Planning Commission Agenda 01-06-1998
.
.
.
AGEN'A
REGULAR MEETING. MONTICE LO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, January ,1998 - 7 p.m.
Members: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Die Martie, Rod Dragsten, Robbie Smith
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the special me ting held December 1 and the regular
meeting held December 2, 1997.
3. Consideration of adding items to the
4. Citizens comments.
5. Public Hearing--Consideration of an mendment to the official zoning map of
the city of Monticello to change the zo ing district classification of a property
located in the medium density reside tial (R-3) zoning district to single and
two-family residential (R-2) zoning di trict. Applicant, City of MonticeHo.
Public Hearing--Consideration of a v . ance within the B-4 zoning district to
locate an awning structure over the ont property line and extending 3 ft
into the public right-of-way. Applica t, Richard Cline.
6.
7. Public Hearing--Consideration of a v riance within the B-4 zoning district to
locate awning structures over the fro t property line and extending 3 ft into
the public right-of-way. Applicant, S ve Johnson.
8. Public Hearing--Consideration of a re uest for a conditional use permit
within the PZM zoning district to est blish a commercial office use.
Applicant, Dan Goeman.
9. Public Hearing--Consideration of a rei uest for a conditional use permit
within the PZM zoning district to aHa three or more business signs on a
commercial building. Applicant, Kat y Froslie.
10. Public Hearing--Consideration of an rdinance amendment establishing
trucking and trucking services as an nterim use in a B-3 zone. Applicant,
Danner Trucking.
11. Public Hearing--Consideration of an 'nterim use permit allowing operation of
a trucking company in a B-3 zone. A plicant, Danner Trucking.
12. Public Hearing-.Consideration of a v riance within the PZM zoning district
to locate a commercial sign within th required 15-ft front yard setback for
signs. Applicant, Larry Carter.
.
.
.
Agenda
Monticello Planning Commission
January 6,1998
Page 2
13. Continued Public Hearing--Consider tion of an amendment to the
comprehensive plan eliminating or odifying the Fallon Avenue Bridge.
Applicant, St. Henry's Church.
14. Public Hearing--Consideration of an rdinance amending Chapter 3,
Section 2 [F], of the Monticello Zonin Ordinance establishing regulations for
the installation offences. Applicant, City of Monticello.
15. Discussion on the land use planning orkshop for 1998.
16. Updates:
A. Central Community District eeting held January 5,1997.
B. National Guard Training and ommunity Center meeting to be held
January 20, 1998, at Little Mo ntain Elementary School.
17. Adjournment.
.
.
.
MIN ES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICE LO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, December , 1997 . 5:45 p.m.
Members Present: Dick Frie, Dick Martie, ichard Carlson, Jon Bogart,
Rod Dragsten
Staff Present: Fred Patch, Wanda Kra mer
1. Call to order
The meeting was called to order by C airman Dick Frie.
2.
The following applicants were intervi wed: Roy Popilek, Steve Andrews,
Thomas Perrault, and Dan Kraemer. Sara Kisling had also applied and was
scheduled for an interview but did no attend the interview. The
Commissioners decided to wait nntil he following evening which would be
the regularly scheduled meeting to m ke the final decision.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICKF IE TO TABLE THE DECISION ON
WHICH APPLICANT TO SELECT U TIL THE REGULAR MEETING,
DECEMBER 2, 1997. SECONDED Y DICK MARTIE. Motion passed
nnanimously.
3.
Aq,journment.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD D
MEETING, SECONDED BY RICH
unanimously.
Wanda Kraemer
Development Services Technician
GSTEN TO ADJOURN THE
D CARLSON. Motion passed
",
.
.
.
AGE A
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICE LO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, Decembe 2, 1997 ~ 7 p.m.
Members Present:
Dick Frie, Richard Carlon, Dick Martie, Rod Dragsten,
J on Bogart
Clint Herbst
Jeff O'Neill, Steve Gritt an, Fred Patch, Wanda Kraemer
Liaison:
Staff Present:
2.
1. Call to order.
Chairman Frie called the meeting to rder and noted the presence of Mayor
Fair.
Chairman Frie thanked Jon Bogart f1 r his eight years on the commission and
presented him with a plaque of appreciation.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD D GSTEN TO APPROVE THE
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEE ING. SECONDED BY DICK
MARTIE. Motion passed unanimous y.
3.
Discussion regarding the interviews or Planning Commission and
recommendation to the City Councilor Jon Bogart's position.
4. Citizens comments.
There were no citizens comments.
5.
use. Applicant. Tim Bondhus.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, report d that Mr. Bondhus on behalf of the
Monticello School District, has reque ted an amendment to a previously
issued interim use permit which allo ed a public school use to occupy an
existing building within an I-I zonin district. Presently, the School District
fully occupies a 4,800 square foot bui ding located at 1248 Oakwood Drive
East (between H-Window building a d Simonson Lumber). The School
District utilizes the space to offer alt mative school programs for students
identified by the district as needing i dividualized treatment. Since
Page 1
-v
Planning Commission Minutes/12-2-97
.
receiving the original interim use per 't approval this past summer, the
school district has determined that it . s not in need of the total 4,800 sq feet
of floor area available in the building. As a result, the School District is
proposing to occupy only the upper Ie el of the structure thereby allowing a
"second" use on the lower level.
Chairman Frie opened the public hea 'ng.
Gene Garman, School District repres ntative, stated this would be a good
mix because interested students coul be trained in an industrial setting.
Chairman Frie closed the public hea ng.
The Commissioners discussed how th timing worked with the current
interim use permit issued for the sch 01 use in the industrial setting.
Grittman clarified the industrial use 's allowed in this district however, the
decision is to amend the current inte m use the school district has allowing
the mixed use. The reviewal date wo d still be August, 1998.
.
Chairman Frie did caution Tim Bond us to take into consideration when
remodeling that interim permits are sually granted for a short time frame
and if the use is increase the parking '11 supply will need to increase.
DICK MARTIE MADE A MOTION T APPROVE, SECONDED BY JON
BOGART, THE INTERIM USE PER IT AMENDMENT, PER THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THE INTERIM USE PERMIT ILL TERMINATE ON 31, AUGUST,
1998. EXTENSION OF THE SE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL PURP SES BEYOND THE TERMINATION
DATE MAY ONLY BE GRANT D THROUGH RE-APPLICA TION TO
THE CITY.
2. THE DISTRICT AGREES TO TRIPE THE EXISTING PARKING
LOT IN A WAY WHICH MAXI IZES THE PAVED AREA FOR
EFFICIENT PARKING SUPPL AND CIRCULATION.
3.
THE DISTRICT AGREES TO XPAND PARKING AREAS AT THE
DIRECTION OF THE CITY. T E CITY WILL DIRECT EXPANDED
PARKING BASED N THE CIT S OBSERVATION OF PARKING
DEMAND WHICH CAUSES T E USE OF ON-STREET PARKING
AT ANY TIME.
~
.
4. THE USE OF THE SUBJECT ROPERTY WILL BE FOR
.
.
.
8.
Planning Commission Minutes/12-2-97
ALTERNATNE CLASSROO USE DURING NORMAL
SCHOOLHOUSE ONLY AND NOT FOR ANY OTHER USE.
