Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11-07-1990
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - NONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, November 7, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. Members: Dan McConnon, Richard Martie, Richard Carlson, Cindy Lemur, Jon Bogart 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to order. 7:01 p.m. 1. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held October 1, 1990. 7:04 p.m. 3. Public Hearing --A variance request to allow expansion of a non -conforming structure in an R-1 (single family residential) zone. Applicant, David and Dianne Hyttsten. 7s19 p.m. 4. Public Hearing --A variance request to allow construction of an attached garage within the front yard setback requirement. Applicant, David and Dianne Hyttsten. 7:34 p.m. 5. Public Hearing --A variance request to allow construction of an attached garage within the side yard setback requirement. Applicant, Mark and Joanne Surandt. 7:59 p.m. 6. Public Hearing --A simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing unplatted tract of residential land into two unplatted tracts of residential land. Applicant, Robert and Betty Rrautbauer. 8:19 p.m. 7. Public Hearing --A conditional use request to allow a church facility in an R-1 (single family residential) zone. Applicant, A Glorious Church. 8:49 p.m. 8. Public Hearing --A preliminary plat request to replat portions of an existing residential subdivision. Applicant, John Sandberg. 9119 P.M. 9. Public Hearing --An ordinance amendment to Section 3-9 (C) 4 to includes (j) a permit for a public sign in the form of a decorative banner to be displayed on public property for a period of one (1) year. A permit shall be issued for each year that the decorative banners are displayed. Applicant, City of Monticello. 9134 p.m. 10. Continued Public Hearing --A conditional use request to allow used automobile/light truck sales in a B-3 (highway business) sone. Applicant, Hoglund Transportation/Ninety-tour Services. Planning Commission Agenda November 7, 1990 Page 2 9:39 P.M. 11. Continued Public Hearing --A variance request to allow less than the minimum 4,500 sq ft of sales and display area. Applicant, Hoglund Transportation/Ninety-four Services. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS 9:41 p.m. 1. 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 the culvert shall be determined by the Building Inspector but shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) inches in diameter. Applicant, City of Monticello. Council Action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. 9:43 p.m. 2. Request to amend Section 3-1 (I) of the zoning ordinance by adding the following paragraph: Normal maintenance, necessary nonstructural repairs, and incidental alteration of a lawful, nonconforming sign includes repair or maintenance of existing lettering done without changing the subject, form, color, or design of the lawful, nonconforming sign. Applicant, City of Monticello. Council Action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation with the exception of the word "color" removed from the sentence. 9:45 p.m. 3. Continued Public Hearing --A conditional use request to allow used automobile/ light truck sales in a B-3 (highway business) zone. Applicant, Hoglund Transportation. Council Action: No action required, as the request did not come before them. 9:47 p.m. 4. Continued Public Hearing --A variance request to allow lees than the minimum 4,500 sq ft of sales and display area. Applicant, Hoglund Transportation. Council Action: No action required, as the request did not come before them. 9:49 p.m. S. Review preliminary proposal for development of a church facility in an R-1 zone. Applicant, A Glorious Church. Council Action: No action required, as the request did not come before them. 9:51 P.M. 6. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, December 4, 1990, 7:00 p.m. 9:53 p.m. 7. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - NONTICELL0 PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 2, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Richard Martie, Richard Carlson, Cindy Lemm, Jon Bogart Members Absent: Dan McConnon Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill, Rick Wolfsteller The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, at 7:04 p.m. Motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Richard Martie to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held September 4, 1990. Motion carried unanimously with Dan McConnon absent. Public Hearina--A request to amend Section 3-5 1D1 9 (0) to: All driveway access openinas 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 Buildina Inspector but shall be a minimum of fifteen (151 inches in diameter. AoDlicant. Citv of Monticello. Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members and the public the City of Monticello's request to amend the minimum culvert size section of the ordinance. Basically, the request before the Planning Commission members is a housekeeping matter. In the last 5 to 7 years, we've been using the standard I5 -inch culvert as our minimum size even though the ordinance requires only a 12 -inch size. Some of the problems found were in the areas of residential housing with rural standards, which has no curb and gutter or storm sewer. The 17 -inch size culverts that were placed there have, over the years, filled with sediment material. There is very little water that could flow through these culverts. The problems arise in the spring when the culverts are still frozen. They don't allow water to pass through, and it backs up into other residents' properties. The water would flow through these culverts if they weren't filled with sediment. With no further input from members of the public, Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission members. Page 1 9 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/90 Planning Commission members discussed the need to go from a 12 -inch to a 15 -inch culvert when a 12 -inch was sufficient in most cases for underneath existing driveways. There being no further input from Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Richard Carlson, seconded by Jon Bogart, to approve a request to amend Section 3-5 ID) 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. The motion carried unanimously with Dan McConnon absent. 4. Public Hearin --A request to amend Section 3-1 (I) of the zoning ordinance by adding the following paragraph: Normal maintenances necessary non-structural repairs, and incidental alteration of a lawful non-conformin,q sign includes repair or maintenance of existinq letterinq done without changinq_ the subject, form, color,, or design of the lawful non-conforminq siqn. Applicant, Citv of Monticello. Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members and the public the City of Monticello's request to amend the normal maintenance section of the sign ordinance. Mr. O'Neill re-emphasized that the most recent problem we had was with the Century 21 signs. They were asking to change just the faces of the signs. According to the City Attorney, under the current ordinance section under sign maintenance, Century 21 would have been allowed to replace just the faces even though it is a change of business. Also, with the amendment of this section and another section already in existence in the sign ordinance, we would be able to go back and find the signs which are non- conforming, cite the places which are non -conforming, and ask them to bring their signs into compliance. There being no members of the public present, Acting Chairperson, Cindy I,emm, then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for discussion from Planning Commission members. The Planning Commission members questioned where you start with existing signs which may be non -conforming and how do you bring them into compliance. There being no further discussion from Planning Commission members, a motion was made by Richard Hartle and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve the request to amend Section 3-1 (I) of the zoning ordinance by adding the following paragraph: Page 2 9 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/90 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. Motion carried unanimously with Dan McConnon absent. 5. A Continued Public Hearinq--A conditional use request to allow used automobile/light truck sales in a B-3 (highway business) zone. Applicant, Hoqlund Transportation. 6. A Continued Public Hearinq--A variance request to allow less then the minimum 4,500 square feet of sales and display area. Applicant, Hoqlund Transportation. Mr. Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members and the public Gordon and Jenny Hoglund's request to be allowed to continue the establishment of the automobile/sales lot in the southeast corner of their property. Mr. Wolfsteller explained to Planning Commission members that he had met with the Hoglunds, and he had discussed with them that there were two sections under the non -conforming building structures and uses section that applied to the Hoglund's request. They were as follows: The purpose of this section is to provide for the regulation of non -conforming building structures and uses, in this case it would be uses, and to specify those requirements, circumstances, and conditions under which non -conforming building structures and uses will be operated and maintained. Any structure or use lawfully existing upon the effective date of this ordinance shall not be enlarged but may be continued at the size and in the manner of operation existing upon such date except as hereinafter specified or subsequently amended. Mr. Wolfsteller explained the non -conforming building structures and uses as submitted on the application and on the enclosed site plan. This house is their current residence. The proposed sales lot would go in the southeast corner of their residential property. With the principal use of the property being residential, even though the property is zoned 8-3 (highway business), their existing residence is allowed to remain as a legal non -conforming use. However, they cannot expand their residential legal non -conforming use to include a business use, that being a used vehicle salon lot. Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lem, then opened the public hearing. Mr. and Mrs. Hoglund were present and explained to Planning Commission members the background to their request. Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/90 A major portion of one of their businesses is Hoglund Transportation. The school bus transportation service portion of their business has employees that maintain these vehicles throughout the school year. To keep the quality and experience of the individuals employed with them, they repair used vehicles and/or buses that have been damaged and use this as extra work for the summer months to keep their employees on the payroll. Once the vehicles are repaired and put up for sale, they would like to use the area in the southeast portion of their property as an open outdoor sales lot. They further stressed how their properties, which includes the Hoglund Transportation business and the Hoglund Bus Company, have been maintained and kept up over the years, and that they take pride in continuing to keep their properties neat and orderly in appearance. They went on to explain the actual request should not be in the form of the Hoglund Transportation portion of their business but should be in the 94 Services, Inc., portion of their business. This is the actual business which would repair the vehicles and put them back on the sales lot. There being no further input from the public, Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission membere. The Planning Commission members felt uneasy about allowing the applicants to use a legal non -conforming use, that being the use of the highway business sone property for business use in conjunction with their residential use. With there being no conditions as outlined by the City staff, they were uncomfortable at making any kind of decision. A compromise was suggested by Assistant Administrator, Jeff O'Neill, to permit the use with the condition that they upgrade the parking lot for the Hoglund Transportation portion of their business. The current Hoglund Transportation portion does have a good share of the parking hard surface but does not have curb and gutter around its perimeter. If we were to allow a use such as the Hoglunds are proposing, the minimum requirements of the hard surfacing and curbing and gutter would have to be installed. There being no further discussion, a motion was made by Richard Carlson, seconded by Richard Martie, to table the request. The motion carried unanimously with Dan McConnon absent . Page 4 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/90 7. Review preliminary proposal for development of a church facility in an R-1 zone. Applicant, A Glorious Church. Mr. Dan Gassler, pastor of A Glorious Church, was present with his father, Mr. Jake Gassler, and a gentleman representing the 21st Century Builders, the consulting construction firm hired to assist them in the development of their church facilities. Mr. Gassler explained the enclosed booklet which the Planning Commission members had received and their intent to come back before the Planning Commission members at their next regularly scheduled meeting on November 7, 1990, with their conditional use request to develop a church facility on approximately seven acres of the Robert Krautbauer property. He explained briefly the content of the booklet which they had prepared and stated that he was willing to answer any questions that the Planning Commission members would have. With no further input from the public, Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for discussion among the Planning Commission members. The Planning Commission members expressed their approval of the amount of preparation and content of the booklet that was presented for their review. With very little discussion among the Planning Commission members other than a question proposed on why they had chosen this location, which was explained by Pastor Gassler. The Planning Commission members present recommended approval of the preliminary plans for development of a church facility on this portion of residential unplatted property. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS 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. 2. A variance request to allow a subdivided lot to have lose than the minimum lot width requirement. Applicant, Michael Robinson. Council action: No action required, as the request did not come before them. 1. A variance request to allow additional pylon sign height than the maximum 22 -Loot height allowed. Applicant, Mark Anderson. Council action: No action required, as the request did not come before them. Page S 9 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/90 4. A variance request to allow no curbing in certain areas 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 areae designated as open space or future expansion areas properly planted and maintained with prairie grass. Applicant, Tapper's, Inc. Council action: Approved with conditions. S. A conditional request to allow expansion of an outdoor rental use in a B-3 (highway business) sone. Applicant, General Rental. Council action: Approved with conditions. 6. A conditional use request to allow used automobile/light truck sales in a B-3 (highway business) zone. Applicant, Hoglund Transportation. Council action: No action required, as the request did not come before them. 7. A variance request to allow less than the minimum 4,400 square foot sales and display area. Applicant, Hoglund Transportation. Council action: No action required, as the request did not come before them. Prior to going on to number eight, the following was discussed with Planning Commission members: The Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, explained to Planning Commission members that the conditional use request for leas than the minimum requirements for hard surfacing/curbing requirements of the Marties Farm Service which was due to be completed on October 1, was not completed. The following areas were discussed as not being completed: The hard surfacing in the area east of the loading/unloading dock had not been completed. The area beyond SO feet from the area east of the four overhead doors on the east portion of the building had not been put back into a green area. The concrete drainaqe ewe le as explained to Mr. Martie by our consulting engineer, Bret Weiss, and Public works Director, John Simola, had not been put in according to the directions given. The drainage plan was submitted this afternoon and sent on to our consulting engineer for his approval. These matters will be discussed at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting, which would be on Nonday, October 9, 1990. Page 6 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/2/90 Mr. Jeff O'Neill explained to Planning Commission members a couple of items which needed their input. a. The inventory of the conditional use requests is done and ready for their review. The conditional use requests would be ready for their review, as the City staff will be taking a look at these and going back to the conditional use request applicants to see if any or all of the conditions have been met. b. An inventory of existing signs should be done to find which signs are non -conforming. Letters should be sent to the owners addressing the requirements of the ordinance so that the signs are brought into conformance. C. There is an existing non -conforming sign on the Dino's Other World property, and also they are allowing materials to be dumped there without a permit. City staff will be following up on this item. There is fill material that was dumped on the platted property immediately east of the Maue Foods complex. It has been allowed to be dumped there with no provision for erosion control. City staff will be following up on this property. S. