Planning Commission Agenda Packet 10-02-1990AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, October 2, 1990 - 7:00 p.m.
Members: Dan McConnon, Richard Martie, Richard Carlson, Cindy
Lemm, Jon Bogart
7:00 pm 1. Call to order.
7:02 pm 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held
September 4, 1990.
7:04 pm 3. Public Hearing --A request to amend Section 3-5 (D)
9 (Q) to all driveway access openings shall require
a culvert unless the lot is served by storm sewer
or is determined unnecessary by the Building
Inspector. Size of culverts shall be determined by
the Building Inspector but shall be a minimum of
fifteen (15) inches in diameter. Applicant, City
of Monticello.
7:14 pm 4. Public Hearing --A request to amend Section 3-1 (I)
of the zoning ordinance by adding the following
paragraph: 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, color, or design of the
lawful non -conforming sign. Applicant, City of
Monticello.
7:39 pm S. A Continued Public Hearing --A conditional use
request to allow used automobile/light truck sales
in a B-3 (highway business) zone. Applicant,
Hoglund Transportation.
7:59 pm 6. A Continued Public Hearing --A variance request to
allow less than the minimum 4,500 square feet of
sales and display area. Applicant, Hoglund
Transportation.
8:14 pm 7. Review preliminary proposal for development of a
church facility in an R-1 zone. Applicant, A
Glorious Church.
Additional Information items
8:20 pm 1. A simple subdivision request to subdivide an
existing unplatted lot into two residential lots.
Applicant, Michael Robinson. Council action:
Approved with conditions as per Planning Commission
recommendation.
Planning Commission Agenda
October 2, 1990
l Page 2
8:22 pm 2. A variance request to allow a subdivided lot to
have less than the minimum lot width requirement.
Applicant, Michael Robinson. Council action: No
action required, as the request did not come before
them.
8:24 pm 3. A variance request to allow additional pylon sign
height than the maximum 22 -foot height allowed.
Applicant, Mark Anderson. Council actions No
action required, as the request did not come before
them.
8:26 pm 4. A variance request to allow no curbing in certain
areae of a parking lot. A request to allow less
than the minimum required tree planting size.
Applicant, Tappers, Inc. Council action: No
action required, as the request did not come before
them.
A request to install in areas designated as open
space or future expansion areas properly planted
and maintained with prairie grass. Applicant,
Tappers, Inc. Council action: Approved with
conditions.
6:28 pm 5. A conditional request to allow expansion of an
outdoor rental use in a 8-3 (highway business)
zone. Applicant, General Rental. Council actions
Approved with conditions.
8:30 pm 6. A conditional use request to allow used
automobile/light truck sales in a 8-3 (highway
business) zone. Applicant, Hoglund Transportation.
Council actions No action required, as the request
did not come before them.
8:32 pm 7. A variance request to allow lees than the minimum
4, 900 square foot sales and display area.
Applicant, Hoglund Transportation. Council action:
No action required, as the request did not come
before them.
8:34 pm 6. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello
Planning Commission meeting for Wednesday,
November 7, 1990, at 7:00 p.m.
6:36 pm 9. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, September 4, 1990 - 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Dan McConnon, Richard Martie, Richard Carlson,
Cindy Lemm, Jon Bogart
Members Absent: None
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Dan McConnon at
7:03 p.m.
Motion was made by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Richard Carlson, to
approve the minutes of the regular meeting held August 7,
1990. Motion carried unanimously with Dan McConnon
abstaining.
3. Public hearing --A simple subdivision request to subdivide an
existing unplatted residential lot into two residential lots.
Applicant, Michael Robinson.
Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members and the public Mr. Robinson's simple
subdivision request to subdivide an existing unplatted tract
of land into two residential unplatted tracts of land. Both
Parcels A and B would have more than the minimum lot square
l� footage requirement of 12,000 square feet, and Parcel B would
have the minimum lot width on a public right-of-way of
80 feet. Parcel A would have 70 feet of lot width, which is
leas than the required minimim lot width on a public right-of-
way. At the front setback line of Parcel A, which would be
the front most portion of the house, there would be 66 feet of
lot width. Six-foot drainage and utility easements are shown
on the side lot lines of the newly created parcels, and
12 -foot drainage and utility easements are shown on the front
and rear of the proposed subdivided parcels. Parcel A is not
served by a city water and sewer stub at this time. If one is
to be put in, the City would not be responsible for the
installation.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Mike Robinson explained that his family is currently
living in the existing two-bedroom house. He and his wife
have three children, and it is quite crowded in the existing
house. His request is to subdivide the existing parcel into
two parcels and build another house on the adjoining parcel to
the mouth or to sell the residential parcel. The lots are
considerably larger than the platted 66' x 169' standard inner
city lots. Mr. Robinson also explained he would be willing
Page 1
P-1
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/4/90
to record with the simple subdivision that any house built on
Parcel A would be within the minimum setback requirements.