5.
THE DISTRICT MAY OCCUP THE BUILDING DURING
REMODELING ONLY AT TH DIRECTION, AND UNDER
CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED Y THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
6.
THE DISTRICT SHALL MA EVERY EFFORT TO AVOID
PERMANENT CHANGES TO THE BUILDING WHICH, IN THE
OPINION OF THE BUILDIN OFFICIAL, WOULD NOT BE
CHARACTERISTIC OF AN I DUSTRIAL USE.
7.
THIRTEEN OF THE TOTAL 19 OFF-STREET PARKING STALLS
ARE RESERVED FOR USE B THE BUILDING'S LOWER LEVEL
BUILDING OCCUPANT.
8.
ALL APPLICABLE BUILD IN CODE REQUIREMENTS ARE
SATISF ACTORIL Y MET.
The motion is based on the finding th t the proposed use will not interfere
with the comprehensive plan objectiv to encourage industrial development
inthe area (due to the temporary nat re of the permit, and the minimal
alterations to the property). Motion assed unanimously.
6.
report)
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, eported that St. Henry's is requesting
a continuance until January because he city engineer is waiting for response
from MNDOT regarding potential bri ge or underpass design options.
7.
Monticello-Big Lake Hospital District.
Steve Grittman reported, the Monticel 0 Big-Lake Community Hospital
~
.
Planning Commission Minutes/12-2-97
District is proposing a major expansi n of their facilities on Hart Boulevard
in Monticello. Nearly all aspects oft e site would see some level of
expansion to be phased in over time. he first step in reviewing a PUD is to
consider the entire site concept plan. The concept review is designed to alert
the applicant and city to issues whic may affect the general layout of the
project, including zoning issues affec ng adjacent lands. This PUD project
lies within the PZM zoning district w ich allows mixed uses, including the
hospital, clinic, nursing home, and se . or housing. As a result, the majority
of issues raised by this project will be impacts on adjoining properties,
streets, and utilities.
PUD a planned unit development is bing utilized to accommodate the mix of
uses and buildings on the site. PUD is intended to promote coordinated
design which would not be possible t rough strict application of Zoning
Ordinance standards.
Hart Blvd. The vacation of Hart Bou evard is central to the design of this
plan. The area of vacation is propose to be expanded from previous
discussions. Under this plan, Hart B ulevard would be under private
ownership from its connections with SAH 75 on the west to the easterly
property line of the Mississippi Shore facility. Much of this right-of-way
would be converted to parking area fo the hospital and clinic, the planned
connection to CSAH 75 near the clini entrance would be abandoned.
.
River Street - The design of the proje retains access to River Street from the
area below the hill. In addition to ace ss to the nursing home area, the lower
level of the parking structure would b located in that location.
County State Aid Highway 75 - Acces to CSAH 75 from the main hospital
entrance would require coordination . th the School District due to the
proposed channelization of the Count Highway. New medians would
effectively close left turn access to oth r driveway points between
Washington Street and the new inter ection at the Hospital entrance.
Helipad - the location adjacent to the ain driveway could cause significant
congestion particular at shift changes a location on top of the parking
structure or a portion of the main hos ital would be safer and more
appropriate.
Chairman Frie opened the public hea 'ng.
.
Barb Schwientek, Executive Director or the Hospital District, stated that
River Street will always need to go th ough as long as the nursing home is
where it is. Schwientek stated she w uld like to see the access from Hart
Blvd to River Street remain open eve if only used for emergency use. The
z.......--
.
Planning Commission Minutes/12-2-97
helipad will cost about $200,000 ifbu It on top of a building instead of
$20,000 ifbuilt on the ground. Schwi ntek stated the hospital has been
talking with MNDOT and the helipa site seems to meet their requirements.
Tim Sessions, BWBR Architects, expl ined the design of the site is to make
the most use of the site. Sessions sta ed the city should reviewed the limit of
two story buildings because the fire d partment has the equipment to handle
heights of more than two stories.
Next, Session commented on each of he 8 summary points in the planners
report: 1- maintain the main access pint across from the high school and
have further discussion with the City regarding the access on Hart Blvd.
2-the hospital would like to maintain he River Street access but does agree
that a parking structure with the ent ance and exit in the front could be
reviewed; 3-providing for right-out-e ess onto CSAH 75 from the ramp on
the west side of project would be a go d idea; 4-relocate the west building line
of the parking structure to meet the t irty foot bufferyard, or in the
alternative, provide for enhanced Ian scaping and building architecture to
mitigate the encroachment of the adj cent residential project; 5 - Sessions
stated the helipad would not work on he top of the parking structure
because of the cost and also it will be number of years before this is
completed; 6-the relocation or redesi of the west side of the main hospital
expansion to avoid the utility easeme ts; 7 -a detailed design of city's storm
sewer near the clinic will be provided; 8-consider the vacation of the River
Street right-of-way to avoid setback e croachments.
.
Chairman Frie opened the public hea 'ng.
Helen Wolf, property owner, stated th t the ambulance garage is only 10 feet
from her property; if the street is vac ted and a parking ramp constructed
how will she be able to access her drieway?
Sessions assured Wolf there was a po ion of Hart Boulevard remaining that
would allow her driveway access.
John Bondhus, property owner along art Blvd., stated he would like to see
Hart Blvd. vacated and he thought th WWTP sludge trucks could make the
turn because the Bondhus access was irectly across from the WWTP.
Chairman Frie closed the public heari g.
.
The Commissioners discussed the vac tion of Hart Blvd and the possibility of
the trucks turning east on Hart Blvd. nd going around the city limits so the
trucks would not be using the hospit lot. The helipad also created concern
that if a helicopter was landing at the site next to County Road 75 it could
Page
~
Planning Commission Minutes/12-2-97
.
create traffic problems. One suggesti n was to locate the helipad along the
river in back of the hospital. It was a eed that meetings with the County
Engineer should be scheduled.
JON BOGART MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY
RICHARD CARLSON, THE APPLIC TION FOR A PUD CONCEPT PLAN
WITH THE COMMENTS LISTED AS FOLLOWS:
1. REVISE THE PLAN TO PRES RVE THE PROPOSED CITY STREET
ACCESS FROM HART BOUL V ARD TO CSAH 75 NEAR THE
CLINIC ENTRANCE, OR IN T E ALTERNATIVE, PROVIDE FOR
EGRESS FROM THE WWTP S MILAR TO THAT SHOWN IN THE
MAP, EXHIBIT A. THIS WOU D INCLUDE A TERMINUS TO
HART BOULEVARD, AND PR JECT PARKING LOT ACCESS
FROM THAT CITY STREET.
2. MAINTAIN THE EXISTING N SING HOME ACCESS TO RIVER
STREET, BUT REDESIGN TH PARKING STRUCTURE TO
PROVIDE FOR TOP-LEVEL A CESS AND WATER-PROTECTED
RAMPING.
.
3.
PROVIDE FOR RIGHT-OUT E RESS ONTO CSAH 75 NEAR THE
RAMP'S UPPER LEVEL DRIV WAY AT THE WEST EDGE OF THE
PROJECT.
