Planning Commission Agenda Packet 01-03-1989AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, January 3, 198 - 7:30 p.m.
Members:
Richard Carlson, Cindy Lenin, Richard Martie, Mori Malone, Dan
McConnon
7:30 p.m.
1. Call to order.
7:32 p.m.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held
December 6, 1988.
7:34 p.m.
3. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow additional pylon
sign square footage and pylon sign height. Applicant, First
National Hank/Attracta Sign.
7:54 p.m.
4. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow an additional
pylon sign on a B-3 (highway business) unplatted lot.
Applicant, Tom Thumb Store.
8:14 p.m.
5. Replatting request to replat an existing lot into six
townhouse lots and one common area lot. A variance request
to allow a replotted lot to have less than the minimum lot
width requirement. A replotting request to replat an
existing lot into four townhouse lots and one common area
lot. Applicant, Jay Miller/Fairway Court.
8:34 p.m.
6. Public Hearing - a simple subdivision request to allow an I-2
(Heavy Industrial) lot to be subdivided into two lots.
Applicant, Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership.
8:44 p.m.
7. Public Hearing - a variance request to allow a residential
unplatted tract of land to be subdivided by a metes and
bounds description. Applicant, Tom Rolthaus.
8:49 p.m.
8. Public Hearing - a replatting request to replat an existing
residential subdivision plat. Applicant, Dan Prie.
9:15 p.m.
9. Consideration of adopting a resolution finding the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority's modified redevelopment plan for
Redevelopment Project No. 1, Modified Tax Increment Financing
Plans for tax increment financing districts Nos. 1-1 through
1-7, and tax increment financing plan for tax increment
financing district No. 1-8, all located within Redevelopment
Project No. 1 to be consistent with the comprehensive plan
for the city. (Jeff Report).
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION ITE13
9:39 p.m.
1. A simple eubdivieion request to subdivide an existing I-2
(Heavy Industrial) lot into two lots. Applicant, City of
Monticello. Council Action. Approved as per Planning
Commission Recommendation.
9:41 p.m.
2. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
7
Commission meeting for February 7, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
V
9:43 P.M.
3. Adjournment.
'7
44
MINUTES
ROGULAR MEETING - MONfICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, December 6, 1988 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Cindy Lem, Richard Martie, Mori Malone,
Dan McConnon.
Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill.
Meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Carlson at 7:33 p.m.
Motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Lem, to approve the minutes
of the regular meeting held November 1, 1988, as presented. Motion
carried unanimously, with Dan Mcconnon abstaining.
3. Public Hearing - A simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing
I-2 (heavy industrial) lot into two lots. Applicant, City of Monticello.
Chairperson Richard Carlson opened the meeting for any discussion from
the public. There being no one in attendance from the public, he opened
the meeting for discussion amongst the Planning Commission members.
Commission members discussed the rationale for the splitting of this
heavy industrial lot and who the proposed tenant would be of the lot
which the City is proposing to sell.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning
Commission members the background of the applicant and the process which
the City staff has gone through to work out a proposed purchase agreement
on this lot for the new tenant, Northern States Power.
With no further discussion from the Planning Commission members or City
staff, motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Dan McConnon, to
approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing I-2
(heavy industrial) lot into two lots. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Discuss potential of allowing commercial advertising to be placed on
benches situated on city puolic rigntbr-way.
Chairperson Richard Carlson opened the meeting for discussion of this
agenda item from anyone from the public. With no input from the public,
Chairperson Richard Carlson turned it over to discussion from the
Planning Commisaion members. Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Aaaistant Administrator,
explained to the Planning Commission members that Dorothy Thomson of
Sterling Signe was unable to attend the meeting to propose her idea of
the City allowing her company to place benches on the city public
right-of-way adjacent to city streets within the city of Monticello. If
the City would allow her to place those benches on the public
right-of-way, she would in turn rent advertising apace on the front aide
of these benches.
9
Planning Commission Minutes - 12/6/88
The City Ordinance does not allow this as a temporary sign, and also
within the boulevard section of the ordinance, it also does not allow
this type of use and would require an ordinance amendment.
Discussion amongst the Planning Commission members dealt with the City
already putting in an extensive redevelopment project downtown with the
Streetscape Project; and allowing this type of advertising to be placed
in an area close to the downtown redevelopment Streetscape Project would
probably not be in the best interest of the City. Commission members
felt that without a public or private transportation system within the
city limits to pick up passengers which way use these type of benches, it
would not be beneficial to the city to amend the ordinance to allow this
type of use within the public right-of-way. The general consensus of the
five Planning Commission members present was to get back to Dorothy
Thomson and explain to her that they were not in favor of amending the
ordinance to allow this type of use within the public right-of-way.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
1. Rezoning request to rezone an R-1 (single family residential) tract of
land into R-2 (single and two family residential) zone. Applicant, Ren
Maus/Gary DeBoer. Council action: No action necessary, as applicants
withdrew their request.