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting for Wednesday, November 7, 1990, at 7:00 p.m. Notion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Richard Carlson, to set the above-mentioned date and time for the next Monticello Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously with Dan NeConnon absent. 9. Motion was made by Jon Bogart, seconded by Richard Carlson, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously with Dan McConnon absent. The meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, GaryAler-don� Zoning Adminiatretor Page 7 0ZLI t. Clothes lima pole and vire. 2. Recreational equipment and vehicles. 3. Construction and landscaping material currently 50 30 50 being used on the promises. 4. Off-street parking of passenger vehicles 30 10 30 and trucks not exceeding a groes capacity 30 20 30 of nine thousand (9,000) pounds in residential 30 30 30 areas. S. propane tanks, fuel oil tanks, and other Sas Chapter 10 for specific regulations. similar residantiel heating fuel storage 30 1s 20 tanks which do not exceed 1 , 000 gallons 30 to 20 • in capacity and shall not be located within five (S) 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. 1 czrd shall be 4' x 4' x 8'. All wood piles shall be five (S) feet or more from rear and side yard property linea and shall be stored behind the appropriate set back line in front Yards. 7. Solar hosting oystems. 3-3: YAJtD REQOIRMMM : (A] RMPOSE: This section identifies minim= yard spaces and arses to be provided for in each toning district. IBJ 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 minims required by this Ordinance, and if the existing yard or other open specs as existing is less than the minimum required it shall not be further reduced. lb required open space provided &round any building or structure shall be included as a part of any open spats required for another *tincture. (c) All setback distances, as listed in the table below, shall be meuured from the appropriate lot line, and shall be required minis m distances. rcont Yard Side yard Rear Yard A-0 50 30 50 ® 10 30 R-2 30 10 30 R-3 30 20 30 R-4 30 30 30 Pz_R See Chapter 10 for specific regulations. pS-N Sas Chapter 10 for specific regulations. 0-1 30 1s 20 E-2 30 to 20 • Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard B-3 30 10 30 B-4 0 0 0 I-1 40 30 40 I-2 50 30 40 Ian 1 R-2, B-1 and B-2 districts, where ent structures excluding accessory ings within same block have front setbacks different from those required, ront yard minimum setback shall be verage of the adjacent structures. ere is only one (1) adjacent structure, ront yard minimum setback shall be verage of the required setback and etback of the adjacent structure. o case shall the minimum front yard ack exceed thirty (30) fest. except rovided is Subsection (F1 below. 2. in R-1, 2-2, B-1 and B-2 districts, if lot is a corner lot, the sidayard setback shall be not lees than twenty (20) feet from the lot line abutting the street right-of-way line. (D1 The following shall not be considered as encroachments on yard setback requiramants. 1. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders. sill, pilaster, lintels, ornamental features. cornices, eaves, gutters, and the like provided they do not project more than two (2) feet into a yard. 2. Terraces, steps, or similar features provided they do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure or to a distance less than two (2) feet from any lot line. 3. In rear yards: recreational and laundry drying equipment arbors and trellises, balconies, breezeways, open porches, detached outdoor living rooms, garages, and air conditioning or heating equipment. 4. Bolas @yet*=. (S) Lots of multiple housing unit structurss may be divided for the purpose of condominium ownership provided that the principal structure containing the housing units shall most the setback distances of the applicable zoning district - 3 + y 3-4: r In addition, each condominium unit shall have the minimum lot area for the type of housing colt and usable open space as specified in the Area and Building Size Regulations of this Ordinance. Such lot areas may he controlled by an individual or joint ownership. (Fl in residential districts, where the adjacent structures "coed the minimum setbacks established in Subsection (C) above. the minimum setback shall be thirty (30) feet plus two-thirds (2/3) of the difference. between thirty (30) feet and the setback or average setback of adjacent structures ) within the same block. J AREA AND SOIIOING SIZE REGULATIONS: (Al Pmmss: This section identifies minimum arae and building size requiremanta to be provided in each zoning district as listed in the table below. DISTRICT IAT AREA IAT WIDTH 802LDIN0 HEIGHT A-0 2 acres 200 N/A R -i (2.000 so 2>e _ R-2 12.000 80 25 R-3 10,000 80 2 R-4 48,000 200 1 PZ -R 12,000 80 21, PZ_" 12.000 80 2 S -I 8,000 80 2 B-2 II/A 100 2 8-3 8/A 100 2 B-4 t/A N/A 2 1-1 20,000 100 2 1-2 30,000 100 2 1. The building height limitation in an R-3, VZ -N . 8-I. 13-2, B-3. 8-4. I-1, and i-2 toning districts shall be two ( 2) stories. 2. In toning districts R-3. PZ -M. 8-1. 8-2. 8.2, 8-4, I-1, and I-2, a (3) Woo story building say be aliowed so a caaditionwl use contingent upon strict application of a rsquiremsnt that firs-uctinguishihg aystsma be iwtailad throughout the building. (RLqu.,i4t6 a tonditionat tLec pealit bawd upon pea4lf&ku est 6o+tth 4A dRd tigutattd by Chap&A It o6 thin Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 3. Public Hearina--Consideration of a variance request allowing expansion a nonconformina structure in an R-1 zone. AND 4. Consideration of a variance request allowina construction of an attached aarage within the front vard setback reauirement. Applicant. David and Dianne Hvttsten. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The variance associated with item #3 was re-evaluated and determined to be unneccessary, as the existing structure does conform to even the strictest interpretation of the ordinance. The remaining portion of this memo applies to item •4 only. Xr. and Mrs. Hyttsten request a variance to the front yard setback requirement that would allow development of a garage within the minimum front yard setback. The Hyttstens propose to construct a 241 X 30' attached garage that would result in a setback of 35-1/2 feet. Under normal circumstances, a 35-1/2 foot setback as proposed would be sufficient; however, in this case, the site is neighboring a homesite with a setback of 107.5 feet --far in excess of the minimum setback of 30 feet. The minimum setback for properties adjacent to properties with a deep setback is established via the formula noted below. when the formula is applied to this situation, the minimum setback is 57.4 feet. SETBACK FORMULA "In residential districts where the adjacent structures exceed the minimum setbacks established in subsection (C) above, tem nimum setback shall be thirty (30) feet plus two-thirds (2/3) of the difference between thirty (30) feet and the setback or average setback of adjacent structures within the same block." Setback Formula Applied Setback adjacent house A (Jim Naus) - 107.5 Setback adjacent house B (Vokaty) - 35.5 Average setback - 71.5 Difference - Ave SB/min setback - 41.5 41.5 X 2/3 - 27.4 Ninimun setback 301+ 27.4 - 57.4 Existing setback - 59.5 Proposed setback with addition - 35.5 Degree of nonconformity - 19.9 Why was this forumula developed and what purpose does it serve? This formula was established a few years ago to eliminate the potential of placement of homes on the front of river lots when most, if not all, of the adjoining lots have homes placed in the Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 rear. The ordinance was developed after a home located at 409 East River Street was located at the front of the lot amongst structures placed at the rear of adjoining lots. In response to placement of this