Planning Commission Agenda Packet 12-04-1990r AGENDA
REG'=R MEETING - KONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, December 4, 1990 - 7:00 p.m.
Members: Dan 14cConnon, Richard Martie, Richard Carlson, Cindy
Lemm, and Jon Bogart
7:00 pm
1. Call to order.
7:02 pm
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held
November 7, 1990.
7:04 pm
3. Public Hearing --A variance request to allow
construction of a detached garage within the rear
yard setback requirement. Applicant, Anton and
Cecelia Banyai.
7:19 pm
4. Public Hearing --An ordinance amendment to
Section 3-9 (C) 4 to include: ( 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.
7:34
_ Pm
5. Continued Public Hearing --A conditional use request
to allow used automobile/light truck sales in a B-3
(highway business) zone. Applicant, Hoglund
TransportatLon /Ninoty-four Services.
7:59 pm
6. Continued Public Hearing --A variance request to
allow less than the minimum 4,500 eq ft of sales
and display area. Applicant, Hoglund
Transportation/Ninety-four Services.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
8:14 pm 1. A variance request to allow expansion of a non-
conforming structure in an R-1 (single family
residential) zone. Applicant, David and Dianne
Hyttsten. Council actions No action required, as
the request did not come before them and was also
not considered by the Planning Commission.
8:16 pm 2. A variance request to allow construction of an
attached garage within the front yard setback
requirement. Applicant, David and Dianne Hyttsten.
Council action: No action required, as the request
did not come before them.
Planning Commission Agenda
December 4, 1990
Page 2
8:18 pm 3. A variance request to allow construction of an
attached garage within the side yard setback
requirement. Applicant, Mark and Joanne Burandt.
Council action: No action required, as the request
did not come before them.
8:20 pm 4. A simple subdivision request to subdivide an
existing unplatted tract of residential land into
two unplatted tracts of residential land.
Applicant, Robert and Betty Krautbauer. Council
action: Approved as per Planning Commission
recommendation with the exception of the deletion
of condition i3.
8:22 pm 3. A conditional use request to allow a church
facility in an R-1 (single family residential)
zone. Applicant, A Glorious Church. Council
action: Approved as per Planning Commission
recommendation.
8:24 pm 6. A preliminary plat request to replat portions of an
existing residential subdivision. Applicant, John
Sandberg. Council action: Approved the
preliminary replat of the Sandberg East subdivision
and grant the variance to Section 11-4-2 of the
subdivision ordinance requiring that every lot must
have minimum frontage as required in the zoning
ordinance on a City -approved street other than an
alley. Approval of the final plat subject to three
conditions.
8:26 pm 7. An ordinance amendment to Section 3-9 [C] 4 to
include: (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. Council actions Ordinance
amendment failed due to lack of tour -fifths vote
with one Council member absent.
8:28 pm 8. A conditional use request to allow used automobile/
light truck sales in a B-3 (highway business) zone.
Applicant, Hoglund Transportation/Ninety-four
Services. Council action: No action required, as
the request did not come before them.
c
Planning Commiselon Agenda
l December 4, 1990
Page 3
8:30 pm 9. A variance request to allow less than the minimum
4,500 sq ft of sales and display area. Applicant,
Hoglund Transportation/Ninety-four Services.
Council action: No action required, as the request
did not come before them.
8:32 pm 10. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello
Planning Commission meeting for Wednesday,
January 2, 1991, or Tuesday, January 8, 1991,
7:00 P.M.
8:34 pm 11. Consideration of renewal of individual annual
Planning Commission member appointments.
8:44 pm 11. Adjournment.
Aa
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, November 7, 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
The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson, Cindy
Lemm, at 7:02 p.m.
2. Motion was made by Jon Bogart, seconded by Richard Martie, to
approve the minutes of the regular meeting held October 2,
1990. Motion carried unanimously with Dan McConnon absent.
3. Public Hearinq--A variance request to allow expansion of a
non -conforming structure in an R-1 (single family residential)_
zone. Applicant. David and Dianne Hvttaten.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members and the public that with further review,
the variance request to allow expansion of a non -conforming
structure in an R-1 (single family residential) zone would not
be applicable. It was staff's interpretation that the average
setback from the Jim Maus residence to the west and the Vokaty
residence to the east of the Hyttstens' property, it is
determined that the existing garage is not in the setback
requirement. Therefore, it is a conforming structure, and no
action is required.
