and landscaping plan.
IN
c
LAI
i�
� 1•=- � n 1 1
moi; i.
i
Planning Agenda - 8/2/88
2A. Review Proposed Ordinance Amendment on Landscaping Requirements. W.O.)
A. REFERENCE AMID BACKGROUND:
Following is a first draft of an amendment to the landscaping portion of the
zoning ordinance. The language changes stem from discussion conducted at the
joint meeting of the HRA/Planning Commission/Industrial Development Committee.
Highlighted on the attached pages are proposed additions/amendments to the
ordinance. The proposed amendments are designed to accomplish the following:
1) Provide flexibility by allowing landscaping to be expanded/developed as
perimeter of developed area expands.
2) Provides Council with the option of allowing phasing-in of landscaping
over three year time period thus reducing initial development cost.
The ordinance amendments as proposed do not accomplish the following:
1) Reduce landscaping requirements or attempt to differentiate requirements
for commercial property versus industrial property.
2) Ordinance amendment does not establish firm criteria for deciding which
developments will be allowed to phase installation of landscaping over a
three year period.
In order to give you the total picture regarding the landscaping requirement, I
included the entire section of the ordinance in your packet. Sections of the
ordinance proposed for amendments are underlined.
B. ACTION REQUESTED:
Review proposed ordinance and provide feedback to Staff for future action.
3. In all zoning districts the lot area remaining after
providing for off-street parking, off-street parking,
off-street loading, sidewalks, driveways, building
site and/or other requirements shall be planted and
maintained in grass sodding, shrubs or other
acceptable vegetation or treatment generally used in
landscaping. Fences or trees placed upon utility
easements are subject to removal if required for the
maintenance or improvement of the utility. Trees on
utility easements containing overhead wires shall not
exceed ten (10) feet in height.
(G) REQUIRED FENCING, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING:
The fencing and screening required by this subsection
shall be subject to Subsection (F) above and shall consist
of either a fence or a landscaped planting plan.
1. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this policy is
to establish minimum requirements and standards
relative to landscaping, buffering and screening to
be implemented concurrently with site plans approved
by the Cityr the standards and criteria shall be used
by City staff, Planning Commission and City Council
in the review and evaluation of such plans and
development proposals.
The objectives of these requirements are to establish
and maintain forestation of the Citys to provide
appropriate ground cover vegetation for controlled
soil erosions to enhance when necessary the natural
environment particularly in instances where the
natural environment is disturbed during the course of
developments and, to establish standards for
utilization of natural materials to achieve desired
screening and buffering.
This policy sets forth minimum requirements of
landscaping, reforestation and technical limitations
to assure that the result is consistent with
reasonable maintenance requirements on a long-term
basis and to assure that the results provided an
aesthetic urban environment.
DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLWS: Detailed landscape plans
shall be required in all cases where site plan
approval is specified by the Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Ordinance. The landscape plan should be
based upon the site plan designs submitted for
approval and, to assure clarity, it is required the
plan be produced on a separate sheet from that
containing grading, drainage, and utility plans.
0
--CQ
Detailed landscape plans shall include the following
information:
(a) GENERAL:
i.
Name and address of developer/owner.
11.
Name and address of architect/designer.
iii.
Date of plan preparation.
iv.
Dates and description of all revisions.
V.
Name of project or development.
vi.
Scale of plan (engineering scale only,
at 1 inch equals 50 feet or less).
vii.
North point indication.
(b) THE SITE ANALYSIS:
1.
Boundary lines of property with
dimensions based upon certified survey.
ii.
Name and alignment of proposed and
existing adjacent on-site streets.
G
iii.
Location of existing and proposed
utility rights-of-way, easements and
lines (water, gas, electric).
iv.
Location of existing and proposed
building.
V.
Topographic contours of the minimum
interval of 2 feet, extending at least
100 feet beyond the site boundaries.
vi.
Location of existing and proposed
parking facilities including curbing
detail and traffic island -delineators.
vii.
Location of existing and proposed water
bodies.
viii.
Location of existing and proposed
sidewalks, trail corridors and fire
lanes.
ix.
Other existing or proposed conditions
which would be expected to affect
landscaping.
X.
percentage of gross site area not
covered by structures and pavement.
�4, "�wy15 P/4"s/,o./9'r )
(c) LANDSCAPE DATE:
i. Planting schedule (table) containing
u symbols, quantities, common names,
botanical names, sizes of plant
material, root specification (b.r.,
B b B, potted, etc.) and special
planting instructions.
ii. Existing trees and schrubbery,
locations, common names and approximate
size.
iii. Planting detail (show all species to
scale at normal mature crown diameter or
spread for local hardiness zone.)
iv. Typical sections in details of fences,
tie walls, planter boxes, totlots,
picnic areas, berms and the like.
V. Typical sections of landscape islands
and planter beds with identification of
materials used.
vi. Details of planting beds and foundation
plantings.
vii. Note indicating how disturbed soil areas
will be restored through the use of
sodding, seeding or other techniques.
viii. Delineation of both sodded an seeded
areas with respective areas in square
feet.
ix. Coverage plan for underground irrigation
system, if any.