house in the front of the lot, area residents and City staff protested the placement of the house in the front of the lot because the house obstructed eight lines and disrupted the continuity created by adjacent homes placed consistently toward the rear of each lot. Despite urgings to move the house back, the house was legally constructed at the 30 -foot setback line. The zoning ordinance was subsequently amended to limit this from happening again. Adoption of the ordinance had an interesting side affect in that depending on the Planning Commission's interpretation of the ordinance, it may have made additions to the front of the Hytteten property impossible without a variance. The proposal before the Planning Commission is Romewhat similar to the situation that instigated the ordinance amendment with the following exceptions. In this case, the subject property is on the corner of the undeveloped Chestnut Street. The home to the east on the other side of Chestnut Street is set back 30 feet, which is close to the proposed addition setback of 30 feet. In other words, the subject home is at the edge rather than the middle of an area where homes are placed at a deeper setback. In addition, the home to the east of the site is not actually on the same block; therefore, an argument could be made that the ordinance does not apply, as only one adjacent structure in the same block (Jim Haus house) has a setback in excess of the minimum. The Planning Commission and City Council need to determine if the ordinance was intended to apply to this situation. Has the City through creation of the ordinance amendment inadvertently imposed a hardship on the property owner, or was the ordinance developed to address this type of situation? According to Kr. Hyttsten, Jim Haus supports the variance request. Staff has not confirmed this information. a. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONSt 1. Notion to approve allowing development of an addition within the front yard setback. Under this alternative, Planning Commission could make the motion based on the finding that the variance will not impair the intent of the ordinance because it was intended to apply to properties where structures on both adjoining properties are set back greater than 30 feet. 2. Notion to deny the variance requests based on the finding that the applicant falls to domonstrate a unique circumstance or significant hardship that can be used to justify granting the variance. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 Under this scenario, the Planning Commission would interpret the ordinance regulating setbacks to apply to this situation and find that the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated reasons why the ordinance cannot be followed. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance request. Given the history behind the development of the section of the ordinance that applies, it appears that it was intended to limit the ability of a property owner to place a home in the front of a lot when adjacent structures are Set far back. In this case, only one adjacent structure is set back; therefore, it could be interpreted that the ordinance as not applicable. Finally, it is the view of City staff that construction of the addition as proposed will not tend to depreciate the value of adjoining structures. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Nap of location of variance request; Excerpt from zoning ordinance; Site plan. A variance request to allow expansion of a nan-conforming structure in an R-1 (single family residential) zone. A variance request to allow CV construction of an attached garage within the front yard setback requirement. 10 A DIAN= HYTTSTEN V t rPP. 1X Off 5 'P Lr -4 16, Y J h r f Wes A-jl- ori - //(Il (e) h r f Wes A-jl- ori - //(Il (e) Illy Mf ,. 1111 �� lc.maj.c ©c W F iawr uLVAriol .... V— J Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 S. Public Hearin --A variance request to allow construction of an attached carage within the side vard setback requirement. A"olicant. Nark arid Joanne Hurandt. (G.A. ) A. REFERENCE ADM BACKGROUND: Mark and Joanne Surandt are proposing to construct an attached garage to within S feet from the side lot line from the northeast portion of the proposed garage addition. Due to the irregular shape of the lot and the placement of the house on the lot, the Burandts would have been able to construct only a 21 -foot wide garage. The garage, as noted on the enclosed site plan, is set back from the front most portion of the house to allow entrance from the outside through a garage entrance door end up a set of steps to enter the existing entry located on the east side of the house . The Burandts are proposing that the garage be placed 5 feet from the side lot line. we have a G -toot drainage and utility easement on that side of the property and would like to request that if the variance is approved, it be approved for only a 4 -Foot variance. S. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the variance request to allow construction of an attached garage within the side yard setback requirement. 2. Deny the variance request to allow construction of an attached garage within the side yard setback requirement. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow placement of the propuded garage addition to within 6 feet of the side lot line. Placement 6 feet from the property line will ensure that the northeast corner of the proposed garage would not be placed on a public utility easement. The rationale for ap1proval of the variance request is that the hardship was created by the placement of the house on the lot. A garage could be constructed within the minimum setback requirement of 10 feet, but that would allow only a 21 -Loot attached garage and would not provide enough interior apace for an entrance platform. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed variance request; Copy of the site plan] Copy of the ordinance section on the minimum setback requirement. I Yur Pd,ve- 8 lo. - 8lo. X 3 Sn bo.J f ri**T-4 Iqo i i 4 M W o I . Clothes line pole and vire. 2. Recreational equipment and vehicles. 3. Construction and landscaping material currently being used on the promises. 6. Off-street parking Of passenger vehicles and trncka not exceeding a gross capacity of nine thousand (9,000) pounds in residential areas. S. propane tanks, fuel oil tanks, and other similar residential heating fuel storage tanks which do not exceed 1,000 gallons in capacity and shall not be located within five (S) feet of any property line. 6. Mood 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 61 x 6' x 81. All wood piles shall be live (S) fact or more from rear and side yard property lines and shall be stored bohind the appropriate set back line in front yards. 7. Solar heating aystemo. 3-3: Y*D REQUIREMENTS: (A) PURPOSE: This section identifies minimum yard spaces and areas to be provided for in each zoning district. (e) No lot, yard or other open space shall be reduced in area or dimension so as to make such lot, yard or open space lase than the minimum required by this Ordinance, and if the existing yard or other open space as existing is less than the minimum required it shall not be further reduced. & required open space provided around any building or structure shall be included as a part of any open space required for another structure. (C) All setback 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 SO 30S0 30 ® ]0 R-2 30 10 30 R-] 30 so ]o R-4 30 30 20 Pt -R See Chapter 10 !or specific regulations. PE -N See Chapter 10 for specific regulations. 0-1 30 1S 20 E-2 30 10 20 Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 6. Public Rearing --A simple subdivision request to subdivide an existine unDlatted tract of residential land into two unplatted tracts of residential land. AODlicant. Robert and Betty Krautbauer. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Robert and Betty Krautbauer are proposing to sell approximately 7 acres of their land to A Glorious Church to build a new church facility. As part of the East County Road 39 water and sewer improvement project, services were installed on the north side of the property in order to serve the Manhattan Lots Addition. Services were also proposed to be installed along the northerly frontage of the property which Mr. Krautbauer is proposing to sell to A Glorious Church, but Mr. and Mrs. Krautbauer chose not to have the services put in at the time of that project. There are two ways in which the property can be served. The first way is that a service can be stubbed off the existing main located underneath the East County Road 39 right—of-way. The second way is to obtain a minimum of a 30 -foot easement beginning at a point on the easterly lot line beginning at a midway point on the easterly lot line of our city lift station lot, then southerly to the southeast corner of the lot, thence westerly to the southwest corner of the city lot, a 30 -foot easement on Mr. Krautbauer's property surrounding the above- described location. This is probably the most cost effective way to come off of the stub that was provided from the city lift station lot. Once you are within an easement that is obtained from Mr. Krautbauer, you'd then be entering the private property which A Glorious Church is proposing to purchase for the installation of a long sewer and water extension to serve their proposed new church facility. Also, as one of the conditions of the subdivision, an agreement would be established between Krautbauere, the City, and A Glorious Church stating that proceeds from the sale of this lot must be paid to the City of Monticello by a specific date for the payment of outstanding assessments that were levied against this entire parcel prior to its subdivision. In exchange for Krautbauers using funds to pay off debt against this remaining land, A Glorious Church would be allowed to assume the assessment against the 7 -acre site. In assuming the assessment debt, the church would pay assessments annually rather than being required to pay the full amount at time of sale. Also as part of a condition within the simple subdivision request would be that we obtain a minimum of a 17 -Loot easement around the perimeter of this subdivided 7 -acre parcel. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing unplatted tract of residential land into two unplatted tracts of residential land. 2. Deny the simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing unplatted tract of residential land into two unplatted tracts of residential land. 3. Approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing unplatted tract of residential land into two unplatted tracts of residential land with the following conditions: a. Within 30 days of the November 13 City Council meeting (on or before December 13, 1990), the following must occur: 1. A 12 -foot drainage and utility easement must be drafted and recorded around the outside perimeter of the 7 -acre portion to be subdivided. 2. There is no water and sewer service stub into , this property off of East County Road 39, and the City is not responsible for the installation of a water and sewer service to this property. 3. If they choose to utilize an existing service that has been stubbed out of the city lift station lot, a 30 -foot drainage and utility easement must be drafted and recorded beginning at the point northerly along north of the existing 30 feet north of the existing east property line 30 feet north of the existing northerly 60 feet, thence southerly along the easterly lot line to the southeast corner of this lot, thence westerly along the southerly lot line to the southwest property line. Within this area described, a 30 -foot easement will be drafted and recorded. C. An agreement including Krautbauers, A Glorious Church, and the City must be established which outlines the formula and method for use of sale proceeds to finance payment of assessment debt against the original parcel. 6 Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 \ C. STAFF RECOIQMPMTIONt C City staff recommends approval of the simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing unplatted tract of land into two platted tracts of land with the following conditions. These conditions must be completed on or before 30 days from the November 13 City Council meeting, which would be anytime before the 13th of December, 1990. a. The 12 -foot drainage and utility easement must be described and recorded around the perimeter of this 7 - acre subdivided tract of land to A Glorious Church. b. There is no water and sewer service off of East County Road 39 to service this property, and the City of Monticello is not responsible for the inetallation of a water and sewer service to this eimple subdivided property. C. If the new property owner, A Glorious Church, decides to utilise an existing service stubbed out on the city lift station lot, a 30 -foot drainage and utility easement must be drafted and recorded from Robert and Betty Krautbauer commencing at a point 30 feet north from the northerly 60 feet of the east property, thence northerly along the east property line to the southeast corner of the property, thence westerly along the southerly property line to a point at the southwest corner of the property. d. An agreement including Rrautbauers, A Glorious Church, and the City must be established which outlines the formula and method for use of sale proceeds to finance payment of assessment debt against the original parcel. D. SUPPORTI19G DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed simple subdivision request] Copy of the site plan. 7 A simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing unplatted tract of residential land into two saplatted tracts of residential land. ROBERT i BETTY tRAUTBAUBR � r ..t mm,ftmmammmvmmmmminm•Km� 6AISrl ,1 T2G a l> at" wT 10, J�1i �jZ1T�O�J iN o ~ so _ _ `ems J� �a I z Ir Z P w eSQ 1 PM►98 r 2 4Co(o, TO $OU -A %-INe oQ Y NW "L4 OP MW %/y 07 SBC.T, 18 W P. 24 A d4LC)9-%OVS C4VCLCN 3 � P�.oT P�u•pNsas��w-Sctdecacs PC -2 INONT1GQli.O OMdJN11+C COMNISIo41 NbL Q =am a a■ M a a w a a _t din M ILL_� . r � ' 1 EXISTINt.shr F- r REeS – � I� �-� c= � I ^•�p6E-�l STT�o �N 1 WIC 2 s1 J 4Coco, TO SOUrN L. %%4e OP 3 — – 12ieo}OR*:bj4AASIlliIi irose,,1rvl. NW "44 OP NW iy po Sal-'r. l8 TWP. lz1 Rc+. 2V .C4LOR-\OVS C%AuV—C.\, 3 � P1..oT PusiJ •'pNAS\►�C,• SETlaAUGS PC•2 SClaLE 1s 100' NONT1CQLLo P1f►UN��+L COMN�S�oN - 1 � aApNIC SVAVEY . �111,j11� 1` 1 n 'J O fR Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 7. Consideration of a conditional use Permit which would allow operation of a church facility in an R-1 (sinale family residential) zone. ADDlicant. A Glorious Church. 1J.0.1 A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: SITE PLAN REVIEW Planning Commission is asked to conduct a public hearing and consider a request for a conditional use permit submitted by "A Glorious Church" which would allow development of a church facility in an R-1 zone. Following is a brief review of the site plan and adjacent land uses. The site consists of 7 acres of land now owned by Robert Krautbauer located on East County Road 39. A direct driveway access to County Road 39 is planned. Please see the supporting documentation for additional detail. SURROUNDING LAND USE County Road 39 serves as the northern border of the property and also serves as a buffer between the church site and existing homes in the area. To the west of the site lies open, undeveloped land that is slightly elevated relative to the church site. This area is zoned for single family residential development. The change in elevation between the church site and the residential land to the east serves to create a natural division between the two areas. Robert Krautbauer is retaining approximately 200 feet of land to the south of the site for future residential development. As you may note on the site plan, Krautbauer plane on two tiers of residential lots with back yards facing the church site. This design, if executed, will minimize conflicts in land use between single family housing and the church use. The terrain of the land south of the site includes a steep Mississippi River valley wall which may limit Krautbauer's ability to develop the adjoining property as proposed. Single family Iota with back yards facing the church site are planned directly adjacent to the site on the east aide. The roadway serving the single family homes adjacent to the church facility will be used for residential traffic only. Again, the design will serve to minimize traffic related conflicts between single family housing and the church site. Following is a review of the site plan in terms of the zoning ordinance requirements: Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 RELATIONSHIP WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - Proposal complies: The zoning ordinance requires that conditional use permits be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Attached is the section of the comprehensive plan that applies_ It is clear that the site location and site plan design are consistent with the comprehensive plan with one exception. The comprehensive plan discourages church development in residential areas; however, in this case, church traffic will have direct access to County Road 39, which will serve to limit significant