4. Public Hearinq--A variance request to allow construction of an
attached caraae within the front vard setback requirement.
Applicant, David and Dianne Hvttsten.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members and the public the variance request to
allow construction of an attached garage within the front yard
setback requirement. To determine the setback requirements
for their variance request, with the Jim Maus residence
adjacent to the west which has a setback in excess of the
minimum 30 -foot front yard setback, the Hyttstens can
construct a garage to within 57.4 feet from their front
property line. This would allow the Hyttstons to construct
only a 2.1 foot addition to their garage. The Hyttstens are
proposing to construct the garage to within 35.5 feet from the
front property line. Their request for the setback would be
the same as the existing setback of the Vokaty residence to
the east, which has a 35.5 foot setback requirement.
Page 1
U
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/7/90
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then closed the public hearing
and opened the meeting for discussion among the Planning
Commission members. They were in favor of the proposed
addition to the existing garage if the new setback for the
garage addition would come no closer than the adjoining Vokaty
residence to the east of the Hyttsten residence.
A motion was made by Jon Bogart, seconded by Richard Martie,
to approve the variance request to allow construction of an
attached garage within the front yard setback requirement.
Motion carried unanimously, with Dan McConnon absent.
Reason for approval: With the setback coming no closer than
the existing setback of the Vokaty residence to the east of
the Hyttsten residence, and on the two front lots in the Pitt
Addition, there would be two more houses that could be
constructed that would closer than the setback that the
Hyttstens are requesting, the values of the adjoining
properties are not going to depreciate in value due to the
construction of this addition.
5. Public Hearing --A variance request to allow construction of an
attached garage within the side yard setback requirement.
Applicant, Mark and Joanne Burandt.
Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members and the public the Burandt's variance
request to allow construction of an attached garage within the
side yard setback requirement. The Burandt's property is
similar to other residences in the neighborhood. The house
was built in the center of the lot, and there wasn't room for
much more than an oversized single car garage. The minimum
22' x 24' garage is the standard width of the garages
constructed today. The Burandts are proposing to construct a
garage addition to within 5 feet of the side property line
with the front left most portion of the garage addition, and
the rear left most portion of the garage would be set back
10 feet from the side property line. The Burandts are
proposing to construct a closet area to the south of their
existing steps which would come out of the east side of their
house. To allow construction of this closet area, it will
require an additional 5-6 feet of area to accommodate a closet
of this size. Anything lose than this width would necessitate
reduction in size of this proposed walkin closet step area.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then closed the public hearing
and asked for input from the Planning Commission members. The
Planning Commission members didn't have any problem with the
variance request as presented except to the extent that the
setback would encroach on the utility easements.
Page 2
9
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/7/90
With no further discussion between Planning Commission
members, a motion was made by Richard Carlson, seconded
Richard Martie, to allow construction of an attached garage to
within 6 feet of the side yard setback requirement. Motion
carried unanimously with Dan McConnon absent.
Reason for Approval: The proposed garage would not be built
within the drainage and utility easement that adjoins the
properties with it being constructed to within 6 feet of the
property. with the layout of the existing house on the lot
and to accommodate entrance into their house from the outside
of the garage, it necessitates additional width to accommodate
two cars being parked in it side by side.
6. Public Hearing --A simple subdivision request to subdivide an
existinq unplatted tract of residential land into two
unplatted tracts of residential land. Applicant, Robert and
Betty Krautbauer.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to the
Planning Commission and the public Robert and Betty
Krautbauers' simple subdivision request. They are proposing
to subdivide off about 7 acres to A Glorious Church for
construction of a church facility, subject to approval of the
Planning Commission and City Council. Certain conditions
should be considered with the simple subdivision request:
A 12 -Loot drainage and utility easement must be drafted
and recorded around the outside perimeter of the 7 -acre
subdivided tract of land to A Glorious Church.
B. There is no sewer service off of East County Road 39 to
service this property, and the City of Monticello is not
responsible for the installation of a sewer service to
this simple subdivided property.