4. RELOCATE THE WEST BUlL ING LINE OF THE PARKING
STRUCTURE TO MEET THE HIRTY FOOT BUFFERYARD , OR IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, PROVI E FOR ENHANCED LANDSCAPING
AND BUILDING ARCHITECT RE TO MITIGATE THE
ENCROACHMENT ON THE JACENT RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY.
5. PROVIDE FOR A HELIPAD L CATION ON TOP OF THE PARKING
STRUCTURE OR THE MAIN OSPITAL BUILDING.
6. REDESIGN THE WEST SIDE F THE MAIN HOSPITAL
EXPANSION AREA TO A VOl THE UTILITY EASEMENTS OR
PROVIDE PLANS ACCEPTAB E TO THE CITY ILLUSTRATING
THE RELOCATION OF THE ASEMENT AND UTILITY LINES IN
PLACE.
7.
PROVIDE DESIGN DETAIL T CITY ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC
WORKS STAFF ILLUSTRATI G THE PROTECTION OF THE
CITY'S STORM SEWER NE THE CLINIC EXPANSION.
~
.
.
. 9.
.
Planning Commission Minutes/12-2-97
CONSIDER VACATION OF T E RIVER STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY
TO AVOID SETBACK ENCR ACHMENTS, BOTH EXISTING AND
PROPOSED, CONTINGENT PON RETENTION OF CITY
EASEMENTS.
8.
Motion based on the findings t at the application would comply with
the City's Comprehensive PIa anticipating long-term provisions for
the hospital site, and the City' Transportation Plan objective in
accommodating the use ofCS H 75 in this area. Motion passed
unanimously.
ROD DRAGSTEN MADE A M TION TO DENY, SECONDED BY
JON BOGART, THE VARIAN E REQUEST FROM THE
BUFFERYARD STANDARDS. Based upon a finding that there is no
hardship present justifying th variance. Motion passed unanimously.
JON BOGART MADE A MOTION TO SUPPORT VACATION OF
THAT PORTION OF RIVER S REET ALONG THE HOSPITAL
NORTHERN BOUNDARIES OWEVER, MAINTAIN EASEMENTS
FOR UTILITIES AND PAT AYS IN THIS AREA. SECONDED BY
DICK MARTIE. Motion passe unanimously.
Monticello.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, report d the KIucas property along West River
Street consists of approximately 20 a res and is zoned R-3, Multiple Family
Residential. Since its annexation int the City several years ago, the site has
contained an automobile junk yard, a legal non-conforming use. The
property is adjacent to an R-2 zoned eighborhood to the east, comprised of
single family homes, and a few undeeloped lots. To the west is an industrial
supply company and the Al-Anon bui ding both zoned 1-2 Heavy Industrial.
To the north across West River Stree is the NSP Training Facility and the
NSP athletic fields, also zoned 1-1.
The issue is whether the R-3 zoning esignation is the most appropriate land
use of the site, and if not, what zonin designation should be assigned. The
MCP plan is to build higher density i the downtown area.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported that this parcel has been on
the Planning Commission work plan 0 review and because O'Neill was
aware of the property being put on th market for sale he placed it on the
Page 7
~
Planning Commission Minutes/12-2-97
.
Planning Commission agenda for con ideration.
Chairman Frie opened the public he . ng.
Mr. Tim Fourie, attorney for propert owner, stated the property is a junk
yard and had been for many years. I was his understanding the property
was brought into the City as R3 and ore land in this zone is needed. He
added there is a natural berm that bl cks the area from the freeway. If the
property is zoned industrial it will be required to allow for buffering and
pathway access. This might be consi ered condemnation.
O'Neill replied that R3 uses are allo ed in all PZM, PZR, and B2 with a CUP
there does not appear to be a shortag ofR3 zoned property.
Steve Tibbets, neighbor, explained th t they had put a lot of elbow grease in
their house and he would like it zone residential instead of industrial.
Bill Seegfelds, owner Electo Industri s, stated he would like to see the area
rezoned industrial. It was original z ned industrial and then changed to R3
in the 1980's.
.
Dan Goeman, Realtor, inquired as to he difference between I-I and I-lA.
Grittman explained that the ba!;lic di erence would be that I-IA is basically
the same as business campus except or building material standards and
green space.
Chairman Frie closed the public hea
The Commissioners discussed the co tour of the land and the surrounding
area. Because of the natural berm t rough the area it would be an
appropriate place for residential deve opment however, there already are
industrial sites in this area.
Dan Goeman, inquired if the item co ld be tabled until he has a chance to
check the market.
O'Neill replied that if the parcel is re oned to R2 it would still allow 8 unit
buildings on this site with a conditio al use however, higher density would
not be allowed.
.
ROD DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTIO TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY JON
BOGART, THE APPLICATION FOR REZONING FROM R-3 TO Il-A, based
upon the finding that the rezoning w uld further the objectives of the
Monticello Comprehensive Plan by p oviding for increased choice in
Page 8
-v
.
.
.
10.
Planning Commission Minutes/12-2-97
industrial land development and is c mpatible with industrial uses to the
west and north. Voting in favor: Rod Dragsten, Jon Bogart. Voting against:
Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Dick Ma ie. Motion failed 2 to 3.
After a short discussion, DICK MAR IE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE,
SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLS N, THE APPLICATION FOR A
REZONING FROM R-3 TO R-2, bas d upon the findings that the rezoning
would further the objectives of the M nticello Comprehensive Plan by
discouraging multiple family residen ial development at the edges of the
community. Voting in favor: Dick M rtie, Richard Carlson, Dick Frie, Jon
Bogart. Voting against: Rod Dragste . Motion passed.
Jeff Q'N eill, Assistant Administrator reported Bob Danner is requesting a
zoning ordinance amendment and co ditional use permit which would allow
re-establishment and expansion of th Danner Trucking operation, which is a
lawful non-conforming use in the B-3 zone. The Danner Trucking garage
and office area was greatly damaged y the July storm. The damage
exceeded 50% of the value of the facil ty; therefore, it cannot be rebuilt or
expanded without a zoning text ame dment to the B-3 regulations. Although
the use is not specifically noted, staff would interpret this type of use as
being allowed in the I-I zone under' us terminals and maintenance garage.
Danner is also asking for a condition I use permit in conjunction with the
zoning ordinance amendment. The s te plan provided supporting the CUP
request includes land that is not in c ntrol by Danner at this time; therefore,
it may be premature to consider the s ecific requests for a conditional use
permit. A somewhat complex set of s reet vacations and condenmations need
to occur in order to prepare the site a shown. Note that all of the street
vacations and associated actions nec ssary to prepare the site are planned to
occur in conjunction with the Highw y 25 project. It appears to make sense
to examine the zoning ordinance ame dment first prior to investing a
significant effort in preparation of a ite plan and associated conditional use
permit.
Chairman Frie opened the public he
Jim Flemming, attorney for Danner cking, explained that his client
bought the property in 1975 which h d been the township maintenance
garage. Mr. Danner drives truck ove the road and the building was used for
storage of tools and minor truck repa rs since that time. The south side of
Page 9
~
Planning Commission Minutes/12-2-97
.
this property comes to a point and FIe ming stated the actual owner to this
is Mel Wolters. Danner could purcha e this area from Mr. Wolters. If Mr.