conflict in land use betwreen adjoining residential areas and the church site. YARD REQUIREMENTS - Proposal complies: Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Required - - 30 10 30 (30) Proposed - - 190+ 45 SO Conditional use permits in the R-1 zone require that side yards shall be double that required for the district but no greater than thirty (30) feet. 1 OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS - Proposal compliers Parkinq Stall Minimums According to the ordinance, in stadiums, sports arenas, churches, and other places of public assembly in which patrons or spectators occupy benches, pews, or other similar seating facilities, each twenty-two (22) inches of such seating facilities shall be counted as one (1) seat for the purpose of determining requirements. In terms of churches and auditoriums, at least one (1) parking space is needed for each four (4) seats based on the design capacity of the main assembly hall. Facilities as may be provided in conjunction with such buildings or uses shall be subject to additional requirements which are imposed by this ordinance. The proposal calls for an approximateseatinq capacity of 300, which creates the need for 75 spaces. It is my understanding that a final adjustment to the total number of parking spaces will be made based on a final determination of seating capacity. n Stall Size i Each space is nine (9) feet wide and twenty (]0) feet in length in accordance with the zoning ordi nonce. 9 Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 Aisle Desian Parking areas and their aisles proposed are consistent with the following requirements: WALL WALL TO INTERLOCK TO TO INTERLOCK INTERLOCK ANGLE MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM Required -- 90 64.0' 64.0' 64.0' Surfacina and Curbina Asphalt paving and a complete curb and gutter system is proposed. Required Parkina Lot Screeninq According to the ordinance, open parking abutting residential areas must be screened with a fence 6-8 feet high or screened through use of berming or 90% opaque landscaping material. Following is a proposal for meeting this strict requirements Residential Properties to the North The nearest homes in the area are located on the river nearly 300 feet from the proposed parking area. Because of the great distance between the existing homes and the parking lot, Planning Commission may wish to reduce or eliminate the parking lot screening requirement that applies to this side of the parking lot. Instead of a solid parking lot screen, Planning Commission could require tree plantings with spacing no less than 30 feet apart or a berm could be created along the northern perimeter of the parking lot. Over time, tree development could provide sufficient screening of the parking lot from the view of homes located to the north of the site. gcreening Residential Properties to the South,,, East, and West Residential property to the south, east, and west Is now undeveloped; therefore, it may not make sense to require parking lot screening at this time. Planning Commission may wish to require that residential areas be screened from view of the parking lot at such time that adjoining residential areas are platted. The method by which the parking 10 Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 lot will be screened should be established as part of the conditional use permit. Attached is a site plan which outlines a potential plan for screening the parking lot area. Following are excerpts from the ordinance which outline the parking lot screening requirement: The ordinance states that "All open, non- residential, off-street parking areas of five (S) or more spaces shall be screened and landscaped from abutting or surrounding residential districts Ln compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2, of this ordinance." In Chapter 3, Section 2 , of the ordinance it states, "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 less than six (6) feet in height." Also, "Where natural materials such as trees or hedges are approved in lieu of required screening by means of walls or fences, the density and species of such plantings shall be such to achieve 90 percent opacity year - around." Please note that the City has required other churches to develop the level of parking lot screening noted above. Additional minor parking lot landscaping, including parking Leland delineators, will also need to be Installed. SITE LANDSCAPING The site plan presented does not include a detailed landscaping plan= however, the applicants are willing to comply with conditional use permit requirements. Planning Commission may wish to consider the following as a general plan for site landecaping: Minimum Tree Requirement The minimum number of overstory trees at this site if church activity was a permitted use would amount to 30 overatory trees. Since a church facility in an R-1 sone is allowed as a conditional use, the City can impose additional landscaping requirements as it dooms reasonable and necessary. The ordinance also allows for credit for the retention of existing trees which are of acceptable species, size, and location. it appoars that there are as many as 35 trees already on the site M Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 that qualify as overstory trees. Unfortunately, they are clumped together, which limits the ability to provide full credit for each tree that is preserved. Attached you will find a proposed plan for planting of 35 overstory trees. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Notion to grant the conditional use permit allowing development of a church facility in an R-1 zone subject to the following conditions: 1. City approval of parking lot landscaping and screening plan. Adequate screening of parking lot area from abutting residential uses and landscaping must be provided. The screen must be at least 6 feet high and achieve 90% opacity. The screen may consist of either a berm, solid fence, or landscape plantings. Installation of the parking lot screen shall occur at such time that the adjoining residential property is platted. Z. City approval of drainage plan prior to issuance of building permit. 3. City approval of landscaping plan prior to issuance of a building permit. The landscaping plan should include 30 overstory trees to be planted along the perimeter of the developed portion of the property and spaced approximately 39 feet apart. Additional development to precipitate additional plantings. 4. City approval of exterior treatment of structure to insure compatibility with neighborhood. Steel exterior materials shall be limited to one-half of the available wall surface. The Planning Commission may wish to recommend approval of the permit with conditions based on the finding that: 1. Church development at this site is consistent with the comprehensive plan. ]. Church development at this site Is consistent with the geographical area involved. 3. Church development will not tend to or actually depreciate the area. 4. Church development is consistent with the character of the surrounding area. 12 Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 ]. !lotion to deny the conditional use permit based on the finding that church development at the site does not meet the criteria associated with conditional use permits. C. STAFF RECONMENDATIONI : Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the conditions noted or as modified by the Planning Commission. It is our view that church development at this site is consistent with the comprehensive plan, and the conditions noted serve to mitigate conflicts between the church use and future residential uses in thearea. Furthermore, the plan appears to be consistent with the five criteria used in the evaluation of a conditional use permit request. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Please bring your copy of the information handbook distributed last week; Excerpt from the comprehensive plant Sketch showing parking lot screen area and overstory, tree plantings; Topographic survey. 13 CORAP/0-001 COMMUNITY FACILITI POLICY 1. Presently, the development of land for public facilities such as parks and playgrounds is considered more important than the acquisition of such land. However, with respect to acquisition, land must be purchased before proper sites are usurped by private developments or high land prices make acquisition unfeasible. It is a desirable goal of the City to balance acquisition and development efforts. 2. All public facilities are to be developed according to generally accepted standards and the results of thorough study. 