C. If the new property owner, A Glorious Church, decides to
utilize an existing service stubbed out of the City lift
station lot, a 30 -foot drainage and utility easement must
be drafted and recorded from Robert and Betty Krautbauer
describing the area which would be needed for the
easement of this sewer service extension.
D. An agreement between the 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.
Page 3
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/7/90
All four of these conditions must be completed on or before 30
days from the November 13, 1990, City Council meeting, which
would be anytime before December 13, 1990. Acting
Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then opened the meeting for input
from the public.
Mr. Jake Gassler, father of Pastor Dan Gasele r, commented on
the proposed sewer hookup. The committee is looking at
alternative ways to service the property through an existing
service line that runs in the East County Road 39 public
right-of-way, which would be across the road from their
proposed project site, or utilizing the existing sewer stub
out of the City of Monticello's lift station lot. They were
also looking at creating an additional driveway to service the
property at some future point in time. It was suggested by
Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, that the church start the
process now with the Wright County engineers office to try to
obtain easement for an additional driveway approach.
With no further input from the public, Acting Chairperson,
Cindy Lemm, closed the public hearing and opened the meeting
for input from the Planning Commission members.
With no further discussion among Planning Commission members,
a motion was made by Richard Carlson, seconded by Jon Bogart,
to approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide an
existing unplatted tract of land into two unpl atted tracts of
residential land with the following conditions. These
conditions must be completed on or before 30 days from the
November 14, 1990, City Council meeting, which would be any
time before December 13, 1990.
a. The 11 -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 sewer service off of East County Road 39 to
service this property, and the City of Monticello is not
responsible for the installation of sewer service to this
simple subdivided property.
C. If the new property owner, A Glorious Church, decides to
utilize an existing service stubbed out of the City lift
station lot, a 30 -foot drainage and utility easement must
be drafted and recorded from Robert and Setty Rrautbauer
describing the area which would be needed for the
easement of this sewer service extension.
Page 4
O
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/7/90
An agreement between the 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.
Motion carried unanimously, with Dan McConnon absent.
Public Hearinq--A conditional use request to allow a church
facility in an R-1 (sinale family residential) zone.
Applicant, A Glorious Church.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to the
Planning Commission members and the public A Glorious Church's
request to allow a church facility in an R-1 (single family
residential) zone. Mr. O'Neill explained through a video
presentation how a church facility located on a portion of
this subdivided unplatted tract of land would be reflected
with the surrounding residential properties and residential
zoning around it. He went on to explain how the landscaping
requirements and parking lot screening requirements would
affect this property with the proposed use of a church
facility on the property.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, opened the meeting for input
from the public. A Glorious Church representatives were
present to answer any questions that the Planning Commission
members may have on their proposed project.
With 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 members.
Planning Commission members discussed how the property would
be screened and how the proposed landscaping would remain as
is or subject to their approval at tonight's meeting.
Commission members felt this would be a good use for the
property and had no problem with the church being located at
this property.
With no further input from Planning Commission, a motion was
made by Richard Carlson, seconded by Richard Martie, to
approve the conditional use request with the following
conditions:
A. City approval of the parking lot landscaping and
screening plan. Adequate screening of the 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
Page s
9
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/7/90
berm, solid fence, or landscape plantings. Installation
of the parking lot screen shall occur at such time that
the adjoining residential property is platted.
S. City approval of drainage plan must be obtained prior to
issuance of a building permit.
C. City approval of landscaping plan must be obtained 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 35 feet apart. Additional
development will precipitate additional plantings.
D. City approval of exterior treatment of structure must be
obtained to insure compatibility with the neighborhood.
Steel exterior materials shall be limited to one-half of
the available wall surface.
The above conditions were subject to the conditions that prior
to a building permit application, the applicant must come back
to the Planning Commission members for review of the following
conditions:
e a. City approval of a 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 landocape planting. Installation
of the parking lot screen shall occur at such time that
the adjoining residential property is platted.
b. City approval of drainage plan prior to issuance of
building permit.
C. City approval of the landscaping plan prior to issuance
of building permit. The landscaping plan shall include
30 overstory trees to be planted along the perimeter of
the developed portion of the property and spaced
approximately 35 feet apart. Additional development to
precipitate additional plantings.
d. 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.
Page 6
9
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/7/90
Motion carried unanimously, with Dan McConnon absent.