2. Replatting request to replat an R-2 (single and two family residential)
lot into two residential lots. Applicant, Fairway Court/Jay Miller.
Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
3. Motion by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Richard Martie, to set the next
tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting for
January 3, 1989, 7:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Motion by Dan McConnon, seconded by Richard Martie, to adjourn the
meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:24 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Ancerson
Zoning Administrator
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/3/89
3. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow additional prylon sign square
rootage ana pylon sign neiqnt. Applicant, First National Bank/ARAEEa
Sign. kG.A.,
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Attracts Sign, a sign company hired by the First National Bank of
Monticello, is proposing to be allowed to remove the existing pylon sign
and replace it with a new pylon sign. However, the new sign they are
proposing to replace it with is a larger pylon sign in square footage and
in pylon height. Two variances will be required prior to installation of
this sign.
The maximum sign height allowed by the Ordinance Is 18 feet in height.
The applicant is proposing to be allowed to construct the sign with a
height of 25 feet. The applicant is also proposing a pylon sign of
108 square feet where the maximum allowed is C50)aquare feet.
The applicant does not attempt to demonstrate any hardship in the
application. It is the view of the applicant that they should be allowed
to develop a sign equal to that which exists at the Security Federal Bank
building site. An administrative decision was made back in 1985 to allow
Security Federal to relocate their existing non -conforming pylon sign from
the current site of the A-V Room to the new location. The sign that was
relocated is 26 feet high and has a sign area of 100 square feet.
Unfortunately, City staff mistakenly allowed re -installation of the
non -conforming sign without prior review by the Planning Commission.
B. ALTEWATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow additional pylon sign height and
sign square footage.
Since the action talo by City staff was improper in terms of
procedures outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, a true precedent has not
been set. In a court of law, the City would not likely be compelled
to follow the precedent and grant the proposed variance because the
appropriate governing bodies did were not given the opportunity to
make a ruling regarding the "precedent" setting event. However, it
may be that the Planking Commission, from a public relations
standpoint, would desire to grant the variance despite the fact that a
true precedent has not been established. If this is the case, an
amendment to the sign section of the toning ordinance should be
developed which redefines sign height and site requirements.
2. Deny the variance request to allow additional pylon sign height and
square footage.
Planking Commission could justify denial of the variance request based
on the fact that criteria for granting a variance have not been met
and because there is no bona fide precedent established when City
V► � j
Planning commission Agenda - 1/3/89
staff granted the sign permit to Security Federal which allowed the !
relocation of an existing non -conforming sign. Furthermore, granting
of the variance as proposed would ultimately result in an amendment to
the ordinance that would double the existing maximum sign area allowed
and increase the height maximum by 38%. Qnanging the ordinance in
such a drastic meaner may be too big of a price to pay for the sake of
maintaining a precedent set by mistake.
C. STAPP RECOM ORT10Nt
Staff recommends denial of the variance request because approval operas the
door to development of signs that will be twice as large and 38% higher
than what is currently allowed by Ordinance. Staff recognises that it
might be good form to follow the precedent even though it was set by
mistake. However, in this case, it Is difficult to follow the precedent
because the variance request is so extreme and because the long term
effects of granting this variance and bending so far from current maximums
could have a negative lag term impact.
D. DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request; Copy of the site
plan for the proposed variance request; and a copy of the Sign ordinance
section.
IM
-2-
iia �urt aNtt �Jtr�vrt anis,�i'ut atl;�.r
�,� �„ ,, ax t aIJJta� �'�� 9J '� �� •
• ��ttRa�� �� qi p���J�JJ"� y.
tJJ tt� �� � ��rt�t`•
qac.
a.
T,6 iv,o T Tt
B ,W
IPrp �f' T
a T
1_
Bank
ATTINCTR JW
91an
mwn mnMm towsoo
nnoa o sun
3-9 19)4(b)
3-9 (E16(e)
(b)
Parking Areas, Driveways: no part
"I
of the pylon signs shall be leas than
�i
five (s) feet from any driveway or
parking area.
(c)
Area, Height Regulations:
SPEED AREA HEIGHT
ROAD CLASSIFICATION (MPH) (SO.FT.) (FEET)
Collector 70 25 16
2s so 20
40 100 24
Major Thoroughfares t;n BO 1B)
2s 100 22
40 125 24
Is 1s0 26
so lis 28
Freeways and ss zoo 32
Expressways and
above
(d)
Definitions: Definitions of road
classifications apply as defined by
the official Comprehensive Plan as
adopted.
yj
(e)
Application: The level at which the
sign control system applies is determined
by the type of road, as defined above,
which directly abuts the subject property.