Danners has enough room on the site he would like to build a larger building
with the intent to sell in the future. his building will not be completely
finished on the inside allowing Danne to operate similar to what he has in
the past. Then at the time he would I ke to sell, the buyer could finish the
interior of the building and have an e cellent commercial site on Highway
25. The new building would be a me I building similar to the existing
buildings in the vicinity.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported that an operation the size of
Mr. Danner is not a problem but if a I rger trucking company would buy this
site it would not work well.
Grittman added that this use is not c nsistent with other uses because the
other businesses along this area all h ve selling activities,
Chairman Frie closed the public hea 'ng,
The commissioners discussed if there as a time set on when Danner was
retiring.
.
Mrs. Danner thought about five years
Grittman stated an interim use per 't could be used.
APPROVE, SECONDED BY
CE AMENDMENT ALLOWING A
B-3 ZONE PER THE FOLLOWING
DICK MARTIE MADE A MOTION T
RICHARD CARLSON, THE ORDIN
TRUCKING AND SERVICE USE IN
CONDITIONS:
A. THE ARCHITECTURAL APP ARANCE AND FUNCTIONAL PLAN
OF THE BUILDING AND SIT SHALL NOT BE SO DISSIMILAR TO
THE EXISTING BUILDING 0 AREAS AS TO CAUSE
IMPAIRMENT IN PROPERTY VALUES OR CONSTITUTE A
BLIGHT INFLUENCE WITHI A REASONABLE DISTANCE OF
LOT.
B. PARKING ARES SHALL BE S REENED FROM VIEW OF
ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL D ;STRICTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH
CHAPTER 3, SECTION 2, OF HIS ORDINANCE,
.
C.
THE ENTIRE SITE OTHER T AN THAT TAKEN PU BY A
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, 0 PLANTING SHALL BE SURFACED
WITH A MATERIAL TO CON ROL DUST AND DRAINAGE, WHICH
Page 0
~
.
.
.
11.
12.
Planning Commission Minutes/12-2-97
IS SUBJECT TO THE APPRO AL OF THE CITY ENGINEER.
D.
THE SITE SHALL MEET MI IMUM LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS.
NO OUTSIDE STORAGE EXCEPT AS ALLOWED IN COMPLIANCE
WITH SECTION 4 OF THIS 0 DINANCE. (THIS MEANS OUTSIDE
STORAGE IS ALLOWED TH OUGH A SEPARATE CUP PROCESS.)
NOT MORE THAN 4 SEMIS ILL BE ALLOWED ON THE SITE AT
ONE TIME.
E.
F.
Based on the finding that the use is c nsistent with the character of the B-3
district, the use will not tend to caus depreciation of value of other B-3 uses,
and the proposed amendment is cons stent with the comprehensive plan.
Voting in favor: Dick Martie, Richard Carlson, Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten
Voting against: Jon Bogart. Motion assed.
DICK FRIE MADE A MOTION TO T LE, SECONDED BY DICK MARTIE,
CONSIDERATION OF THE CONDI IONAL USE PERMIT PENDING
ACQUISITION OF NECESSARY L D AREAS SUPPORTING THE SITE
PLAN. Motion passed unanimously.
Monticello.
Steve Grittman reported the United tates Postal Service had submitted
plans to construct a 7,2000 square fo t carrier annex upon a 5.0 acre parcel of
land located east of Highway 25 bet een 1-94 and 7th Street. To
accommodate the request, the followi g approvals are necessary:
1. A Zoning Ordinance amendme t to establish governmental and public
utility structures as condition I uses in the B-3 Zoning District.
2. A rezoning of the subject site om I-I, Light Industrial to B-3,
Highway Commercial.
3.
A conditional use permit to all w the establishment of a governmental
building within a B-3 Zoning istrict.
Page 11
~
.
Planning Commission Minutes/12-2-97
Fred Patch, Building Official, reporte the United States Post Office is
exempt from all local building code a d zoning laws. Eventually this
building may not be a postal building and rezoning will make this a
conforming site.
Ken Maus, property owner next to p eel, requested the commissioners to
also rezone the lot he owns (Lot 5) to the same zoning.
Chairman Frie closed the public hea ng.
The Commissions discussed the site Ian for the post office and had concerns
about the circle driveway.
Patch replied that the City will have difficult time enforcing any conditions
or changes in this case.
ROD DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTIO TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY DICK
MARTIE, THE ZONING ORDINAN E AMENDMENT A'ITACHED, AS
EXHIBIT A. Based upon the findin that the conditional allowance of
government and public utility struct res in the B-3 district is consistent with
the purpose of the district. Motion p ssed unanimously.
.
ROD DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTIO TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY DICK
MARTIE, THE REZONING OF THE ROPERTY FROM 1-1, LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL TO B-3, HIGHWAY B SINESS. Base upon the findings that
the rezoning is consistent with the pr visions of the comprehensive plan and
is in character with the area. Motion passed unanimously.
DICK FRIE MADE A MOTION TO PROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT APPLICATION SUBJECT 0 THE CONDITIONS LISTED AS
FOLLOW:
4.
THE FOLLOWING LANDSC ING RELATED CONDITIONS ARE
SATISFIED:
1. THE CITY APPROVE THE R QUESTED ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT AND REZONI G.
2. THE CITY ENGINEER PROV DE COMMENT AND
RECOMMENDATION IN RE ARD TO SITE ACCESS.
3. THE SUBMITTED GRADING PLAN IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND
APPROVAL BY THE CITY E GINEER.
.
A. THE AUSTRIAN PINE REE LOCATED IN THE
Page 2
~
Planning Commission Minutes/12-2-97
.
NORTHWEST CORNE OF THE SITE IS RELOCATED SO AS
NT TO OBSTRUCT VE ICULAR VIABILITY FOR VEHICLES
EXITING ONTO 7TH TREET.
B.
THE DWARF BURNIN BUSHES LOCATED ALONG THE
WEST SIDE OF THE P KING LOT ARE SHIFTED
WESTWARDS TO ALL W VEHICLE OVERHANG AND
SNOW STORAGE.
C.
OFF-STREET PARKIN AND LOADING AREAS ARE
SCREENED FROM VI W OF INTERSTATE 94 FROM THE
SOUTH.
D.
THE LANDSCAPE PL IS MODIFIED TO IDENTIFY
SEEDING SPECIFICA IONS.
5. THE SITE PLAN IS REVISE TO IDENTIFY A TRASH HANDLING
LOCATION. THE TRASH H NDLING AREA SHALL BE
SCREENED FROM VIEW OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND
ADJACENT RIGHTS-OF-WA
.
ALL SITE SIGNAGE COMPL WITH APPLICABLE CITY
REQUIREMENTS.
7. THE SITE PLAN IS REVISE TO ILLUSTRATE EXTERIOR
LIGHTING LOCATIONS. AL LIGHTING SHALL BE ARRANGED
TO DEFLECT LIGHT AWAY ROM ANY RESIDENTIAL USE ZONE
AND FROM PUBLIC STREE S.
6.
8. NO OUTSIDE STORAGE IS P RMITTED.
9. ANY MECHANICAL EQUIPENT ERECTED ON THE ROOF OF
THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTUR IS SCREENED S AS NOT TO BE
VISIBLE.