Mr. Robinson also indicated he would have no problem with
removing the shed on Parcel A within 30 days of the sale of
the lot.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and
asked for input from the Planning Commission members.
Planning Commission members questioned whether the creation of
a smaller lot would diminish the aesthetics or property values
of the existing houses situated on larger lots across the
street.
With no further input from the Planning Commission members, a
motion was made by Richard Carlson, seconded by Richard
Martie, to approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide
an existing unplatted residential lot into two residential
lots with the following conditions:
a. The simple subdivision request le to be recorded
within 30 days from the September 10, 1990, City
Council meeting.
b. The drainage and utility easements are to be
recorded within 30 days from the September 10,
1990, City Council meeting.
C. A document is be recorded indicating that Parcel A
is not served by city water and sewer service, and
the City will not be responsible for putting one
In.
d. A document Is be recorded indicating that if a new
house is built on Parcel A, it will meet all the
minimum setback requirements.
e. A document is be recorded indicating that if
Parcel A is sold, the existing shed located on
Parcel A is to be removed within 30 days of the
Is.
Motion carried unanimously.
Pago 2
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/4/90
Public hearina--A variance request to allow a subdivided lot
to have less than the minimum lot width requirement.
Applicant, Michael Robinson.
Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, explained to Planning
Commission members and the public Mr. Robinson's variance
request to allow less than the minimum lot width on a public
right-of-way. As shown on the enclosed site plan, there is
70 feet of lot frontage at the front property line; and at the
minimum front yard setback requirement, which is in line with
the front most portion of the existing house located on
Parcel B, the lot width would be 68 feet. The standard lot
width of the platted inner city lots is 66 feet. When the
ordinance was amended, the City cited problems with the
smaller lot width; therefore, the minimum lot width was
increased to 80 feet.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the public hearing.
There being no input from the public, Chairperson Dan McConnon
then closed the public hearing and turned the meeting to
discussion amongst Planning Commission members. Planning
Commission members recognized that the lot width was
considerably lose than our current 80 -foot minimum
requirement, but it is more than the minimum lot width that
was required when the original lots were platted within the
city. If the applicant would be willing to have a document
recorded stating that any house built would be within the
minimum setback requirements, they did not see any problem
with granting the variance.
Therefore, a motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by
Cindy Lemm, to approve the variance request to allow a
subdivided lot to have less than the minimum lot width
requirement. Notion carried unanimously. Reason for
approvals Due to the increased square footage of Parcel A
(16,430 sq ft) from the minimum 12,000 sq ft requirement, the
impact has been lessened, therefore supporting approval of the
variance request.
Public hearin_a--A variance request to allow additional i,Ylon
sign height then the maximum 22 -foot pylon height allowed.
Applicant, Nark Anderson.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to
Planning Commission members and the public Nr. Anderson's
roquost to be allowed additional pylon sign height over the
maximum allowed, which should have been 32 feet rather than
22 feet, as Mr. Anderson's property lies within the freeway
bonus 800 feet from the freeway right-of-way. Mr. Anderson's
Page 3
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/4/90
proposal was for a 13 -foot height variance for a total height
of 45 feet. Mr. O'Neill explained to Planning Commission
members the City Council action that was taken on April 10,
1989, to reaffirm the maximum amounts allowed in the
800 lineal feet from the I-94 area as follows: The maximum
pylon sign square footage to remain at 200 square feet, and
the maximum height to remain at 32 feet above the public
right-of-way from which it receives its major exposure, and
the number of pylon signs be limited to one sign per property.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the meeting for input
from the public. Mr. Mark Anderson, applicant, was present to
explain to Planning Commission members and the public his
rationale for granting approval of the variance, citing other
instances where additional height for pylon signs was granted
for fast food places, convenience stores, motels, and gasoline
service stations. He indicated the precedent had already been
set, and he was merely asking to be treated the same. He
explained that a good share of his business would be in the
form of 200 or more new people per day coming to the Subway
Shop to eat. The intent wasn't to attract patrons from other
eating establishments or local residents but to attract people
traveling on the freeway that are looking for a Subway Shop in
which to stop and eat. Mr. Anderson acknowledged that his
primary exposure would be the east bound I-94 traffic and the
people exiting the first exit off I-94, and he acknowledged
the exposure that would be gained from his sign if placed at
the 45 -foot height. He also explained that some exposure
would be gained from the west bound traffic on I-94 if the
sign was placed at the 45 -foot height.