Reason for approval:
1. Church development at this site is consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
2. 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.
8. Public Hearina--A vreliminary Plat reauest to remlat portions
of an existing residential subdivision. Applicant, John
Sandberg.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members and the public Mr. Sandberg's preliminary
plat request to replat portions of an existing residential
subdivision. The noticeable change that you will see on the
( preliminary plat submitted is that Mr. Sandberg is creating
lots in back of the lots which front Gillard Avenue. These
lots will not be serviced by a public right-of-way.
Mr. Sandberg is proposing a 30 -foot outlot be placed on the
south portion of Block 1, Lot 3, and Block 2, Lots 10-16. You
will note on the enclosed preliminary plat that there is a
proposed 60 feet of right-of-way which Mr. Sandberg does not
own. It is owned by Mr. Rod Norell and is used for entrances
off of Gillard Avenue to service what is now known as
Outlot A, Sandberg East Addition. Mr. O'Neill indicated that
the City Administrator, Rick Wolfsteller, and himself had met
with Mr. Sandberg to discuss his request in further detail.
Acting Chairperson, Cindy Lemm, then opened the meeting for
input from the public. Mr. John Sandberg, applicant,
explained to Planning Commission members in detail his request
to be allowed to place Outlot A on the southerly portion of
Block 1, Lot 3, and Outlot B on the southerly portion of
Block 2, Lots 10-16. By allowing him to show these two
30 -foot wide outlots on this plat, it will show his intent to
Mr. Norell, whom he has talked to. He is the ownor of
Outlot A and is in complete agreement, according to
Mr. Sandberg, on the creation of two 30 -foot outlote to
facilitate half of the right-of-way needed for a proposed
60 -foot wide public right-of-way.
Page 7
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/7/90
Acting Chaiperson, Cindy Lemm, then closed the public hearing
and opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission
members. There was much discussion on the creation of
Block 1, Lot 3, and Block 2, Lots 10-16, and Block 3, Lot 3
being created and shown on the plat without access to a public
right-of-way. Even though it would be shown on the plat that
there are 30 -foot wide outlots to Block 1, Lot 3, and Block 2,
Lots 10-16, it still isn't sufficient right-of-way to consider
these buildable lots. When the lots are shown on the plat
with them meeting the square footage and lot width
requirements, one would assume that they are buildable lots.
The Commission members were concerned that the City would be
liable to a potential buyer of these lots with them being
shown as a lot of record even though they have no frontage on
a public right-of-way.
With no further discussion, a motion was made by Jon Bogart,
seconded by Richard Martie, to deny the preliminary plat
request to replat portions of an existing residential
subdivision. Motion carried unanimously, with Dan McConnon
absent.
Reason for denial: Block 1, Lot 3; Block 2, Lots 10-161 and
Block 3, Lot 1, as shown are not abutting a public right-of-
way. Therefore, in their determination, they are not
buildable. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission
that the plat could possibly be approved if a method for
protecting the interests of potential buyers could be
developed.
9. Public Hearing --An ordinance amendment to Section 3-9 fC1 4 to
include: (j) a permit for a public sign in the form of a
decorative banner to be displaved on public oroperty for a
period of one (11 veer. A permit shall be issued for each
year that the decorative banners are disclaved. AoDlicant,
City of Monticello.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members and the public the City of Monticello's
request to amend a portion of the sign ordinance to allow a
public sign in the form of a decorative banner to be displayed
on public property. Amending the ordinance would allow the
proposed decorative banners to be displayed in several
locations within the city, which will be determined by the
Chamber of Commerce and the City of Monticello. They will be
placed on poles in the public right-of-way. Currently,
attention getting devices need a permit issued for a maximum
period of 10 days with a minimum period of 180 days between
consecutive issuances of such permits for any property or
parcel.
Page 8
9
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/7/90
With no further input from the public, Acting Chairperson,
Cindy Lemm, opened the meeting for input from the Planning
Commission members. Planning Commission members thought the
proposed ordinance amendment would be appropriate in that it's
serving the good of the public in general.
With no further input, a motion was made by Richard Martie,
seconded by Jon Bogart, to approve the ordinance amendment to
Section 3-9 [C] 4 to include: (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. Motion carried unanimously, with Dan McConnon
absent.