10. THE CITY RESERVES THE R GHT TO REQUIRE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITI NAL OFF -STREET PARKING
STALLS IF THE NEED ARIS S.
Based on the findings that the use is onsistent with the provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan and is compatib e with uses in the area. Motion passed
unanimously.
.
Page 3
v
Planning Commission Minutes/12-2-97
. 13. National Guard update.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrato , reported there are meetings
throughout December with various oups regarding possible activities in the
Community Center. On January 20 , 1998 at 7 p.m. there will be a
community meeting to present the p oject.
14. CCD District
Steve Grittman, City Planner, stated that the Planning Commission should
call for a public hearing to create the boundaries for the CCD District
(central community District).
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK F IE TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING TO DEFINE THE BOUN ARIES FOR THE CENTRAL
COMMUNITY DISTRICT, SECOND D BY JON BOGART. Motion pass
unanimously.
15. Added items.
A.
JON BOGART MADE A MOTI N RECOGNIZING JEFF O'NEILL
FOR HIS WORK ON THE BRI GEVIEW PLAT. DUE TO O'NEILL'S
SPECIAL EFFORTS TO IDEN IFY THE NATURAL VALUE OF THE
LAND TO THE COMMUNITY ND DUE TO HIS EFFORTS IN
COORDINATING DECISION AKING WITH LOCAL GUESTS AND
THE DEVELOPER IT IS POS IBLE THAT THE 55 ACRE NATURAL
AREA MAY BE PRESERVED OR FUTURE GENERATION TO
ENJOY. SECONDED BY DIC MARTIE. Motion passed
unanimously.
.
B. The Commissioners discussed t e interviews for Planning
Commission, A MOTION WAS ADE BY DICK FRIE TO
RECOMMEND ROBBIE SMIT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
IN JANUARY. SECONDED B DICK MARTIE. Motion passed by
acclamation.
16. Adjournment.
RICHARD CARLSON MADE A MOTI N TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN. otion passed unanimously.
.
Wanda Kraemer
Development Services Technician
Page 1
z..-.
.
.
.
5.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/6/98
This item came before the Planning ommission and City Council in
December 1997. Unfortunately, the 'tern was not published to reflect the
possibility that the property could be rezoned from the medium density
residential (R-3) zoning district to th single and two-family residential (R-2)
zoning district.
Previous information from the staff r port and Planning Commission
minutes are attached and remain ap licable. Planning Commission is
requested to re- hold the required pu lic hearing in response to the
insufficient publication of this item.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Move to recommend to the Cit Council that the 20.76-acre Klucas
property, addressed 1980 Rive Street West, be rezoned from R-3 to
R-2 based upon the finding tha R-2 provides a more compatible
transition between neighborho ds and that the R-2 zoning district
designation is consistent with he comprehensive plan.
2. Move to recommend to the Cit Council that the zoning request be
denied.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Copy of previous staff rep rt
Exhibit B - Copy of Planning Commis ion minutes as related to this item
Exhibit C - Location map
Exhibit D - Zoning map
.
..
.
,
'.
COpy
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/97
9.
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Klucas property along West River Stree consists of approximately 20 acres, and is
zoned R-3, Multiple Family Residential. Sin e its annexation into the City several years
ago, the site has contained an automobile j nk yard, a legal non-conforming use. The
property is adjacent to an R-2 zoned neighbor ood to the east, comprised of single family
homes, and a few undeveloped lots. To the w st is an industrial supply company and the
"AI-Anon" building, both zoned 1-2, Heavy Indu trial.' To the north across West River Street
is the NSP Training Facility and the NSP athl tic fields, also zoned 1-2.
At issue is whether the R-3 zoning designation is the most appropriate !and use for the site,
and if not, what zoning designation should be ssigned to the parcel. Discussions among
staff have included lower density residential public/semi-public, and industrial. A brief
summary of each follows:
Residential
R-1, Single Family. This designation would onstitute a significant change in proposed
land use, and would be less dense than the djoining residential neighborhood. Due to
the location of the freeway adjacent to this sit , it is questionable whether a quality single
family neighborhood would result. Conside ing that one of the City's Comprehensive
Planning goals related to housing was to look or opportunities to encourage higher value
housing, this zoning designation would seem to be inconsistent with that goal.
R-2, Medium Density Residential. This esignation is the same as the adjacent
neighborhood, and would accommodate si gle family, twin homes, and townhouses.
Townhouses would create somewhat of a I nd use transition between the residential
zoning and the industrial. However, the noi e concerns from the freeway would still be
present, and would likely tend to hold down alues.
R-3, Multiple Family Residential. This is th current designation. The same concerns
applicable to other residential districts would a ply here. Moreover, the City has stated in
its Downtown Revitalization Plan that a con entration of the higher density residential
would be best located in the central area rather than the edges of the community.
Although R-3 would appear to be a logical tr nsition on the zoning map, this site may be
poorly suited to residential development.
s---I
EXHIBIT A
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/97
Public/Semi-Public
One thought given to the use of this site was an open space designation to provide local
park facilities to the nearby neighborhoods. However, the size of the site exceeds any
neighborhood park needs, and the NSP Ath etic Fields are nearby. Montissippi County
Park already provides large, passive park spa s to the northeast of the site. The primary
public use of this area could be to fad itate pathway access from the adjacent
neighborhoods to the NSP Fields.
Light Industrial
As noted above, the zoning to the west an to the north is 1-2, Heavy Industrial. The
rezoning of the subject site to an industrial lassification could be considered as being
compatible with the current and future land uses in the area. An industrial designation
would take better advantage of the freeway xposure, and not be damaged by the noise
issues. The primary issue would be managin the buffer between the existing residential
neighborhood and the new industrial ~wne. The City's bufferyard ordinance has been
established to accomplish that objective. I this area, the bufferyard separation could
possibly be used for the pathway connectio mentioned previously.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to approve the application f r a rezoning from R-3 to a lower density
residential district, based upon the f ndings that the rezoning would further the
objectives of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan by discouraging multiple family
residential development at the edges of the community.
2. Motion to approve the application for a ezoning from R-3 to a light industrial district,
based upon the findings that the re oning would further the objectives of the
Monticello Comprehensive Plan by pro iding for increased. choice in industrial land
development, and is compatible with ndustrial uses to the west and north.
3. Motion to table action on the applicatio for a rezoning to permit additional study of
the proposal.
4. Motion to deny the application for a rezoning based upon the findings that the
current R-3 zoning is most appropri te for the site, given the need for land use
transition in the area.
~ ... 2--
.
.
.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
...
Planning Commission Agenda. 12/02/97
Although there are reasons for considerin any of the proposed (or present) zoning
designations, planning staff recommends app oval of the rezoning to light industrial, such
as the 1-1 A District. This district would allow industrial uses which can take advantage of
the freeway exposure of the site, but would Iso require quality industrial buildings in the
development to minimize negative visual impacts on the adjacent neighborhood.
Moreover, a future buyer/developer would b required to install a bufferyard which could
accommodate a public pathway as well, ace mplishing an open space need in the area.
Finally, residential uses of any density in this I cation are not recommended since they will
be impacted by the freeway noise, mini izing their quality and value. The City's
Comprehensive Plan encourages efforts to promote higher end residential uses which
would be unlikely to develop in this location.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
-
Exhibit A - Zoning Map
S---3
.