L. in the case of subject property
directly abutting more than
one (1) road, each designated
by a different road classification
type, the less restrictive classification
shall apply in determining sign
area and height.
ii. Actual sign height is determined
by the grade of the road from
which the sign gains its principal
exposure.
iii. Area as determined by the formula
under 2 (o) above, applies to
one (1) face of a two (2) faced
pylon sign, or two (2) faces
of a four (a) faced sign, etc.
Iv. A bonus allowing *Freeway Standard
"q?
Signs* (200 square fast in area
and 12' high) in a comsezcial
or industrial area is available
to all businesses located within
800 feet of a freeway but do
not abut a freeway. d -A.,
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/3/89
4. Public Hearing - A variance re9uest to allow an additional pylon sicp on a
B-3 (highway business) unplatteo lot, Applicant, Tom TrAM Store. MO.)
As you recall, the Planning Ommission acted in September 1989 to grant a
variance request to the Tam Thumb store which allowed the installation of
a sign that exceeds maximum height and size requirements as outlined in
the zoning ordinance. A variance of 64 square feet was granted to the
sign area and the sign was allowed to be placed at a height of 50' which
required a variance of 181. Planning Commission granted the variances
somewhat reluctantly because of previous precedent.
0n the heels of the approval of the above variance request, the Tom Thumb
food store requests that the Planning Commission grant another variance
that will allow the installation of a second pylon sign that will replace
the original pylon sign. The second pylon sign proposed will include the
same advertisement as the larger sign and will be still larger than the
original sign.
The sign company contends that they were never told that they would be
required to replace the existing pylon with the new pylon. Please note in
the agenda supplement sent to you it was clearly spelled out that the new
sign was intended to replace the old sign. Your previous decision was
based on the understanding that the new higher and wider sign was a
replacement sign.
No hardship is cited as justification for the second pylon sign. The sign
company sites the presence of two pylon signs at the nearby Pord
Dealership as justification for development of two signs at the Tom Thumb.
ANALYSIS
This request does not meet any of the criteria for granting a variance.
Purthermore, it is our view that the reasons for granting two pylon signs
to the Ford dealership are unique to the business activity at this
location and, therefore, this precedent cannot be directly applied when
considering the Tom Thumb variance request. According to the
recollections of the City Administrator, and according to the meeting
minutes of November 7, 1977, the Ford Dealership was allowed to install
two signs because the business needed to advertise two distinct
functions. If you visit the site, you will note that each sign contains a
separate advertisement with no message repetition. On the other hand, the
proposal submitted by the Tom Thumb store calla for two signs containing
the same message. Therefore, the Ford Dealership precedent does not apply
to the current situation.
Please visit the site and note that the larger of the two Tae Thumb signs
is clearly visible from the freeway as intended and it is also readable
from both directions on Highway 29. Also note that the "Tae Thumb"
advertisement Is very prominent on the face of the building as well. It
appears that there is more than sufficient signage present to indicate
business use of the structure.
.3-
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/3/89
B. ALTEMATM ACTIONS:
1. Deny the variance request.
2. Approve the variance request that a truly negative precedent will not
be set.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
The variance request does not satisfy any of the criteria associated with
granting a variance, and as such, the City would not be taking, in our
estimation, unreasonable action by denying the variance. Purthermore, it
is our view that the presence of two pylon signs at the Pord Dealership
does not create a precedent that can be applied in this situation.
Pinally, granting of this request will set a precedent that will allow
other businesses to install two pylon signs at each business location
which, in our estimation, is not in the beat interest of the community.
Por reasons stated above, staff reooamends denial of the variance request.
D. 4.ie.4—A. DATA:
Copy of previous agenda item pertaining to original variance request
Submitted by Tom Thumb Stored Plan for enlarged second pylon signs Copy
of meeting minutes pertaining to Council decision to allow Ford Dealership
to have two pylon signs.
-4.
November 7, 1977
to approve the building permit request of Monticello Ford contingent uper.
final review and approval by the building inspector and city engineer.
4. Public Hearing - Variance Request - Two Pylon Signs.
Monticello Ordinance Section 10-3-9 allows only 2 wail signs or one wall
sign and one pylon sign. Monticello Ford, Inc. requested one wall and two
pylon signs (one for new cars and one for used cars). Mr. Flake indicated
that the necessity of two pylon signs comes about because of Ford lbtor Go.
requirements established for new car dealership buildings with both new an:i
used car sales.