With no further input from the public, Chairperson Dan
McConnon opened the meeting for discussion amongst Planning
Commission members. Planning Commission members felt
sympathetic to Mr. Anderson's request to have additional pylon
sign height as do other businesses in the area.
Unfortunately, the Planning Commission and the City Council
reaffirmed their ordinance requirements in regard to the
maximum amounts allowed in the 800 lineal feet from the I-94
area as follows: Maximum sign square footage remain at
200 sq ft; the maximum sign height remain at 32 feet above the
public right-of-way from which it receives its major exposure;
and the maximum number of pylon signs be limited to one sign
per property.
Page 4
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/4/90
Therefore, a motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by
Jon Bogart, to deny the variance request to allow additional
pylon sign height over the maximum 32 feet allowed. Motion
carried unanimously. Reason for denial: The Planning
Commission would like to stick to the City Council's decision
made on April 10, 1989, to reaffirm the maximum amounts
allowed in the 800 lineal feet from the I-94 area, as no
hardship was sufficiently demonstrated.
Public hearing --A variance request to allow no curbing in a
certain area of a parkinq lot. A request to allow less than
the minimum required tree plantinq size. Applicant, Tappers,
Inc.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to
Planning Commission members and the public Nr. Tapper's
request to allow no curbing in a certain area of a parking
lot. The area in question would be for parking lot expansion
at some point in time in the future.
Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the public hearing. There
being no input from the public, he closed the public hearing
and asked for discussion amongst Planning Commission members.
Planning Commission members agreed that this would be
acceptable as long as it did not affect the drainage. The
City's consulting engineering firm, OSM, reviewed this request
and felt drainage would not be affected by no curbing in this
area. They also discussed approving the variance for up to
three years. If at that time there was no building addition
or parking lot expansion, the applicant would come back for
review of the variance request and ask for additional time.
Motion was made by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Richard Carlson, to
approve the variance request to allow no curbing in a certain
area of a parking lot with the applicant to come back within
three years, September 1993, to renew his request if the
applicant has not expanded his parking lot. Notion carried
unanimously. Reason for approvals The City's consulting
engineer, after review of the drainage as shown, felt that
there would be no adverse effects by no curbing in this
portion of the parking lot.
Nr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to
Planning Commission members and the public Nr. Tapper's
request to allow lose than the minimum required overstory tree
planting size. The total number of trees that would be less
than the minimum 2-1/2 inch diameter would be 14. The total
number of trees that are required to be planted is 24.
Mr. Tapper is proposing to plant 28 total trees.
Page 5
O
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/4/90
Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the meeting for input
from the public. Mr. Tapper indicated they would like to have
more trees than what is required to better complement the
landscaping layout as presented.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and
asked for further discussion amongst Planning Commission
members. Planning Commission members felt there would be no
problem with granting the request if the developer is willing
to put in more trees than the minimum required and they are
only 1/2 -inch in diameter less than the minimum requirement.
Motion was made by Jon Bogart, seconded by Richard Hartle, to
approve the variance request to allow lees than the minimum
required tree planting size. Motion carried unanimously.
Reason for approval: Because the applicant is proposing to
plant more trees than required, and because there is only a
1/2 -inch difference between what is required and the diameter
of the trees to be planted, the impact, if any, as the trees
develop would be very minimal.
Exception to all areas not otherwise improved in accordance
with approved site plans shall be sodded. 11 The applicant is
proposina undisturbed areas =ontainina existing viable and
natural vegetation which can be maintained free of foreign and
noxious plant materials. 2) The areae designated as open
space or future expansion areas properly Dlanted and
maintained with prairie grass_
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to
Planning Commission members and the public Mr. Tapper's
request to allow certain areas of their open apace to be
planted and maintained in native prairie grass and wild flower
plantings. Mr. O'Neill referred to Mr. Kevin Norby, the
landscape architect for Tapper's, Inc., to explain the areae
in which they are proposing to plant the prairie grass and
wild flowers.
Mr. Norby explained to Planning Commission members and the
public the landscaping plan which his firm has designed for
Tapper's, Inc., for planting certain areas of the site with a
native prairie grass and different species of wild flowers.