X. Exterior lighting plan.
(d) SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Where landscape or man-made
materials are used to provide ordinance or
policy -required screening from adjacent and
neighboring properties, a cross -through section
shall be provided showing the perspective of the
site from the neighboring property at the
property line elevation.
0
IL
(e) COPIES: The following copies shall be provided
in the following format:
i. Blue prints at full-scale and size as
the site plan.
ii. One 8 1/2" by 11" photopositive
reduction or one 8 1/2" x 11"
reproducible drawing which will provide
legible copies clearly representing all
details and design on the plan.
Otherwise, to assure legibility, 30
copies of the proposed landscape plan,
folded to approximate 9" x 12" shall be
submitted) petitioners may submit both
reduced and larger size legible copies
to assure such plans are available to
Planning Commissioners and Council
Members.
3. ELEMENTS OF LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND MINIMUM NUMBER OF
TREES:
(a) Elements of landscape design may include:
i. Existing topographical and vegetative
featured
ii. Berming
iii. Planting, including the required minimum
number of overstory trees, understory
trees, shrubs, flowers, and ground cover
materials.
(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. Oomercial, Industrial, Institutional
sites shall contain at a minimum the
greater of one (1) tree per 1,000 square
feet of gross building floor area, or,
one (1) tree per 50 lineal feet of site
perimeter. when total Property area far
exceeds building or developed area, site
perimeter shall be aerinea as tnat area
which extends 30' beyond side and rear
yard seeb6ck of parkin areae and or 30'
beyond aide and rear yard setback of A,,,,„�/,..,�•r
primary or accessory structure.
ii. Multi -residential sites shall contain at
a minimum one (1) tree per dwelling
unit.
(c) An equivalent of up to fifty percent (50%) of
the required number of overstory 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 overstory trees
be less than fifty percent (506) 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 shall be subject to
approval by the City ODuncil.
4. MINIMUM SIZE OF PLANTINGS:
(a) Required trees shall be of the following minimum
planting size:
i. Deciduous trees - 2.5 inches diameter as
measured six inches above the ground.
ii. Coniferous trees - 6 feet in height.
(b) A minimum of fifteen (15) percent of the
required minimum number of trees for
multi -residential developments shall be
long-lived hardwood deciduous trees, 3.5 inches
in diameter as measured six inches off the
ground.
(c) Evergreen shrubs used for screening purposes
including those used in conjunction with berming
shall be a minimum of 21 inches in height.
5. SPECIES:
(a) All trees used in site developments shall be
indigenous to the appropriate hardiness zone and
physical characteristics of the site.
(b) All deciduous trees proposed to satisfy the
minimum requirements of this policy shall be
long-lived hardwood species.
(c) The complement of trees fulfilling the
requirements of this policy shall be not less
than 25 percent dociduous and not leso than 25
percent coniferous.
1
6. SODDING AMID GROUND COVER: All areas not otherwise
improved in accordance with approved site plans shall
be sodded. Exceptions to this criterion may be
recommended by the Planning Commission and approved
by the City Council as following:
(a) Seeding of future expansion areas as shown on
approved plans.
(b) Undisturbed area containing existing viable
natural vegetation which can be maintained free
of foreign and noxious plant materials.
(c) Areas designated as open space or future
expansion area properly planted and maintained
with prairie grass.
(d) use of mulch materials such as bark, rock mulch
over 4 mil poly and wood chips in support of
schrubs and foundation plantings.
7. SLOPES AND BERM:
(a) Final slope grades steeper than the ratio of
3.5:1 will not be permitted without special
approval treatment such as terracing or
retaining walls.
(b) Berming used to provide required effective
screening of parking lots and other open areas
shall have slope ratio of 3:1.
8. WOODLAND AND PRESERVATION POLICY AND CREDIT:
(a) It is the policy of the City of Monticello to
preserve the natural forest and woodland areas
throughout the City, and with respect to
specific site development to retain, as far as
practicable, substantial tree stands which
should be incorporated into the site.
(b) Credit for the retention of existing trees which
are of acceptable species, size and location may
be given to satisfy the minimum number
requirements eat forth in this policy and in the
City Ordinances.
(c) (There conventional multi -residential projects
clearly demonstrate affirmative design efforts
toward the preservation and enhancement of
desirable natural site characteristics, up to
500 square feet per dwelling unit may be
subtracted from the minimum area requirements,
so as to allow up to not more than one dwelling
unit per acre.
( l/a cX,-7es V"-4:'- r9a7Pi C
(d) M- ere commercial, industrial and institutional
uses clearly demonstrate affirmative design
efforts toward the preservation and enhancement
a of desirable natural site characteristics,
ordinance required paved parking spaces may be
reduced and installation deferred until such
time as the need for the full complement of
parking. The need shall be determined in
conformance with the "proof of parking" plan so
approved by the City.