0. Blonigen entered a motion, seconded by P. White and unanimously carried
.o grant a variance to Monticello Ford to allow two pylcn signs in additio,'
to one wal:. sign.
5. Public Hearing - Variance Request - Suis Height Requirements.
Monticello Ordinance Section 10-3-9 limits the height of a pylon sign to
32' if a business is "on or within 800' of a freeway'.
Ford Motor Co. has indicated to Mr. Flake that .bnticello Ford can qualify
for a 42' Up based on criteria established by the corporation for new
dealerships and as a result Mr. Flake requested that a variance be granted
for the new car dealership sign allowing a height of 421.
A motion was made by G. Walters, seconded by D. Blonigen and unanimously
carried to deny the variance requested and require all pylon signs to meet.
the 321 height limit.
6. Public Hearing - Variance Request - Curb Barrier.
Monticello Ordinance Section 10-3-5-(0) requires a curb barrier along the
perimeter of the off-street parking area. Monticello Ford, Die., In re-
questing a variance to provide a curb barrier only along the entryway to the
site but net the entire parking area since future expansion might necessitot,
tearing up portions of the curb barrier.
A motion was ,Dade by P. White, seconded by A. Grimsmo and unanimously
carried to approve the variance requested provided a curb barrier is instalir
on both sides of the entrance drive on the northerly portion of the parking
area and building frontage, with the balance of the cub barrier around the
parking area perimeter completed within two years of occupancy.
Motion to adjourn was made by P. White, seconded by A. Grimsmo and unanimis'_:
carried.
Rick Wol.eteller, Adm. Asat.
RW/mjq
5
L, 03
Planning Agenda — 9/6/88
a. A Variance Request to Allow a Pylon Sign to be Constructed in excess of the
Maximum SiZf Mivare Footage ana HeLgnt Requirements. Applicant, Tom Tnumb
Store. 15.0.1
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Tom Thumb Food Store is proposing to be allowed to replace their existing
pylon sign with a combination Tom Thumb Store sign and a separate Phillips 66
gasoline station sign. The total square footage of the two signs combined is
261 square feet threby exceeding the 200 square foot maximum allowed by
ordinance. It is also proposed that the new combination sign be elevated to 50
feet in height which would exceed the maximum of 32' allowed under the freeway
bonus. The maximum allowed under the freeway bonus is 32' above the traveled
portion of the road which gets its major exposure, in this case it would be
Highway 24.
variances have been requested by other businesses in this area for additional
sign height and sign square footage and have been approved in the past.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Deny the variance request to allow a pylon sign to be constructed in
excess of the maximum sign square footage and height requirements.
Planning Commission must determine if there are circumstances that justify the
proposed variance. It may be difficult for the applicant to make a good
justification for the variance request. Applicants single justification
u- appears to be based on the desire of economic gain which will be the result of
better advertising created by a higher and bigger sign. The desire for
economic gain is not a criteria for awarding a variance according to the toning
ordiance. Therefore, unless there is another factor justifying the
installation of the higher and larger sign, it appears that there are no
grounds for granting the variance.
If the Commission does decide that the request is reasonable and a variance is
appropriate, then it should consider taking future action to emend the
ordinance to allow this type of sign development to occur without requiring a
variance. Such an amendment would create an ordinance that better reflects the
values of the Planning Commission regarding freeway signage.
2. Approve the variance request to allow a pylon sign to be constructed in
excess of the maximum sign square footage and height requirementa.
It appears that on previous occasions, the Planning Commission has allowed
installation of signs higher and larger than the maximum allowed, therefore it
appears that a precedent has been set. Since I am not familiar with the case
history I am not sure how previous precedents affect this case. Previous
precedent may cospell the Planning 0%nmission to approve this variance request.
As of the preparation of this agenda item, information regarding the peecedenta
has not been collected. I hope to have this information at the sooting.
CO)
Planning Agenda - 9/6/88 }
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the variance request. The sign as presented would
be in excess of the mnxlmhm amount of sign height and square footage allowed by
ordinance under the freeway bonus portion, which allows a maximum of 200 square
feet of pylon sign area and a maximum of 32 feet in height. Such a large
variance doss not appear justified and awarding the variance could create a
precedent that would add to the proliferation of higher and larger signs which
could result in significant visual blight. if the Planning Cmaission desires
to approve this request, it should consider adopting new language requlating
free -way signage.
D. S7PPMTING DATA:
Copp of the location of the proposed variance request and copy of the site plan
for the proposed new pylon sign and a copy of sign square footage and sign
height requirements.