Mr. Norby highlighted the areas in which the proposed
plantings were to take place and the areas that would be
planted under the conventional method of shrubs and
landscaping rocks, sod, or seed. Mr. Norby indicated the
company which would be supplying and installing the native
Page 6
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/4/90
prairie and wild flower seedings would be Prairie
Restorations, Inc., of Princeton, Minnesota. They also have
a contract for one year's maintenance of the plantings once
they are installed.
There being no further input from the public, Chairperson Dan
McConnon then closed the public hearing and asked for
discussion amongst the Planning Commission members. The
Planning Commission members were concered about how the native
prairie grasses and wild flowers were to be planted and
maintained and the heights which would be achieved at maximum
planting height. Another concern was how these plantings
would reflect our current public nuisance ordinance regarding
maximum grass height.
There being no further discussion amongst the Planning
Commission members, a motion was made by Richard Martie,
seconded by Richard Carlson, to recommend to the City Council
the planting of native prairie grass and species of wild
flowers in certain areas of the Tappers, Inc., building site
as defined in their landscaping plan. Notion carried
unanimously.
7. Public hearing --A conditional use request to allow expansion
of an outdoor rental use in a B-3 (fiighwav business) zone.
Applicant, General Rental.
Nr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to
Planning Commission members and the public Mr. Chihos' request
to expand an outdoor rental use in a B-3 (highway business)
zone. awhile showing a video of the property, Mr. O'Neill
explained where Mr. Chihos has expanded his display of
equipment into the green area and into the public right-of-way
in front of his lot. In reviewing Mr. Chihos' original
conditional use request, there were very few, if any,
conditions other than what was required of him as conditions
to his conditional use permit. Mr. O'Neill indicated that
possibly there should be some additional conditions added to
Mr. Chihos' conditional use request for expansion of his
rental business. Under condition 01, the outside services,
sales, and equipment rental connected with a principal use is
limited to 30% of the gross floor area, which is 710 aq ft.
The area Mr. Chihos would like to use for outside display of
rental equipment would be approximately 5,500 sq ft;
therefore, he is requesting an additional 4,780 sq ft.
Page 7
9
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/4/90
Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the meeting for input
from the public. Mr. Ron Chihos, part owner of General
Rental, explained to Planning Cosmission members his
conditional use request to expand his rental business in the
B-3 (highway business) zone. Mr. Chihos indicated the
additional 25 feet of lot width on the northerly portion of
the property would allow the existing U—Haul trucks and
trailers to be parked at an angle on this 25 -foot portion
which he is purchasing from the owners of the adjoining
property. Also, by creating this 25 -foot area for parking the
U -Haul trucks and trailers, it would also open up the area for
parking and within his parking lot. The biggest problem that
Mr. Chihos encounters when his customers pick up or drop off
equipment and have a trailer behind their vehicle is that it's
very tough to maneuver and get out of the parking lot.
Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and
asked for discussion amongst Planning Commission members.
Planning Commission members discussed how the green area has
been diminshed because it has been used for parking rental
equipment. If the area is to be opened up and returned to a
green area, it should also meet the minioum requirements of
landscaping. The minimum number of overstory trees to be
planted would be S with the 25 -foot lot expansion. The
curbing in the easterly portion of the lot could be expanded
to within 5 feet of the property line to allow display of
rental equipment as long as it did not use any of the off-
street parking requirements.
There being no further input from the public, motion was made
by Richard Martie, seconded by Jon Bogart, to approve the
conditional use request to allow expansion of an outdoor
rental use in a B-3 (highway business) some with the following
conditions.
1. The 5 -foot green area is to be maintained with no
parking of rental equipment in the 5 -foot green
area between the property line and the parking lot
curbing.
2. A minimum of five overstox-y trees are to be
planted, preferably along the northerly property
line.
3. The area for display of the rental equipment is to
be hard surfaced.
Page 8
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/4/90
4. The square footage of the rental storage area is to
be increased from the minimum amount of 720 sq ft
to 5,500 sq ft of outdoor rental display square
footage area.
Motion carried unanimously.
S. Public hearinq--A conditional use request to allow a used
automobile/liaht truck sales in a B-3 (hiahwav business) zone.
Applicant, Hoglund Transportation.
Mr. O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members the applicant did not supply the
information as needed in a timely manner and asked that the
public hearing be opened and continued.
It was the consensus of the five Planning Commission members
that the item be continued until the next Planning Commission
meeting in October.
9. Public hearing --A variance reauest to allow less than the
minimum 4,500 sg ft sales and displav area. Applicant,
Hoglund Transportation.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to
Planning Commission members the applicant had failed to submit
the information needed in a timely manner and asked that the
public hearing be opened and continued until the next meeting
In October.