3. Where feasible, private developers will be required to set aside a portion of their land for public uses where this is not feasible or desirable, developers will be required to contribute cash in lieu of land, with such money to be utilized for the purchase and development of recreational facilities. 4. School facilities should be fully utilized by making building and land available to the public for use when such does not conflict with normal function of the school facilities. 5. Private developers will not be required to donate land for school sites. 6. Churches should have an ample site for building, landscaping, potential expansion, and off-street parking. Parking should be provided on the maximum design capacity. Churches should be located adjacent to a thoroughfare or collector street and have �. easy access to the area served. They should not be located on minor residential streets and in the midst of residential neighborhoods. 7. The City should not accept substandard lands ouch an swamps, power line easements, etc., for the development of park Lando. This shall include lands laid out in subdivision plane. Open Space Policies Before delineating open apace policies, a definition of the term to necessary. Traditionally, open apace has been primarily defined as that area which to retained in or restored to a condition where natural syotemc predominate and which may be used for recreation, or preservation purpocea. Open apace was often regarded no a separate and contained entity usually under the ownership of a governmental jurisdiction. Recent trends indicate that open apace, like the people it nerves, to becoming more directly integrated with its surroundings. Becoming more a part of the total urban fabric, open apace Is being more closely integrated into the urban living and working environment. Because of this integrating phenomenon, many of the advantageo and roaponoibilitieo of open opece are equally applicable to public and i private Lando. O , 3 '" • — Cyyt)►j' .� c � OyT� ,.jc Jt&itc 11 tee 0 e OQ im R-1 mp P14L e 16 Llr J J- WW,1.A cow% W Cb Ir .000, 4b Soo, Planning Commission Aganda - 11/7/90 S. Public Hearing --A Preliminary plat request to replat portions of an existing residential subdivision. Aopilcant, John Sandbera. (J.0.) Due to late breaking information regarding this agenda item, staff will be preparing information to be submitted to the Planning C—iselon sometime on Monday or Tuesday. Please stay tuned. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 Public Hearino--Consideration of Preliminary Plat request to replat Portions of the Sandberg East residential subdivision. ApDlicant John Sandbera. (J.O.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you recall, at the August 7, 1990, meeting of the Planning Commission, John Sandberg received preliminary approval of a replat of the Sandberg East Subdivision. The original replat included the sale of the rear portion of the lots fronting Gillard to Rod Norell owner of 40 acres west of the plat site. Unfortunately, the original replat of Sandberg East Subdivision is no longer viable as Norell and Sandberg were not able to come to terms regarding the necessary transfer of a portion of the Sandberg East property to Norell. In response to this development, John Sandberg has submitted a new replat of the existing Sandberg East development. The following is a review of the new replat. The proposed replat creates 22 lots all of which meet minimum requirements in terms of size and lot dimensions. However, of the 22 lots created, 9 of the interior lots do not have street frontage as required by ordinance. Instead, the 9 lots front an outlet that has one half the width of a standard 60' street. The developer's intent is to preserve these lots until the time that Norell desires to develop. At such time that Norell wishes to develop, it is hoped that he will design a plan and roadway system that integrates with the Sandberg East Plat. In order to servo the 9 Sandberg East lots with a public street, one half of the roadway would need to be derived from the Norell property. In addition, in order to get the street to the point where it is shared by the proposed lots and lots that will be created by Norell, the street must pass entirely through Norell property. As noted above, Section 11-9-2 (D) of the subdivision ordinance requires that "every lot must have the minimum frontage as required in the zoning ordinance on a City - approved street other than an alley." To allow property to be platted without a public street may be inviting trouble. For instance, one of the late could be sold to a buyer wishing to develop a home on one of the nine landlocked properties. Imagine the surprise when he discovers that a street can not be developed without Norell's cooperation. If Norell has other ideas for his property, the only option the owner of tho landlocked lot would have would be to request that the City condemn a portion of the Norell property - not good. In response to the potential noted above, John Sandberg has agreed to record a document against each landlocked lot which outlines building and street development limitations. Such a document would help to minimize the potential problem noted= Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 however, the proposed solution depends on each potential buyer conducting a thorough title examination. I do not know if every buyer of property conducts the research necessary to discover building and street development restrictions associated with each landlocked outlot. Another potential problem could find an owner of a lot on Gillard, buying the neighboring landlocked interior lot for the purpose of retaining privacy. This person might not be aware or might object to potential future assessments associated with development of a street serving his landlocked lot. Again, Sandberg has stated that he will record a buyer beware document against the landlocked properties noting the potential development of a street. Prior to submittal of the latest replat, Nr. Sandberg was asked to work with Norell in acquiring the land necessary to create sufficient street easement area. Although Norell does not object to the plan presented by Sandberg, he was unwilling to provide the land necessary to extend streets to the landlocked lots. The new plat design may require additional study and perhaps adjustments to drainage plans for the area. The new design calls for 25 total lots, whereas the original design showed 16 lots. The impact of the additional run-off created by 7 additional lots needs to be understood. Also, we need to determine if the front to rear lot configuration will impact drainage patterns. B. ALTERNATIVESt 1. Notion to approve replat of the Sandberg East Plat subject to replacing landlocked lots with three outlots and subject to City engineer approval of drainage plan. Under this option, the Planning Commission finds that platting lots without access to a street is not a good Idea and recommends that the proposed interior lots be identified as unbuildable outlots. Under this option, at some point In the future the outlots could be re - subdivided into building lots that integrate with plane developed by Norell. To the City this is the no risk option which protects future buyers and protects the City from future requests for condemnation for a public street. 'ib the developer this option includes a risk that the outlots might not be developable. If Norell ultimately does not develop a street along the perimeter of tho proposed outlota, these outlote could be forever landlocked. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 Z. Motion to grant a variance to the platting requirement that each lot developed have access to a public street and recommend approval of the replat of the Sandberg East subdivision subject to development and recording of a document outlining construction and building restrictions associated with each landlocked lot, and subject to City Engineer approval of drainage plan. The Planning Commission may recommend a variance from the provisions of the ordinance when, in its opinion, undue hardship may result from strict compliance with the ordinance. A variance shall only be recommended when the Planning Commission finds: a. Due to special circumstances, strict application of the ordinance would deprive you reasonable use of your land. b. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or detrimental to adjoining property. C. The variance is needed to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship. It is the view of City staff that none of the criteria apply. In addition, granting the variance could result in the need for City condemnation of land necessary for street development. At this time, without written support of the plat from Norell, it would be difficult to assert that the variance will not be detrimental to Sorrell's land. Therefore, criteria (b) does not appear to be met. C. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 1 because there does not appear to be an overwhelming reason supporting approval of the variance and plat as presented. The risk appears to outweigh the benefits. In terms of the variance, it does not appear that the variance requests meets any of the criteria noted above. Granting a variance without sufficient unique circumstances could serve to not a poor precedent which could undermine the intent of the ordinance. Although the developer is willing to record a document against each landlocked property outlining restrictions, there remains the risk that someone might and up "burned" through the purchase of a landlocked lot. In addition, City approval of lots not having public access leaves open the possibility, however remote, of the need to condemn property to serve the landlocked lots. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 Under this scenario, the timing of the platting of the "landlocked" lots will coincide with development of plane by Rod Norell. Staff views Sandberg will need to work closely and cooperatively with Norell toward development of a plat that both parties agree on. It is the view of staff that the beat time to plat the "landlocked" lots is when Norell is ready and sure of his plat design. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of proposed replat. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 9. Consideration of an ordinance amendment allowina a public sign In the form of a decorative banner to be disDlaved on public DroDerty. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you may know, the City Council recently approved participating in financing 75% of the cost to place 80 four- color banners the community. Approximately 40 of the banners will be hung from the streetscape light fixtures, with the remaining banners hung from lights on Highway 25 and from lights in the area of the community hospital. Selection of banner design and placement of banners is being managed by the Chamber of Commerce with the City providing final approval. In order to allow the banners to be displayed as proposed, certain sections of the zoning ordinance need to be amended to allow certain banners to be displayed more than ten days at a time. The existing ordinance does allow display of banners on a limited basis for private advertising purposes as follows: "A permit for decorative attention -getting devices shall be issued for a maximum period of ten (10) days with a minimum period of one hundred eighty (180) days between consecutive issuance of such permits for any property or parcel." The proposed ordinance would allow banners intended to fulfill a public purpose to be displayed from City fixtures for a period of one year. Initial display of the banner would need Council approval with an annual review thereafter. Following are pertinent sections of the ordinance that apply directly or indirectly to this issue. The proposed amendment is underlined. (BJ PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED SIGNS: 1. PERMITTED SIGNS: The following signs are allowed without a permit but shall comply with all other applicable provisions of this subdivisions (a) Public signs PUBLIC SIGNS Signs of a public, non- commercial nature, to include safety signs, danger signs, trespassing signs, traffic signs, signs indicating scenic or historical points of interest, memorial plaques, and the like, when signs are erected by or on order of a public officer or employee in the performance of official duty. 15 Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 2. PROHIBITED SIGNS: The following signs are specifically prohibited by this paragraph. (d) Any sign which contains or consists of banners, pennants, ribbons, streamers, strings of light bulbs, spinners, or similar devices, except in case of Subsection (C], Paragraph 4. (C) GENERAL PROVISIONS: 4. The temporary use of portable signs, decorative attention -getting devices, and searchlights shall require an annual or daily permit. (a) An annual permit for portable signs as defined herein shall be granted for a maximum period of twenty (20) days per calendar year. The applicant shall determine and specify on the application the days planned for display, i.e., twenty consecutive days, ten weekends, etc. (b) A permit for decorative attention -getting devices shall be issued for a maximum period of ten (10) days with a minimum period of one hundred eighty (180) days between consecutive issuance of such permits for any property or parcel. (c) All portable signs and attention -getting devices must be well maintained and kept in good repair at all times. The Building Official shall order the Immediate removal of any device considered to be damaged or in poor condition. Non-compliance shall be just cause for revocation of the permit without refund. (d) All portable signs and attention -getting devices shall be allowed only on the property or site where the business or enterprise is situated. No placement shall be allowed on public righte-of-way. (e) All portable signs and attention -getting devices shall be on ground level except that banners and streamers may be affixed to a building, facade, permanent pylon sign, or other permanent fixture. Airborne inflatable devices shall be tethered on site. 16 I- Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 (f) Not more than two (2) portable signs shall be displayed at the same time. (g) Not 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 business 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) (j) A public sian in the form of a decorative banner may be displayed on public property. Said eiana may be hunq from City or State of Minnesota Department of Transportation light fixtures for a period of one (11 veer. Design and placement of public sign/decorative banners must first be approved by the City Council and annually thereafter. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Notion to approve amendment as proposed or modified by the Planning Commission. Under this alternative, Planning Commission could take the position that the amendment is positive, as it provides the City with the opportunity to Install decorative banners intending to beautify the City. Said banners are intended to build community identity, sense of place, and advertise business activity as a wholer therefore, such signs fulfill a public purpose. A special provision allowing a decorative banner display for a public purpose is, therefore, appropriate. The ordinance as written would not create a precedent that would allow private use of banners beyond what is already allowed by ordinance. 2. Motion to deny proposed amendment. Planning Commission could take the position that the display of banners does not achieve a public purpose. Planning Commission could contend that 17 Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 the banners as proposed promote a narrow commercial interest (Chamber of Commerce). Since no public purpose is served through the installation of the banners, a change in the ordinance is not justified. It could be contended that if the ordinance is adopted allowing a narrow group (Chamber of Commerce) to have signs placed on public right-of-way for a period of one year, then other private interests should be able to use banners in a similar fashion. C. STAFF RECONNBNDATION: It is the view of staff that the amendment is appropriate if the Planning Commission and City Council view the display of banners as fulfilling a public purpose. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. r� :s Planning Commission Agenda - 11/7/90 10. Continued Public Hearina--A conditional use reguest to allow used automobile/liaht truck sales in a e-3 (hiahwav businessl sone. Applicant. Hoglund Transportation/Ninety-ions Services. AND 11. Continued Public Hearing --A variance request to allow less than the minimum 4,500 sa ft of sales and display area. Applicant. Hoglund Transportation/Hinetv-four Services. (J.O.) Staff has been informed by Hoglund Transportation that they are making efforts toward development of a site plan utilizing the services of a certified surveyor. Development of survey data regarding this site is vital. Unfortunately, the Information is not likely to be available by the time the Planning Commission meets. It is suggested that this item be carried over to the next meeting of the Planning Commission, at which time we should have a lighter agenda and better information regarding this conditional use permit request. L 14