9
ON
-,Gt% Sim%
.11. OV a at ttte
to - .&so 904'rj.01%
,ST. ,*C ge
T'SAP. ad V% 0 C*Gta UOCA
'st%ta cv/
go ,
sjqt%
'06 �,f r�� 't 1, S,
%Q. trox .61
tv-9 l ,a,% a cj�tll loo
SA
jj
.7
-7j
A.- k, L7!
f, T 0
..... ......
\GM WAY
NO,94
20
41
IL ,
MILLIPS
• � �, -F � rain
Ao
µ. R�
r
p,14MiAiAt{SO S+W' ZO' •1 Y Ciao-
_ Aq
1
itA•� ja i'�� �f V e
_-�I p,• rig It ��.....,.+r• Z,,,r,i'� � � r � E-1
StYl'XCllljidll
1 motaa�II wta' — — _
• COYRti� 61fiM MR�nCi � � I
Ole
"11A t
,•wr
1 S.;ixr+xJ7rri
4
R
v/
REGULAR UNLEADED -1
(�. L _ ID 10
r "KWWV op
sly'll-A-
j
INJ
C�(
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/3/89
v S. Re
Qlatti.9 request to replat an existing lot into six townhouse lots and
one commDn area lot. A variance request to allow a relatted lot to have
less than the ninimum lot width requirement. A replatting request to
caplet an exietl lot into tour townhouse lots arsd one common area lot.
Appllcant, Jay Miler/Fairway Court. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Jay Miller is back before you requesting to replat his two existing
previously approved subdivided lots into one six unit townhouse lot and
one common area lot and the other being four townhouse lots with one
common area lot. Under the northerly portion of this subdivided lot,
Mr. Miller to proposing to construct six townhouse units with a common
area around them. As you will note on the enclosed site plan, the lot
width on this northerly portion shows a lot width of 64.25 feet, where the
minimum required by ordinance is 80 feet of lot width. However, at the
30 foot front yard setback line, Mr. Miller does exceed the minimum
80 feet of lot width at the 30 -foot setback line. In looking at the
townhouses as situated on the northerly portion of this lot, Mr. Miller
has demonstrated that he can fit six townhouse units on this lot and still
stay within the minimum setback requirements. As the townhouses are
situated on this northerly portion of this lot, one would question how
Mr. Miller is going to serve these six townhouse units with a
driveway/driveways and account for some type of circulation within the
driveway parking area.
Mr. Miller has indicated that the off-street parking requirements would be
met or exceeded in that they would be double car garages on each of the
six townhouse units. With the two enclosed spaces per unit, Mr. Miller
does meet the minimum requirements of the ordinance. One thing the City
staff would like to illustrate in the review is that when a townhouse
owner to parking in front of their garage, what type of parking driveway
circulation throughout this six unit townhouse development Is going to
occur with a vehicle/s parked in front of the townhouses. If a vehicle
was parked in front of the garage, we would need to account for twenty
feet in front of the garage for a parking apace sire for a vehicle and
also allow for a driving lane between the parked car and the end of the
driveway, which would be a 24 -foot driving aisle. With this in mind, one
could conceive a 44 -foot width in front of the garage units to accommodate
a vehicle parked in front of the garages and a driving aisle behind the
parked vehicles to accommodate the parking circulation.
In looking at the south portion of this lot, the townhouses are so
situated on the lot to meet the minimum setback requirements. The layout
of the lour tovnhousee on the mouth portion of this lot demonstrates
similar to what the colony by the Greene Second and Third Additions
layouts are.
5;M
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/3/69
Staff feels that some serious consideration should be done for Mr. !tiller �
revising his plan to show the eight townhouse units being placed on this
one lot. With the layout that Mr. Miller has proposed, he definitely
meta the minimum requirements of the ordinance of these ten townhouse
units on this lot. City staff feels the developer is taking advantage of
the large size area of the existing lot to accomplish getting two
additional units on here when an eight townhouse unit and one common area
lot would fit quite nicely on this lot.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the replatting request to replat an existing lot into six
townhouse lots and one common area lot.
2. Deny the replotting request to replat an existing lot into six
townhouse lots and one common area lot.
3. Approve the variance request to allow a replatted lot to have less
than the minimum lot requirement.
4. Deny the variance request to allow a replatted lot to have less than
the minimum lot requirement.
5. Approve the replotting request to replat an existing lot into four
townhouse lots and one common area lot. J
6. Deny the replatting request to replat an existing lot into four /
townhouse lots and one cocoon area lot.