The consensus of the five Planning Commission members was to
open the public hearing and continue it until the October
Planning Commission meeting.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
I. Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to
Planning Commission members a proposed amendment to the sign
ordinance. He explained that he would like a recommendation
from the Planning Commission members to pass on to the City
Council as to whether or not the sign ordinance should be
amended. The ordinance section for Planning Commission
members to consider amending would be the portion in which an
existing non -conforming sign cannot be changed to another non-
conforming sign. Under the current sign ordinance, the
existing sign faces can be removed and a new one put in place
even though it is not the same company or business that is
changing the sign face. This is allowed under the permit
Page 9
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/4/90
process. The proposed ordinance amendment would require that
if only a new face was installed on an existing non -conforming
sign, the non -conforming sign would have to be brought into
conformance or a permit would not be granted. Much discussion
centered around if this was actually a permit requirement or
if someone could go ahead and do it without a permit.
The general consensus of the Planning Commission members
present was to propose an ordinance amendment that a permit
would be required if the sign face is changed on a non-
conforming sign, and no permit would be allowed for the sign
face change unless they go through the variance process or the
non -conforming sign is brought into compliance prior to
changing the sign face.
Consideration of a variance request which would allow a
parking perimeter to be established without curb in a location
within 20 feet of an adjoining parcel. Applicant, Martie's
Farm Service. Council action: No action required, as the
request did not come before them.
3. Consideration of a variance request to allow development of a
driveway area without hard surface. Applicant, Martie's Farm
Service. Council actions Denied the request; hard surfacing
to be required in the far east portion of the loading/
unloading area.
4. Consideration of a conditional use permit allowing a reduction
in parking lot design requirements. Applicant, Martie'e Farm
Service. Council action: Approved with conditions .
S. Consideration of approval of a preliminary plat of the
Sandberg East Second Addition, which is a replat of the
Sandberg East subdivision. Applicant, John Sandberg. Council
actions Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
6. Motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Richard
Carlson, to set the next tentative date for the Iionticello
Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, October 2, 1990,
7:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously with Cindy Lemm absent.
Motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Jon Bogart, to
adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously with
Cindy Lemm absent. The meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/
Gary .Neeon
Zoning Administrator
Page 10 0
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/2/90
3. Public Nearing --A repuest to amend Section 3-5 M 9 tot
All driveway access openings shall require a culvert unless
the lot is served by storm sewer or is determined unnecessary
by the Building InspQeector. Sine of culverts shall be
determined by the Building Inspector but shall be a minimum of
fifteen (15) inches in diameter. Applicant. City of
Monticello. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The proposed ordinance amendment would increase the minimum
size of culverts under driveways from twelve (12) inches in
diameter to a minimum of fifteen (15) inches in diameter.
This matter comes before you as a housekeeping matter needed
to update our ordinance to meet our new minimum requirements.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONSt
1. Approve the ordinance amendment to increase the minimum
culvert size to fifteen (15) inches in diameter.
2. Deny the ordinance amendment to increase the minimum
culvert size to fifteen (15) inches in diameter.
C. STAFF RECOWENDATION:
The staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendment to
increase the minimum culvert size from twelve (12) inches in
diameter to fifteen (15) inches in diameter. As development
occurs and culverts are needed for driveways, we feel the
minimum size needed to handle any type of minimal drainage
will be fifteen (15) inches in diameter.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the ordinance section to be amended.
C
3-5 [D)9(q) 3-5 [D]9(s)
(q) ALL DRIVEWAY ACCESS OPENINGS shall require a
culvert unless the lot is served by storm
sewer or is determined unnecessary by the
Building Inspector. Size of culvert shall be
determined by Building Inspector but shall be
a minimum of twelve (12) inches in diameter.
(r) CURBING:
i. All commercial and industrial off-street
parking areas and driveways in commercial
areas shall have a six (6) inch
nonsurmountable continuous concrete curb
around the perimeter of the parking area
and driveways.
ii. All off-street parking in the I-1 and 1-2
districts shall have an insurmountable
curb barrier which, if not constructed of
six (6) inch continuous concrete curbing,
shall require prior approval from the
Planning Commission and City Council.
Driveways in the I-1 and I-2 districts
shall have a six ( 6 ) inch insurmountable
continuous concrete curb along its
perimeter.
iii. All curb designs and materials shall be
approved by the City Engineer.
EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (s) Stall Aisle and
Driveway Design Conditional Use Permit.