.
.
'I
9.
Planning Commission Minutes/12-2-97
Steve Grittman, City Planner, report d the Klucas property along West River
Street consists of approximately 20 a res and is zoned R-3, Multiple Family
Residential. Since its annexation int the City several years ago, the site has
contained an automobile junk yard, legal non-conforming use. The
property is adjacent to an R-2 zoned eighborhood to the east, comprised of
single family homes, and a few unde eloped lots. To the west is an industrial
supply company and the Al-Anon bui ding both zoned 1-2 Heavy Industrial.
To the north across West River Stree is the NSP Training Facility and the
NSP athletic fields, also zoned 1-1.
The issue is whether the R-3 zoning esignation is the most appropriate land
use of the site, and if not, what zonin designation should be assigned. The
MCP plan is to build higher density i the downtown area.
JeffG'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported that this parcel has been on
the Planning Commission work plan 0 review and because O'Neill was
aware of the property being put on th market for sale he placed it on the
Planning Commission agenda for con ideration.
Chairman Frie opened the public he 'ng.
Mr. Tim Fourie, attorney for property owner, stated the property is a junk
yard and had been for many years. It was his understanding the property
was brought into the City as R3 and ore land in this zone is needed. He
added there is a natural berm that bl cks the areafrom the freeway. If the
property is zoned industrial it will be equired to allow for buffering and
pathway access. This might be consid red condemnation.
G'N eill replied that R3 uses are allow d in all PZM, PZR, and B2 with a CUP
there does not appear to be a shortage of R3 zoned property.
Steve Tibbets, neighbor, explained th t they had put a lot of elbow grease in
their house and he would like it zoned residential instead of industrial.
Bill Seegfelds, owner Electo Industrie , stated he would like to see the area
rezoned industrial. It was original zo ed industrial and then changed to R3
in the 1980's. ; '-\-
Dan Goeman, Realtor, inquired as to t e difference between 1-1 and I-1A. 6
EXHIBIT B
(
I
I
/.
.
Planning Commission Minutesl12-2-97
,,-"^. """".'~""":"""""", c, ','....... ~.....' '.' ."'.' .,,",.,., ,,".,.~ nw"y \\',',., ".,,~,~'," 'L ,,'... .,."....."".,.. \'"' "+,'H'...""".h""'""_",,, y-'........."I\1..,'._y;;,,,Id."&J"<~II~t.
;;~~,.,.~_~;~..I1'.." :'lI"';;';, ",~;.",.:.,
Grittman explained that the basic di erence would be that I-IA is basically
the same as business campus except or building material standards and
green space.
Chairman Frie closed the public hea 'ng.
The Commissioners discussed the co tour of the land and the surrounding
area. Because of the natural berm tough the area it would be an
appropriate place for residential deve opment however, there already are
industrial sites in this area,
Dan Goeman, inquired if the item co ld be tabled until he has a chance to
check the market.
.
O'Neill replied that if the parcel is re oned to R2 it would still allow 8 unit
buildings on this site with a conditio al use however, higher density would
not be allowed.
ROD DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY JON
BOGART, THE APPLICATION FOR EZONING FROM R-3 TO II-A, based
upon the finding that the rezoning wo d further the objectives of the
Monticello Comprehensive Plan by pr viding for increased choice in
industrial land development and is co patible with industrial uses to the
west and north. Voting in favor: Rod ragsten, Jon Bogart, Voting against:
Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Dick Ma . e. Motion failed 2 to 3.
After a short discussion, DICK MART E MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE,
SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSO , THE APPLICATION FOR A
REZONING FROM R-3 TO R-2, based upon the findings that the rezoning
would further the objectives of the Mo ticello Comprehensive Plan by
discouraging multiple family residenti development at the edges of the
community. Voting in favor: Dick M ie, Richard Carlson, Dick Frie, Jon
Bogart. Voting against: Rod Dragsten Motion passed.
.
s-- --s--
/ '
t '~', '~..
..
, I '/
r
~
: ',,' . Consideration of an amendment 0 the Official Zoning Map of
~ the City of Monticello, to change the Zoning District classification
' .. of a property located in the Medi m Density Residential (R-3)
Zoning District to Single and Tw -Family Residential (R-2) Zoning
District.
_~,_~j \.\._.~ I~~~ r'
: Ii,.
: t ,'..
i /....
i //
I ..-
, I
\ \
i \
\\
, I
/{'
\ I
I
.
.,'
.
"
+
,,~
~\..
,
\
(-
/
-.--. ~-".._.- .:~:.,.-------___~..........~ _.L
-_:.~~"""-:::.:-""'.4.-
"'1"-\
I
/
/
/
-~/,
'.
low_ HI
o
'Z
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
,_'L~._,
~f~L.\
_____~~ BIT
/
~
\
, \
1"
l
\ ,,-'--
\
.I
/
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
\
,
1
,
I
I
\
,
I
I
I
~'
~---~
,-~
.
.
~
-
.:-
, ,
">:.:,
.,
.,....~
'.'
",.
.~
"~'-
KlUCAS
~ .
ROP RTY
'.
-
R2
~~1
I
\) '.
,,~:. ~,
\ ""~ .
~
I //Y~-
~. I I
-/ '
EXHIBI( D I
~~..
.
.
.
.
6.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/6/98
Richard Cline has applied for a vari ce from the zoning ordinance
prohibition against the encroachmen of awnings into the public right-of-way.
The proposed site is for Ernie's Bait n East Broadway within the downtown
area which is being considered for a ezoning to "CCD," Central Community
District. Awning encroachments suc as that proposed are encouraged by
the MCP's Downtown Revitalization Ian and would be allowed under the
CCD regulations. However, actual r zoning of the district will not occur until
February at the earliest.
As a result, staffhas encouraged the pplicant to request a variance from the
current B-4 regulation in order to ex edite consideration of his proposal.
Although there is no true physical ha dship, there would be no risk of
"precedent" in approving this request since a change to CCD zoning would
allow the proposal without a varianc
There are some minimum standards hich would help to protect the public
from any potential liability. These st ndards can be incorporated into any
license to use the public right-of-way nd would be proposed as a part of the
sign ordinance changes incorporated 'nto the CCD district. These would
include the following:
1. Minimum 8-ft clearance betwe n the lowest portion of the awning or
its structure and the ground su ace below.
2. Minimum 3-ft clearance betwe n the face of the curb and the closest
projection of the awning or str cture.
3. Execution of a license agreeme t between the property owner and the
local government withjurisdict on over the right-of-way, either County
or City.
B. ALTERNATIVR ACTIONS:
1.
Motion to approve the applicati n for a variance subject to the
conditions listed in Exhibit A, b sed upon findings that the variance is
supported by the comprehensiv plan for the downtown area, that the
awning is well proportioned to he building, and that a pending zoning
amendment will avoid negative precedent.
2
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/6/98
2.
Motion to deny the variance bas d upon a finding that there is no
physical hardship.
3. Motion to table action on the ap lication pending additional
information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval subject to he conditions noted in this report and
listed in Exhibit A. Of particular imp rtance with this application is a
requirement that the County approve e encroachment since Broadway is a
county state aid highway. The awnin encroachment is consistent with the
MCP Plan, the controlling comprehen ive plan document for the downtown
district. Although the limits of the C D district have not been finally
determined, the applicant's property i well within the anticipated boundary.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Awning detail
Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval
.