C. STAFF RECOMKERDATION:
The developer has chosen to replat the recently simple subdivided lot to
accommodate a six townhouse unit and one common area lot on the north
portion of this existing lot and also to replat the southerly portion of
this existing lot into four townhouse lots and one common area lot. The
developer has not demonstrated any hardship in the creation of ten total
townhouse unite on this platted lot other than he has excess land area
which he would like to develop to it fullest extent which would allow a
six unit townhouse building on the north portion of this lot and a four
unit townhouse on the southerly portion of this lot. The staff still
questions the layout of the six townhouse unite on the northerly portion
of this lot with the parking and parking circulation to be created within
six townhouse unit.
D. SUPPORTING DATAt
Copy of the location of the proposed replatting requests Copy of the site
plan for the proposed replotting request.
411
-6-
A replatting request to replat an existing
�� I1 lot into 6 townhouse lots and one common
l� I! area lot. A variance request to allow a
•- _ \. I replatted lot to have leas than the minimum
11 lot width requirement.
� 1
A repiattiagrequest to raplat an existing
lot into A townhouse lots and one common
c \,` area lot. '
Jay Miller/Fairway Court
--' ----
-- --�: _-------- c
P
r
c
t T
�0T
r - GOVT LOT a\�
LOT
--INI
Mw moo
moo
2 83
4000 12
BLOCK ONE
-
w
u
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/3/89
6. Public searing - A single subdivision re
,guest to allow an I-2 (Beavy
Inaustrlail lot to be subdivided into two iota. Appiicant, oakwooa
inradsidal Park Partne[ship. G.A.)
A r• s i. .w 1'77i --'[S .7
The Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership is proposing to be allowed to
simple subdivide one of the existing I-2 (heavy industrial) lots into two
lots. The proposed lot to be subdivided is Block 3, Got 1, Oakwood
Industrial Park Addition. The Partnership has indicated they have a
prospective buyer for the westerly 223 feet of this lot for potential
development. The remaining portion of this lot to be subdivided would be
under an option agreement with the potential buyer.
The proposed lot to be subdivided into two lots will have each of the two
lots meeting the minimum lot square footage and lot width requirements
under I-2 (heavy industrial) zoning.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the simple subdivision request to allow an I-2 (heavy
industrial) lot to be subdivided into two lots.
2. Deny the simple subdivision request to allow an 1-2 (heavy
industrial) lot to be subdivided into two lots.
C. STAPP REOOMMIDATION:
The proposed I-2 (heavy industrial) lot to be subdivided does meet or
exceed the minimum lot area and lot width requirements under I-2 (heavy
industrial) zoning. one thing to consider is if the potential buyer does
not exercise hie/her option to purchase the easterly portion of this
newly subdivided lot, and the Oakwood Industrial Park Partnership sells
this portion of the lot to a new potential buyer, the Oakwood Industrial
Park Partnership or the new buyer would be responsible for the complete
installation of a new service to be provided to this lot. If this simple
subdivision is approved, the existing service to this lot would be used
by the westerly portion of this existing lot to be subdivided.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed simple subdivision request, Copy of
the site plan for the proposed simple subdivision request) Copy of the
ordinance section under heavy industrial lot area and lot width
requirements.
-7-
--.:t . tt �, rr� `i, � !f ! .t err• •;./.' '
��l �;, Il. .t� re„„ ��1 �" Q�iJ77jll�'• �'i . f •r": ~.l. ! ;�+.`•„�, ` " `
'"�t.:1 .r• J r �• l�r ,',+v.� 7�ly ;. „r '1 � �'••P'%�M1`br;
+`. r �, / 1• C„`.y:7 .11 r /"""I"���+111��� ��1((�� r,,lrrr��� _ 'Jr.
let
,1 /t • -�.Y h [jj'/�rfl}+jI Jj(.•j�j j;� './�; ;j... i`',
•/ �, _""' � tfi +iii .It Ylt/. MI,
.Ift f,l�• ��•�•.
p t•. Q �" r. k i �.t/ 1.
;";JS r f r 1 i, 4 "".+•r.T r� ��, I �.:, j t' .. ""••eur !j� �'r.
rr . i • f ? 1 ,� j � �' Q /! � `.'jam..
... � ',� : I �• r t • � gas. r "' - i� � ` 4 -.
HIGHWAY
1
NO. 94 r
.+•�', �`� �• fir!
44
o "' 1 t •11n`�
.r `` ` v • on Stet q ory
A •yID9S lh•a 1t+0 • 1Q i4 "not
�tip
y
in MINI
minner®ta
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Industrial Park Profile
Oakwood Industrial Park
Monticello, Minnesota
That part of Lot 1. Block 3 of Oakwood Industrial Park
described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner
of the said lot; thence South along the West line 378.32
feet to a point; thence Fast at a right angle 223 feet to
a point; thence North parallel with the West line to a point
on the North line; thence West at a right angle to the point
of beginning.
j
In addition, each condominium unit shall
have the minimum lot area for the type
of housing unit and usable open space
as specified in the Area and Building
Size Regulations of this Ordinance. Such
lot areas may be controlled by an individual
or joint ownership.