(#194, 1/9/90)
(s) STALL AISLE AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT:
Stall aisle and driveway design requirements
as noted in (k) Surfacing, (o) Curbing and
Landscaping, and (r) Curbing, may be lessened
subject to the following conditions:
L. Any reduction in requirements requires
completion of the conditional use permit
process outlined in Chapter 22 of this
ordinance.
IL. Final approval of parking and driveway
drainage plans associated with
conditional use permit request shall be
provided in writing by the City Engineer.
Engineering expenses greater than portion
of building per:: fee allocated for
engineer pian review shall be paid by
applicant prior to occupancy of
structure.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/2/90
4. Public Nearing --A request to amend Section 3-1 (I) of the
zonina ordinance by adding the followina paraaraph: Normal
maintenance, necessary non-structural reDairs. and incidental
alteration of a lawful non -conforming scan includes repair or
maintenance of existina lettering done without chanaina the
subiect, form. color, or design of the lawful non -conforming
Sian. ADDlicant. Citv of Monticello. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall, this item was discussed at the previous meeting
of the Planning Commission, at which time the Planning
Commission was informed that the City is unable to enforce the
provision of the ordinance that prohibits changing of non-
conforming signs because of contradictory language within the
ordinance. In response to this information, staff was
directed by the Planning Commission to develop an ordinance
amendment that would eliminate the contradiction and thus
allow the City to enforce the provision of the ordinance that
prohibits changes to non -conforming signs. Such an amendment
has been created and is attached for your review. The City
Attorney has reviewed the amendment and has indicated that the
amendment will close the loophole In the ordinance.
The ordinance amendment closes the loophole by providing
language that specifies or defines allowable maintenance to a
non -conforming sign. Anything done to a lawful non -conforming
sign that is not consistent with maintenance as defined in the
amendment would be considered a "change" which is not allowed
by ordinance. Please see the amendment for further detail.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve amendment to zoning ordinance as
proposed.
If the Planning Commission is comfortable with the notion
that lawful non -conforming signs or sign systems should
not be allowed to "change" without conforming to the
ordinance, then this amendment should be approved.
2. Notion to deny amendment to zoning ordinance as proposed.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
If the Planning Commission wishes to close the loophole that
now allows non -conforming signs to be changed, then this
amendment should be adopted.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed ordinance amendment.
3-1 [D] f.� i\ I��I• Ord' nd ICC -- -
(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 ouch movement
shall bring the non-conformance into compliance
with the requirements of this Ordinance.
(E] 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.
(P) 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.
(C] 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
valuo, said value to be determined by the City
or County Assessor, then without further action
by the Council, 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 atoning regulations for the district
In which such land and buildings are located.
Any building which is damaged to an extent of
Leon 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.
LH] Whenever a lawful non-conforming use of a structure
or land is discontinued for a period of six (B)
months, any future use of said structure or
land shall be made to conform with the provialons
of this Ordinance.
[ 1 J Normal maintenance of a building or other structure
containing or related to a lawful non-conforming
use is permitted, including necessary non-structural
repairs and incidental alteration whish do not
physically extend or intensify the non-conforming
use.
3-1 [I]
0
Ora�, amendmcnt
ORDINANC! AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS THAT ORDINANCE
SECTION 3-1 (I] OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE BE AMENDED TO READ AS
FOLLOWS:
3-1: NON -CONFORMING BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, AND USES:
(I] Normal maintenance of a building or other structure
containing or related to a lawful non -conforming
use is permitted, including necessary non-
structural repairs and incidental alteration which
do not physically extend or intensify 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, color, or design of the lawful non-
conforming sign.
Adopted this day of October, 1990.
City Administrator
I
Mayor
O
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/2/90
5. A continued public hearing --A conditional use request to allow
used automobile/110t truck sales in a B-] (highway business)
zone. Ailolicant. Hoalund Transportation. (J.0.) AND
6. A continued public hearing --A variance re(Luest to allow less
than the minimum 4.600 square feet of safes and display area.
A�Dlicant. Hoglund Transportation. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Attached is a portion of the information regarding the two
Items referenced above. Due to unexpected ciraumatances, this
agenda supplement couldn't be written on Friday. we will
deliver the additional information as soon as possible on
Monday. Thank you for your understanding.
U
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/2/90
5. Public Hearing --Consideration of a conditional use request to
allow used automobile/light truck sales in a B-3 (highway,
business) sone. Applicant. Hoolund Transportation. (R.W.)
AND
6. Public Hearin --A variance request to allow less than the
minimum 4,500 square feet of sales and display area.