9. USE OF LANDSCAPING FOR SCREENING: Where natural
materials such as trees or hedges are approved in
lieu of required screening by means of wall or
fences, the density and species of such plantings
shall be such to achieve 90 percent opacity
year -around.
10. USE OF LANDSCAPING FOR SCREENING - INTERSTATE HIGHWAY
EX?OSURE:
(a) The City of Monticello recognizes the value of
Interstate Highway exposure to commercial and
industrial developers. The City also wishes to
avoid the undesirable monotony of fully exposed
building sides and rears, and wishes to provide
natual visual variety to the travelers on the
Interstate. Natural visual variety will
alleviate the boredom for travelers and will
project a clean and pleasant image of the City
of Monticello. Commercial and industrial
developers of lots/parcels having substantial
exposure to the Interstate shall be required to
landscape/screen to provide 606 opacity
year -around, at least 806 of said screening to
be of natural materials.
(b) Residential development on lots/parcels having
substantial exposure to the Interstate shall be
required to landscape/screen to provide 90
percent opacity year -around, at least 756 of
said screening to be of natural materials.
(c) All landscape/ocreoning plane for lots and
parcels having substantial exposure to the
Interstate Highway must give design
consideration to the differences in elevation
between the Interstate and the parcel subject to
development, undorstanding that parcels lowor
than the Interstate necessarily require taller
screening to b9 effective in providing visual
variety and the required percentage of opacity.
L
11. PARKING 10T LANDSCAPING: To avoid the undesirable
monotony, heat and wind associated with large parking
lots, such lots shall have a minimum of one internal
landscaped area/island-delineator in addition to any
required traffic safety island, for each additional
5,000 square feet of off-street parking space after
the first 5,000 square feetr such islands shall be
equal in size to a single parking space and shall be
bounded by concrete curbing. Trees may be installed
in approved traffic safety islands used to delineate
parking spaces from driving aisles and in other
area. The internal landscaped island(s) required
above may be deleted if the aggregate area and trees
of individual requirement.
12. AGREEMENT AND BOND:
(a) An agreement will be signed between the City and
the owner which states that in exchange for
issuance of a building permit the owner will
construct, install, and maintain all items shown
on the approved plan and that he will replace
and/or correct any deficiencies or defaults that
occur in the plan for a period of one complete
year or two cwrtplete growing seasons subsequent
to the installation of the landscaping plan. A
landscaping performance bond will be submitted
along with the agreement at this time. Upon _
petition by developer, the City Council may
0
allow pnasing-in or installation of r iced
ti landscaping over a period of three years in
order to reouc�einiEial developioenf cos—Es:—kms
oirt?ie-phased instailetion oiianascaping to be
ncorp&atea into the agreement.
(b) After one complete year or two growing seasons
if all the commitments are met, then steps may
be taken to release both the bond and contract
agreement.
According to ordinance the developer/owner to
responsible for maintaining the landscaping in a
neat and proper fashion.
Further, the screening is expected to remain
effective continually, so nay plant material
which dies or ceases to function as a screen
shall be replaced or reinforced immediately to
conform to City Ordinance.
17. A required screening fence shall be constructed of
masonry, brick, wood or steel. Such fence shall
provide a solid screening effect and not exceed eight
(8) feet in height or be loss than six (6) feet in
'I height. The design and materials used in constructing
a required screening fence shall be subject to the
approval of the Planning Commission based upon a
recommendation by the City Engineer and Building
Inspector.
(H) GLARE: Any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking
area, sign or other structure, shall be arranged as to
T deflect light away from any adjoining residential zone or
from the public streets. Direct or sky -reflected glare,
where from flood -lights or from high temperature processes
such as combustion or welding shall not be directed into
any adjoining property. The source of lights shall be
hooded or controlled in some manner so as not to cast
light on adjacent property. Bare incandescent light bulbs
shall not be permitted in view of adjacent property or
public right-of-way. Any light or combination of lights
which cast light on a public street shall not exceed one
(1) foot candle (meter reading) as measured from the
center line of said street. Any light or combination of
lights which cast light on residential property shall not
exceed 0./ foot candles (meter reading) as measured from
said property.
(I) SMOKE: The emission of smoke by any use shall be in
coupliance with and regulated by the State of Minnesota
Pollution Control Standards, Minnesota Regulation APC
1-15.
(J) DOST AND OTHER PARTICULATED MATTER: The emission of dust,
fly ash, or other particulated matter by any use shall be
in coupiance with the regulated by the State of Minnesota ,
Pollution Control Standards, Minnesota Regulation APC
1-14.
(K) NOISE:
1. All noise shall be muffled so as not to be
objectionable due to intermittence, beat frequency or
shrillness and as measured at any property line,
shall not exceed the following intensity in relation
to sound frequency
C
Planning Agenda - 8/2/88
3A. Review Proposed Ordinance Amendment on Regulating Type of Exterior Building
Construction. (J.0.1
The Industrial Development oomoittee received the proposed amendment to the
zoning ordinance pertaining to Industrial Building Restrictions and requested
additional time for review. I will be presenting their comments to you at the
next meeting of the Planning Commission.