Reason for approval: The amendment as presented would be only
for public signs.
10. Continued Public Hearing --A conditional use request to allow
used automobile/liqht truck sales in a B-3 (highway business)
zone. Applicant, Hoqlund Tranevortation/Ninety-four Services.
Mr. O'Neill explained to Planning Commission members that we
would like to have this item continued to next month's
scheduled Planning Commission meeting.
11. Continued Public Hearinq--A variance request to allow less
than the minimum 4,500 aq ft of sales and displaV area.
Applicant. Hoglund Transportation/Ninety-four Services.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members that we would like to have this item
continued to next month's scheduled Planning Commission
meeting.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
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.
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
Page 9
D
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/7/90
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.
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.
4. Continued Public Hearing --A variance request to allow less
than the minimum 4,500 eq ft of sales and display area.
Applicant, Hoglund Transportation. Council Action: No action
required, as the request did not come before them.
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.
Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for Tuesday, December 4, 1990, 7:00 p.m.
7. Adjournment.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary kAderson
Zoning Administrator
C
Page 10
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/4/90
3. Public Hearing --A variance request to allow construction of a
detached garage within the rear yard setback requirement.
ApDlicant. Anton 6 Cecelia Banvai. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. and Nrs. Banyai are proposing to construct a garage within
the rear yard setback requirement. In looking at the enclosed
site plan, you'll note the lot is 99 feet wide fronting Third
Street and 125 feet deep fronting Ramsey Street. For purposes
of determining the front yard in regard to this lot, the side
with the shortest lot width on a public right-of-way is
considered the front; therefore, the portion of the lot
fronting on Third Street is considered the front part of the
lot with the rear portion of the lot requiring a minimum of a
30 -foot rear yard setback. The existing storage building is
located within 4 feet 3 inches of the rear property line and
within 16 feet 3 inches of the side property line. The
storage building would be relocated to 11 feet 3 inches from
the rear property line with 10 feet between the rear most
portion of the existing garage and the storage building. The
proposed garage would be within 11 feet 3 inches of the rear
property line and within 20 feet 9 inches of the side property
line. On a corner lot situation like this, the side yard is
increased to a minimum 20 -foot setback when it abuts a public
right-of-way. When the house was built on this lot, the
assumption is that the builder took advantage of the high part
of the lot for placement of the house. You'll notice the
front yard setback of the existing house is 49 feet 9 inches
from the front property line. As noted on the site plan, the
proposed garage will have a 10 -foot setback from the existing
house. The reason for the 10 -foot setback from the existing
house is to allow room for surface water drainage coming from
the house roof and the proposed garage roof to drain easterly
toward Ramsey Street.
A minimum -sized garage could have been placed on this property
and attached to the existing house but would still have
required a variance from the minimum rear yard setback
requirement.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONSt
1. Approve the variance request to allow construction of a
garage within the rear yard setback requirement.
2. Deny the variance request to allow construction of a
garage within the rear yard setback requirement.
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/4/90
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends approval of the variance request to
allow placement of a detached garage within 11 feet 3 inches
of the rear property line. City staff recognizes that an
attached garage could have been built onto the house but would
have required a variance request anyway from the rear yard
setback but would have increased the setback from the rear lot
line. The hardship was created with the existing lot as it
was prior to being built upon. The assumption is that the
building contractor chose to place the house at the highest
point on the lot to accommodate a driveway off of Ramsey
Street to enter toward the rear portion of the lot. By
pushing the house farther back on the lot, it allowed the
driveway slope to be reduced to a more manageable slope rather
than a steep slope.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request; Copy of
the two site plans for the variance requests Copy of the
applicable ordinance sections.
C '
A variance request to allow construction
of a detached garage within the rear
R _ yard setback requirement.
., L APPLICANT: Anton & Cecelia Banyai
''HCl
ar
YJ
gvfl ;`
Z
jmR
We1N
Genre
, ,sfvs
We
41-*' ("d
3 Rd Sheet
0
I
4 cob
+-aIT—+
Ge've
� pl
��• • it r Mf• JY �
V-0
l
64 104
Wt��[%x� �14it l�
eid t '1r4y 4R
IWO
49.4"
C -A
1 •`'
t
• � G�xb
3Rd Sfaeef
Al
'•C
0
I . Clothes line pole and vire.