Applicant. Hoolund Transportation. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Hoglund Transportation requests a conditional use permit which
would allow establishment of an automobile sales lot along
Oakwood Drive. The location of the used car sales lot would
actually be on the property that contains the Hoglund
residence; however, the sales lot is proposed as a new use
associated with the Hoglund Transportation operation.
Along with the conditional use permit request is a request for
variances which would allow operation of a sales office with
less than the minimum requirement of 4,500 square feet and
allow establishment of a sales lot area with less than the
required 22,500 square feet of area. The existing Hoglund
Transportation office would also be the site of the sales
office. The size of the structure is approximately
3,000 square feet in total area. The parking lot area proposed
is 58' X 581which equals 3,360, which is significantly smaller
than the required area of 22,500 required by ordinance. This
provision of the ordinance was probably established to limit
development and proliferation of "pop stand" sales lots and
acts to limit auto sales to large sites. This condition
limits the ability of commercial properties to be used for
dual purposes and would eliminate the potential for use of
"extra" property as a sales lot. Approval of these variances
would allow any B-3 property with 3,600 square feet of
available area to convert to an auto sales lot.
BITE PLAN REVIEW
The site plan presented calls for development of a sales lot
in front of an existing garage. The lot would have the
capacity to store approximately 10 cars. Hoglund has proposed
to pave the sales lot area per city requirements. In
addition, Hoglund will be installing a culvert under the drive
leading to the Hoglund offices. Installation of the culvert
will eliminate the potential of flooding of the parking area
and will allow water from the east to be conveyed to a
drainage Swale leading to the freeway ditch. The plan also
calls for reservation of two customer parking spaces.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/1/90
The site plan does not show curb and gutter, which is required
by ordinance. This matter can be resolved by the applicant
amending the site plan to include curb or by obtaining a
variance to the curb requirement.
At first blush, despite the site area variances and parking
dilemma, the above plan appears to be reasonable, and Planning
Commission may wish to accept the plan while adding a few
conditions as listed in alternative 01. On the other hand,
the concept of expanding the Hoglund Transportation operation
as proposed does conflict with rules governing expansion of
the operation of a lawful non -conforming use. The current
operation does not conform to parking lot design standards nor
does it conform to certain landscaping requirements. Existing
parking and drive areas include both paved and dirt surfaces
and do not include curb systems. In addition, tree plantings
normally required along the perimeter of a development site
are also absent. These are two obvious examples of non-
conformity; there may be others. Technically, Ln order for
the transportation company to expand, it must comply with
existing ordinances.
Following are excerpts from the ordinance that apply.
3-1: NON -CONFORMING BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND USES:
[A) PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this section to
provide for the regulation of nonconforming
buildings, structures, and uses and to specify
those requirements, circumstances, and
conditions under which non -conforming
buildings, structures, and uses will be
operated and maintained. The Zoning Ordinance
establishes separate districts, each of which
Is an appropriate area for the 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
eventually brought into conformity.
[8) Amory structure or use lawfully existing upon
Me effective date —oT thie ordinance shall not
be enlarged but may be continued at the size
and in the manner of operation existing upon
such date except an hereinafter specified or
subsequently amended.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/2/90
Planning Commission needs to determine to what extent it
wishes to hold fast to the stated goal of the intent of
regulations governing non -conforming uses, which is to bring
all non -conforming uses into conformity. Approval of the
conditional use permit without addressing this issue would
weaken the City's ability to attain the goal above.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Notion to approve conditional use permit allowing new and
used automobile/light truck sales and display subject to
the following conditions and motion to grant a variance
request to allow less than the minimum 4,500 square feet
of sales and display area and allow less than the minimum
22,550 square feet of outside display area.
ORDINANCE REWIRMUMS
1. The enclosed principal use (sales and display
office) is a minimum of 4,500 square feet,
excluding the area used for mechanical repair and
reconditioning (variance included in motion).
2. Outside sales and display areas are fenced or
screened from view of neighboring residential uses
or an abutting "R" District in compliance with
Chapter 3, Section 2 [0), of this ordinance. (Does
not apply because residential use is actually on
the site, not abutting R district.)
3. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that
the light source shall not be visible from the
public right-of-way or from neighboring residences
and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 (H), of this ordinance.
4. The outside sales and display area shall be hard
surfaced.
5. The outside sales and display area does not utilise
parking spaces which are required for conformance
with this ordinance.
6. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of
conflict with through traffic movements shall
comply with Chapter 3, Section 5, of this ordinance
(parking design requirements); and shall be subject
to the approval of the City Engineer (curbing must
be installed).