.
3
- ~ ~ I til." <;;~-..t't\~c.-~: .b.~\.a.!i _~~ .1
e;
.........__. -I
,
--......- 0.--( (/....h,
J.
Q.~J,.. f L"r -;...6-,-,
e --.
"j,. ~1 ~l.~\..;"
~..-- ;.
54" ~'U( ~
S~n~ &..,I"d
~A.\.~ Lc., 6id."^1
:0.
l'
I
L
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
e:
i
~ .
(>~S:'~S~ ';;J-~Jh- .'\ \.i -," .i(i\./',- '''~'.-" "'-... (
6"'~A -i3:+-=--- ~~. &.~- ; -'c..~~trvd,,,,,\ lI....1
Exhibit A - Awning Details
CITY OF MONTICELLO
q:i-JS~
.
.
.
CONDITIONS OF V
RIC
lANCE APPROVAL
CLINE
1. Minimum 8-ft clearance between the lowest portion of the awning or its
structure and the ground surface bel w.
2. Minimum 3-ft clearance between the face of the curb and the closest
projection of the awning or structure.
3. Execution of a license agreement for he encroachment between the property
owner and the County.
4. Approval of the awning and structur by the Building Official.
Exhi it B. Conditions of Approval
~ -- -z.-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/6/98
7.
Johnson. (NAC)
Steve Johnson has applied for a varia ce from the zoning ordinance
prohibition against the encroachmen of awnings into the public right-of-way.
The proposed site is for Junction Anti ues on West Broadway within the
downtown area which is being consid red for a rezoning to "CCD," Central
Community District. Awning encroa hments such as that proposed are
encouraged by the MCP's Downtown evitalization Plan and would be
allowed under the CCD regulations. owever, actual rezoning of the district
will not occur until February at the e rliest.
As a result, staff has encouraged the pplicant to request a variance from the
current B-4 regulation in order to ex edite consideration of his proposal.
Although there is no true physical h dship, there would be no risk of
"precedent" in approving this request since a change to CCD zoning would
allow the proposal without a varianc
There are some minimum standards hich would help to protect the public
from any potential liability. These s dards can be incorporated into any
license to use the public right-of-way and would be proposed as a part of the
sign ordinance changes incorporated nto the CCD District. These would
include the following:
1. Minimum 8-ft clearance betwe n the lowest portion of the awning or
its structure and the ground s rface below.
2. Minimum 3-ft clearance betwe n the face of the curb and the closest
projection of the awning or str cture.
3. Execution of a license agreem nt between the property owner and the
local government withjurisdic ion over the right-of-way, either County
or City.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
Motion to approve the applicaion for a variance subject to the
conditions listed in Exhibit B, ased upon findings that the variance is
supported by the comprehensi e plan for the downtown area, that the
awning is well proportioned to the building, and that a pending zoning
amendment will avoid negativ precedent.
4
.
2.
Motion to deny the variance ba ed on a finding that there is no
physical hardship.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/6/98
3. Motion to table action on the a plication pending additional
information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staffreconunends approval subject tothe conditions noted in this report and
listed in Exhibit B. Of particular imp rtance with this application is a
requirement that the County approve the encroachment since Broadway is a
county state aid highway. The awnin encroachment is consistent with the
MCP Plan, the controlling comprehen ive plan document for the downtown
district. Although the limits of the C D district have not been finally
determined, the applicant's property i well within the anticipated boundary.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Awning details
Exhibit B - Conditions of Approval
.
.
5
. . ,.~-1
I
. I
tJ)
.!:~
~~
;6r@
:. ~iD'
i 0-
;:m
a'
cO
.- co
f.)rd
i;
~6'
jc
DO
.Iii ~
Me
~t')
U)~
~S'
aB ~ ../
,,<~.
II'" '-,..
.
t.-
o
('oJ
w
<!J
r1
s
CU
b
= m
.~z ~ f.~
C:'~ 1 8~
c(., .. to aJ -....
_J'.9 an ... "II
a; 'ii 0) c ~ =
1i~~' G)iJ~
. I:; .....E - can
.0, 0 - to .......
~'.:E ~ at ~ 6J ~
, Ul
i& at
't: -e
;~i~i
--8 ~
:t:.(iO
'>0 ;:
;~I~
. ':J~...
O~.....
.'
..
.J
LJ:
LJl
"
.
Exhibit A · Awning Details
1--1'
.
.
.
CONDITIONS OF VAR CE APPROVAL
STEVE JO NSON
1.
Minimum 8-ft clearance between the owest portion of the awning or its
structure and the ground surface belo .
2.
Minimum 3-ft clearance between the ace of the curb and the closest
projection of the awning or structure.
3. Execution of a license agreement for e encroachment between the property
owner and the County.
4. Approval of the awning and structure by the Building Official.
E ibit B.. Conditions of Approval
7-2.--
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 116/98
8.
Mr. Dan Goeman has submitted are uest for a conditional use permit to
remodel and occupy a former single f1 mily structure in the PZM district for
commercial office purposes. The pare I is on the north side of Broadway
between Dayton and Washington Str ets, just west of the hospital campus
and across Broadway from the Monti ello High School. All property adjacent
to this location is zoned PZM, with th majority ofland use being single
family residential.
In the PZM zoning district, office use for commercial services, including real
estate, are allowed by conditional use permit, subject to a condition that
where abutting a residential district, pecifically R-1, R-2, R-3, or PZR, a
bufferyard is included per ordinance equirements. Parking facilities are
also governed by a conditional use pe it, requiring landscaping and
screening of abutting residential use . As a result, a landscaping plan
should be prepared which illustrates permanent vegetative screen (fenced,
if appropriate) which shields the par ing area from abutting residential uses.
The ordinance does not require that t e driveways be screened; however, low
plantings along the west edge of the roperty would help this use more
compatibly coexist with the residenti I neighbor on that side. There is
adequate room to provide a substanti landscaping treatment with the trees
in that area.
With regard to parking and access, t e lot is currently served with two 12-ft
wide driveways which are proposed t loop around the building to access the
parking stalls. The lot is approxima ly 120 ft in width. According to the
zoning ordinance, properties are pe itted one curb cut per 125 ft of street
frontage. The current layout represe ts a non-conforming condition and may
be corrected as a condition of the CD . A preferable design would substitute
a single 24-ft wide curb cut and drive ay in place of the two existing 12-ft
wide drives. Either side of the house could accommodate this re-design,
although the east side would avoid t e removal and would better protect
residential uses to the west. The par ing and driveway areas are required to
be surrounded by concrete curbing. here is an exception to this requirement
only for industrial-zoned property.
6
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/6/98
.
The structure has approximately 1,5 0 sq ft of floor area divided between two
floors. This would result in a parkin requirement for office use of ten
spaces. The proposed facility illustra es ten spaces, including one
handicapped accessible space, in conti rmance with the zoning ordinance
regulations.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the conditio al use permit for a commercial office
facility in the PZM zone subjec to the conditions listed in Exhibit B,
based upon a finding that the roposed use would be compatible with
the comprehensive plan for thei area.