2. Recreational equipment and vehicles.
3. Construction and landscaping material currently
being used on the promisee.
4. Off-street parking of passenger vehicles
and trucks not exceeding a groes capacity
of nine thousand (9,000) pounds in residential
areae.
5. 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 (5) fact of any property line.
6. Mood piles in which wood is stored for
fuel provided that not more than 1 O cords
shall be stored on any property. A cord
shall be 4' x 4' x 8'. All wood piles
shall be five (5) feet or more from rear
and aide yard property lines and shall
be stored behind the appropriate set back
line in front yards.
7. Solar heating cyntams.
3-3: YARD REQUIREMENTS:
[ A) PURPOSE: This section idontifloo minimum yard
spaces and areas to be provided for in each
zoning district.
[D) No lot, yard or other open apace shall be reduced
In area or dimension so as to make such lot,
yard or open apace lose than the minimum required
by this Ordinance, and if the existing yard
or other open apace as existing Is less than
the minimum required it shall not be further
reduced. Ib required open space provided around
any building or structure shall be included
an a part of any open apace required for anothor
structure.
[c) All setback distances, as listed in the table
bolow, shall be measured from the appropriate
lot lino, and shall he required minimum diotancos.
rront Yard Side yard Rear Yard
A-0 SO 70 50
R-1 30 10 30
« du19 19)
u_J 30 20 30
R-4 30 30 30
PZ -R Bos Chapter 10 for specific regulations.
PZ_M Boo Chapter 10 for specific regulations.
0-1 30 15 20
0-2 30 10 20
3
O
[IN] INTERMITTENT: A stream or portion of a stream that
flows only in direct response to precipitation.
[LA) LODGING HOUSE: A building other than a hotel, where
for compensation for definite periods. lodging is provided
for three (3) or more persons not of the principal family,
but not including a building providing this service for
more than ten (10) persons.
[LB) LODGING ROOM: A room rented as sleeping and living
quarters but without cooking facilities and with or
without an individual bathroom. In a suite of rooms
without cooking facilities, each room which provides
sleeping accommodation shall be counted as one (1) lodging
room.
[LCJ LOT (OF RECORD): A parcel of land, whether subdivided
or otherwise legally described, as of the effective
date of this Ordinance, or approved by the City an a
lot subsequent to such date and which is occupied by
or intended for occupancy by one (1) principal building
or principal use together with any accessory'.buildings
and such open spaces as required by this Ordinance and
having its principal frontage upon a street.
(LDI LOT: Land occupied or to be occupied by a building
and its accessory buildings, together with such open
spaces as are required under the provisions of this
zoning regulation, having not leas than the minimum
area required by this Zoning Ordinance for a building
site in the district in which ouch lot In situated and
having its principal frontage on a street, or a proposed
street approved by the Council.
[LEI LOT AREA: The area of a horizontal plano within the
lot linea.
(LFI LOT, CORNER: A Lot situated at the junction of and
abutting on two (a) or more intersecting streate: or
a Lot at the point of deflection in alignment of a single
street, the interior angle of which is one hundred thirty-fivo
(135) degrees or loan.
(Lai LOT, DEPTH: The shortest horizontal distance between
the frontlot line and the rear lot line measure from
e ninety (90) dogroo angle from the street right-of-way
within the lot boundari—
(LN)i
FRONTAGE: The front of a lot shall be, for purposes
omplying with thin Ordinance, that boundary abutting
blic street right-of-way having tholeast width. No front
Lot shall be leas than two-thirds (2/3) of the minimum
width requirement.
(LII LOT, INTERIOR: A lot, other than a corner lot, including
through lots.
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/4/90
Consideration of an ordinance amendment allowina a public sign
In the form of a decorative banner to bre disDlaved on public
property. (J. O. )
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you recall, Planning Commission recommended approval of a
zoning ordinance amendment which would allow placement of
decorative banners on city street light fixtures. The City
Council failed to pass the amendment on a 2-2 vote. Fran Fair
and Ken Maus voted for the amendment with Shirley Anderson and
Dan Blonigen opposed. Warren Smith did not attend the
meeting. Mayor Maus requested that the item be brought
through the ordinance amendment process again and presented to
the full Council accordingly.