[P] In residential districts, where the adjacent
structures exceed the minimum setbacks
established in Subsection (C] above, the
minimum setback shall be thirty (70) feet
plus two-thirds (2/2) of the difference.
between thirty (30) feet and the setback
or average setback of adjacent structures
within the same block.
]-a: ARBA AND BUILDING SIZE REGULATIONS:
[A] PURPOSL: This section identifies-1.4—
area and building size requirements to
be provided in each zoning district as
Listed in the table below.
DISTRICT IAT AREA LOT WIDTH BUILDING HEIGHT
A-0 2 acres 200 N/A
R-1 12.000 80 2y
2-2 12,000 80 21,
R-] 10,000 so 2
R -a 48,000 200 1
PZ -R 12,000 80 2%
PZ -M 12,000 80 2
B-1 8,000 80 2
B-2 N/A 100 2
B-] N/A 100 2
B -a N/A N/A 2
1-1 20,000 101
0-2 30.000 100 2
1. The building height limitation in an
R-1, PZ -M, B-1, B-2, 8-2, B -a, I-1,
and I-2 zoning districts shall be
two (2) stories.
2. In zoning districts R-2, PZ -N, 3-1,
3-2, B-1, 8-4, I -I, and I-2, a (2)
three story building may be allowed
as a conditional use contingent upon
strict application of a requirement
that firs-extlnquishing systems be
installed throughout the building.
(Requ,i,tu d undZcZoat dat ptrowt
baatd upon paottdmu act douA in
dxd ttgllLatt by Chnplta It o6 th.i,a
oadiAanet) . c4p
Planning Comission Agenda - 1/3/89
v 7. A variance request to allow a residential unplatted tract of land to be
suoalvlaea Dy a (Oates encs oounas Oescrlptlon. Applicant, Tom Hoitnaus.
13.b.)
As you may recall, ib® Holthaus recently requested and received
preliminary plat approval to subdivide an unplatted tract of land. Since
gaining this approval, Holthaus has requested that the City allow him to
record the subdivision utilizing a metes and bounds description rather
than platting the property as originally proposed and as prescribed by
ordinance. Following are reasons why Holthaus makes his request.
The open land created with the subdivision of this property will likely be
replatted in the near future to accommodate a future unknown development
proposal. To the applicant, it does not make sense to go to the added
expense of platting the property only to turn around and replat the parcel
next year or the year after.
The applicant understands that development of the parcel described by a
mates and bounds description will not be allowed until such time that all
areas associated with the original parcel are properly platted.
Holthaus has agreed to provide the City with a warranty deed to the area
now planned for the 7th Street right-of-way in lieu of a dedicated
right-of-way that would otherwise be included in the plat.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request.
This request does have merit. It may be that strict application of
the Zoning Ordinance in this instance places a hardship on the
applicant. Furthermore, staff does not foresee the establishment of a
significant negative precedent with the approval of this request, as
it appears to be a unique situation. It should be eaphasized that
prior to issuance of a building permit, the property swat be properly
platted. Pinally, Tom Hayes reviewed the situation and did not
express concerns opposing the granting of the variance.
2. Deny the varum:.. request.
Planning Commission may foresee problems that are not evident to staff
at this point and deny the request accordingly.
D. o.w..n.., a DAM
Section of Zoning Ordinance pertaining to conveyance of land by metes and
bounds descriptions Copy of preliminary plat] Letter from sum Hayes of
November 28, 1988.
4-
to �0.10.
tfoc
DY
it
a too to be
t meJLA bO
0 too &
To.
11-8-1 11-8-2
i CHAPTER 8
REGISTERED LAND SURVEYS AND CONVEYANCE BY METES AND BOUNDS
SECTION, '
11-8-18 Registered land Surveys
11-8-21 Conveyance by Metes and Bounds
11-8-11 REGISTERED LAND SURVEYS, It is the intention of this Or-
dinance that all registered land surveys in the City of
Monticello should be presented to the Planning Commission in the form
of a preliminary plat in accordance with the standards set forth in this
Ordinance for preliminary plats and that the Planning Commission shall
first approve the arrangement, sizes, and relationship of proposed tracts
in such registered land surveys, and that tracts to be used as assements
or roads should be so dedicated. Unless a recommendation and approval
have been obtained from the Planning Commission and City Council re-
spectively, in accordance with the standards set forth in this Ordinance,
building permits will be withheld for buildings on tracts which have been
so subdivided by registered land surveys and the City may refuse to take
over tracts as streets or ronde or to improve, repair or maintain any such
tracts unless so approved.