14. A culvert shall be installed under the drive
leading to the Hoglund Transportation office.
Under this alternative, the development would be allowed
to occur with the following precedents being set:
1. A non -conforming use would be allowed to expand
without first being required to conform to
ordinance.
2. There does not appear to be a hardship or unique
circumstance to justify the variances requested;
therefore, a precedent would be set which could
result in proliferation of small or "pocket" auto
sales lots in the B-3 sone.
2. Notion to deny said conditional use permit request based
on the finding that:
1. Approval of the conditional use permit would impair
the intent of the regulations governing expansion
of lawful non -conforming uses; therefore, the
request must be denied.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/2/90
7.
There is a minimum lot area of twenty-two thousand
five hundred (22,500) square feet and minimum lot
dimensions of one hundred fifty (150) feet by one
hundred thirty (130) feet (variance addressing this
ordinance requirement).
S.
A drainage system subject to the approval of the
City Engineer shall be installed.
9.
All signing shall be in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 9, of this ordinance.
10.
The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily met.
ADDED CONDITIONS SUGGESTED ST STAFF
11.
No more than 10 care may be parked for sale at any
one point in time.
12.
Four trees shall be planted east of the two garages
on the site.
13.
The conditional use permit requires common
ownership of the property containing the office
space and the site of the sales lot.
14. A culvert shall be installed under the drive
leading to the Hoglund Transportation office.
Under this alternative, the development would be allowed
to occur with the following precedents being set:
1. A non -conforming use would be allowed to expand
without first being required to conform to
ordinance.
2. There does not appear to be a hardship or unique
circumstance to justify the variances requested;
therefore, a precedent would be set which could
result in proliferation of small or "pocket" auto
sales lots in the B-3 sone.
2. Notion to deny said conditional use permit request based
on the finding that:
1. Approval of the conditional use permit would impair
the intent of the regulations governing expansion
of lawful non -conforming uses; therefore, the
request must be denied.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/1/90
1. No hardship exists with regards to the variance
request= therefore, approval of said variances
would impair the intent of the ordinance and could
result in proliferation of small auto sales lots at
the detriment of other uses in the B-3 zone.
Under this alternative, the applicant would not be
able to develop at this site in the manner
proposed. As a spin-off to alternative 01,
Planning Commission may indicate that a variance to
the area requirements might be acceptable as long
as the existing non -conforming aspects of the
original site are brought up to code.
STAFF RBCO)WNDATION:
Staff recommends that the conditional use permit be denied
until such time that the existing site is brought up to code.
The ordinance is very clear on this matter. Unless the
Planning Commission is willing to change the ordinance
regarding non -conforming uses, this application should be
denied. If the applicant agrees to bring the entire site up
to code, then the issue of the variance to the minimum site
area needs to be addressed. Since there is no hardship
associated with the variance request, it may be difficult to
justify granting the variance without creating the possibility
of development of a used car lot in other B-3 areas that have
3,000 extra feet of unused property and access to nearby
office space.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Previously delivered.
I
NINETY-FOUR SERVICES, INC.
0� 118 E OAKW000 0R. • MONTK LLO, MN 55382
85
(612) 23881 • METRO 33"M
September 26, 1990
Request Variance for Lot and Sign
Sales Lot to be approximately 57' x 57' to display
approximately 10 cars and to include two (2) customer
reserved parking spaces and to put up a sign that
complies with city ordinance 16' high less than 24 ft.
and to plant 4 trees east of 2 garages on site.
c
ocdon Hoq and
Owner
Trucking — Leasing — Charter Service — Body Shop — Towin
J
r. , ..
�� T .
•�,
''
I�c 9,� 'r
V 4 +�
., \ l
�j y1
\� , \
r -
� �• �. �►�
_.w •+a M• .. ` ^Vim � r T �� +a- •
� r, •�/ /
S,� ���`
4
,�
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/2/90
�. 7. Review preliminary proposal for development of a_church
facility in an R-1 sone. Applicant, A Glorious Church.
(J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission is asked to review the following site plan
information which proposes development of a church facility in
an R-1 zone. The church location consists of 7 acres of land
on the Robert Krautbauer property. Pastor Dan Gassler and his
father, Jake Gassler, will be in attendance to review the site
plan and to answer any Questions that you might have. Formal
consideration of this matter will not occur until the November
meeting of the Planning Commission.
Staff will be preparing a formal site plan review for the
November meeting.
Also, the applicant requests that the Planning Commission
return the site plan information booklet after final
consideration in November. Please do not throw them away when
you are finished. Thanks.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Site plan booklet.
C