Planning Commission is asked to again conduct a public hearing
on this amendment and consider providing a recnmmendation to
Council. Please note that approval of a zoning ordinance
amendment needs a 4/5 vote. It is possible that the ordinance
amendment will fail even with Warren Smith present.
To rehash some of the information you have already reviewed,
the City Council on a 3-2 vote approved participating in
financing 75% of the cost to place 80 four-color banners in
the community. Approximately 40 of the banners will be hung
from the streetecape 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.
Dan Blonigen appears to be firmly against development of the
banner system. Shirley Anderson has indicated that she is not
against banners; however, she does object to the City
financing 75% of the banner expense. She might support City
participation in funding banners at a lessor percentage.
The purpose of the ordinance amendment is to establish a
narrow set of regulations that apply to this unique type of
banner display. It is thought that this ordinance would be
helpful because 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."
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/4/90
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 banners 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.
[B) PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED SIGNS:
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 SIGN: 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.
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 the case of
Subsection [C), Paragraph 4.
[C] GENERAL PROVISIONS:
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 dleplay, i.e.,
twenty consecutive days, ten weekends,
etc.
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/4/90
(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
Ln 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 rights-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.
(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 -petting device may
bear the name of the business but shall
not bear any service, product, price,
etc., advertising message.
(1) Permit fees shall be set by the City
Council and shall be payable upon
application for said permit.
(Amendment No. 150)
C
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/4/90
(j) A public Biqn in the form of a decorative
banner may be displayed on public
propertX. Said signs may be hung from
City or State of Minnesota, Department of
Transportation, liqht fixtures for a
period of one (1) year. Deeiqn and
placement of public sign/decorative
banners must first be approved by the
City Council and annually thereafter.:.oY �,✓`
'--ra
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: fs U
la. Motion 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 clarifies ordinance treatment of this type of
banner. Said banners are intended to build
community identity, sense of place, and advertise
business activity as a whole; 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.
This alternative requires a 4/5 vote of the
Council.
lb. Motion to interpret zoning ordinance as allowing
installation of the banners as proposed because the
Planning Commission finds that the proposed banners
are akin to a public sign, and, furthermore, the
"banners" as designed and constructed do not fit
the definition of a decorative attention -getting
device.
This alternative could be selected in addition to
alternative la. An argument could be made that the
ordinance amendment was never necessary in the
first place. Planning Commission could take tho
position that the banner system as designed fits
into the category of a public sign. Public signs
are allowed without a permit. Conversely, the
banner system proposed does not fit into the
attention-gotting dovico catogory. Signs that fall
into this category are quite restricted; therefore,
�- the banners may be hung without a permit after
approval from the City of Monticello. Please
closely review the definition of public signs prior
to selecting this alternative.
Planning Commission Agenda - 14/4/90
Final approval of this alternative requires a 3/5
vote
2. Notion 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
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 the
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 RECOMMENDATION:
If the Planning Commission continues to support the concept of
installing the decorative banners as proposed, and if the
Planning Commission interprets the banners/signs as fulfilling
a public purpose, then it is recommended that the Planning
Commission select both alternatives la and ib. Alternative Is
is the best option, as the ordinance amendment clarifies
regulations pertaining to this type of banner; however, this
option requires a 4/5 vote of Council which might not be
attainable. Option lb would allow the banners to be installed
without the benefit of a 4/5 vote under the existing
ordinance. Planning Commission may also wish to consider
approving this option, which would allow the banners to be
installed in the event the ordinance amendment fails.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/4/90
S. Continued Public Hearing --A conditional use request to allow
used automobile/light truck sales in a 8-3 (highway business)
zone. Applicant. Hoglund Transportation/Ninety-four Services.
AND
6. Continued Public Hearing --A variance reguest to allow less
than the minimum 4,500 so ft of sales and display area.
ApDlicant, Hoglund TransDortation/Ninety-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 has now been completed; however, we
have not had the chance to meet with Hoglund. It is suggested
that this item be carried over to the next meeting of the
Planning Commission, at which time we should have a plan in
place for addressing this conditional use permit
request.
t
MICROFILM TITLE PAGE
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Planning Commission
Agenda Books
1991