11-8-21 CONVEYANCE BY NETES AND BOUNDS, No conveyance in which ti
land conveyed is described by metes and bound* shall be made
or recorded it the parcels described in the conveyance are five (5) acres
or less, in area and three hundred (300) feet in width unless such parcel
was a separate parcel of record at the effective date of this Ordinance.
Building permits will be withheld for buildings or tracts which have been
subdivided and conveyed by this method and the City may refuse to take
over tracts as streets or roads or to improve, repair or maintain any such
tracts.
0
bn� {Pi
' 1 /Ur pr••
OJiil[4tAwt'wG't•, it, 1..+•
off
roil
rA F*
+•--il. ,•,ci'y)_^_'.•� l.�V z • "•• n 1.., ~' :"`:oC4 � "• irrrr a
0 if
H ! l t`jy =Kf V��\ialY.-� '�,;'�4..! + i'....1^ ....I+ f <� .nwet,�.+ • ' +.' ,
� �y' 1 t ` •J.1itj� r -t. F ,�. ' ttr,1 �r
e j. Yyn iw�ua 3I�_. l� +•'...j ! ti 1� r+ .t 14t..1V
ojf
I , , ,r QUTLOfi Aow—
,•/` / I ` t'j '•�+ [J•NO,�q.. T.f { �\ A111•rY 11I •�
�. � • � , - J t.,d '✓''fI OyK'f.✓`'rMr.w.sv✓•i n✓rr: rt..r
f?. • � :r U + �.yypw )11.1 `'�
i v � 1{ ,• , C ��rf•JA/ Lf..S.•. !{ f.I.M •w✓
V Jy,•ty�NM w✓lfI �� � ►17'+l 1••/•W wI
�'rbvi n'a ianiD SLiityEl'O%iS _'-��'�y',�Igf�;: acs
S mirm & MAYES
uonneltua O"cl ATTORMSYS AT LAW N venal oPPICS
107 SOUTH WALNUT STRIW CMO" PROVISSU MAL RL".
P.O. eon SIS eR500RT v. aid"". J.D. SW EACH ST.. SUITS 101
MOIVTICSLLO. MINNeSOTA 56]01.0000 DART L MM06=. J.0.41940-19"p/I RN". IUM1110TA 67 70
rmO ^s O. MAns. J.o.
GPM@ OHHOHII ISIS 8, 107 01,1411 OIIOW We -1•m
uSTSO two IS1a Hl•lOo RICHARD o. CLOUOM. JA.
November 28, 1988
Jeff O'Neill
250 East Broadway
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Thomas Nolthaus
Dear Jeff:
I have reviewed Title 11 of the city code, including Section 11-8-2. Vhile
this ordinance reflects sound planning and development goals and ought to be
strictly adhered to where reasonable, I am of the opinion that nothing contained
within Title 11 would prevent Mr. 8olthaua from petitioning the Planning
Commission for a variance under chapter 9 of Title 11. Of course Mr. Eolthaus
must be prepared to satisfy the criteria for the grant of a variance as spelled
out in chapter 9. If the variance is ultimately greeted, Mr. @olthaus should
receive written evidence of the variance grant in recordable form.
?ours truly,
.>. -�
Thomas D. Hayes
TD8/sem
File No. 74-1115
\ A replotting request to replet an existing
residential subdivision plat.
Den Frie.
1
I �-
1 q
1
i
1
1
. --------1-----_-------------.
• 1
1
. 1
-
'I
1
r
r �
�r
1
J
/ GOV' LrIT 3 A �
T 1
6 I P
RESOLUTION OF THE MONTICELLO PLANNING
COMMISSION FINDING THE HOUSING AND
*A- REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY'S MODIFIED
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT NO. 1, MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICTS NOS. 1-1 THROUGH
1-7, AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-8,
ALL LOCATED WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
NO. 1 TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POR THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority's Modified
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, Modified Tax
Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts
Nos. 1-1 through 1-7, and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for
Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-8 (the "Plans"), all
located within Redevelopment Project No. 1, have been submitted
to the Monticello Planning Commission, Pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.0271 and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said Plans to
determine the consistency of said Plans to the Comprehensive
Plan of the City.
® NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE MONTICELLO PLANNING
COMMISSION, that the Plans are consistent with the Monticello
Comprehensive Plan, and the Commission recommends approval of the
Plans to the Monticello City Council.
Adopted s --� PeJV 4*4
Chairman
Attests