2. Motion to deny the conditional se permit for a commercial office
facility in the PZM zone, based upon a finding that the proposed use
would be inconsistent with themeighborhood and that the non-
conformities on the site preclu e the property's use as an appropriate
commercial site. i
3.
Motion to table action on the c nditional use permit pending
additional information. I
I
I
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONJ
.
c.
The proposed re-use of the existing si' gle family house along East Broadway
appears to be in conformance with th comprehensive plan objectives for the
Broadway neighborhood in that the chitectural character of the district
would be preserved under this propo al. Staff views the application
positively with some modifications toithe site plan. These include screening
of the parking area as required by or' inance and consolidation of the two
12-ft curb cuts into a single 24-ft cur cut on either side of the building. With
these changes, the request would me t all zoning ordinance regulations.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site plan
Exhibit B - Proposed conditions of ap roval
.
7
'.
"
i
I
:!
e
\
,
~ I
~ I
~ .. l
~ .1
~ 1
~ . i
.I
I
I
I
i
I
J
I
. 1,
.
~,
~-
.
--
\.'
.
.,,~
..
#lP
..
"
U/$T/1I1
D"lfl
-..
a.1
,,. \
..... ';6.0.:;> - '1'''.
~"'~ "Qt$1 .:>~...
.
8~DA.D
I
I
.
~.
c.r~
.
.
:~
.!'
o
,
:s
"i
~-
"
---
IN "'ir
/'IJlMlbIIlA"
PIf""r..AI(
W/"Cfl.~
JrSA.,.l!
~J~IU.
'j.
IS'U.r&t"-
~~ P~",-'6
~:c~
~c DO .~eI.-.eL('
"
"'-..f.? --
7
\
I
\
~
~
1\
)
'" /t;;
.~
g
,
a ~
\.,
J
.- 'i tA
/c ~
\:
4rr' ~
"J ~ \l
Sl ~\
~ \ ~
~ "
~ ,,'
". \ l \
~ r: ~~
I ,,~
~\ tl
L ~ .
,'1 '.
\\
5'&JSJ/<C:
o.&IUl!.
"
~
I
..
IJ.
J
,
I
, ,-'(1
;Jr'-
on t.
"-4CF. 7
...r:r-~ t!:"e;.,
Y Exhibit A · Site Plan
~"
.
.
.
CONDITIONS OF CONDITION USE PERMIT APPROVAL
1. A plan for landscaping and screening f the parking area from adjacent
residential uses is provided, together 'th the appropriate landscape
security.
2. One of the existing 12-ft curb cuts an driveways is eliminated, and the other
is expanded to a two-way, 24-ft wide nveway.
3. The Building Official certifies the str cture as meeting the Building Codes
applicable to commercial office buildi gs.
Exhibit B.. P posed Conditions of Approval
9...1.-
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/6/98
.
9.
In the Performance Zone - Mixed (PZ ) zoning district, a conditional use
permit is required for the erection of s gns where there are three or more
business uses in one building and the uilding is not considered a shopping
center.
The Riverstreet Station building locat d at 103 Pine Street houses at least
five separate businesses. In 1995 the lanning Commission approved a
conditional use permit (see attached) 0 allow "...a sign system with three or
more businesses...". Kathy Froslie, t e current owner of the building, is
requesting that the existing condition I use permit be amended to include
changes to the approved "sign system' and allow four (4) wall signs and one
(1) pylon sign:
.
Sign Message New or Sign Area Sign Location Sign Type
Existin
"Going hl Style" New 85 Sq. Ft. South WillI Business Identification
"Antiques" Existing 32 Sq. Ft. South WillI Product Identification
"Riverstreet Antiques" Existing 32 Sq. Ft. North Wall Business Identification
"Lee's Tai Quon Do" Existing 52 Sq. Ft. North Wall Business Identification
Sllln Messages
New or
Exlstin
Sign Area
Sign Location
Sign Type
"Lanners Construction",
"Antiques", "Real Estate"
Existing
100 Sq. Ft.
East Yard
Business & Product
Identification
NUMBER AND TYPE OF SIGNS
LOWED:
.
A combination of wall signs and a py on sign may be allowed under City
Ordinance Section 3-9, [E] 2, (b), iL, 'Option B" (attached), Kathy Froslie has
proposed to erect five signs. Only fo are allowed by ordinance without a
variance. Only one of the four allow d signs may be a pylon sign rather than
a wall sign.
8
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/6/98
.
The Riverstreet Station property tron s on two streets, East River Street and
Pine Street/Hwy 25. Therefore, the t tal number of business identification
signs allowable on the building is two (2). Business identification signs may
be erected on only two walls of the bu lding.
In addition to the business identificat on signs, two (2) product identification
signs may be allowed. Product identi cation wall signs may be erected on
only one wall of the building.
The total number and type of signs w uld be in compliance and allowed if the
existing pylon sign is interpreted to b one of the two allowed product
identification signs, the other product identification sign is a wall sign, and if
the three business identification sign proposed are all combined onto two
wall signs.
TOTAL ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA
.
Wall Signs --Total allowable wall si area for any building facade facing a
public street is determined as 10% of he gross silhouette area of the front of
the building. Based on the size ofthi building, each building facade upon
which signs may be erected may have up to 100 sq ft of wall signs. At 117 sq
ft., the total sign area proposed for the south wall of the building exceeds the
allowable area of 100 sq ft and must e reduced by 17 sq ft,
Pylon Sign -- Total allowable area fo the pylon sign is 58 sq ft based on the
191.86 total lineal feet fronting on H y 25. The existing pylon sign is
approximately 40 sq ft in area.
SIGN PLAN REVIEW:
While the existing signs have been pr viously permitted by the City, the
signs do not appear to be highly consi tent in design, material, shape, or
method of illumination as required by the ordinance. Kathy Froslie has
indicated a willingness to re-design t e sign plan by making the signs on the
south side of the building of the same type. The Commission may choose to
require that the sign plan being prop sed by this application be re-designed
to develop greater consistency as req 'red by ordinance, and to be more
compatible and consistent with the Ci y's Comprehensive Plan and the
Downtown Revitalization Plan.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
.
1.
Move to recommend to the City Council that the issuance of the
conditional use permit be appr ved for the erection of signs at 103 Pine
Street, subject to the following onditions:
9
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/6/98
Only three (3) wall signs and one (1) pylon sign may be allowed.
Only two wall signs may e business identification signs and
one wall sign may be a p oduct identification sign. One pylon
sign may be allowed, an that sign must be a product
identification sign to incl de a listing of available products and
servIces.
1.
2. The total area of signs to be erected on any wall of the building
must not exceed 100 sq in area, and the pylon sign must not
exceed 58 sq ft in area.
3. As a new sign is being er cted on the south side of the building,
the sign plan must be re- esigned to develop signs for the south
side of the building that re consistent in design, material,
shape, and method of ill ination.
Any future alteration of igns must be consistent with this
conditional use permit. rior to altering any signs, the property
owner must apply for an receive a permit from the Zoning
Administrator. The Zoni g Administrator may find that the
application is consistent ith this conditional use permit and
issue a permit for the alt ration, otherwise the applicant must
receive further amendm nt to this conditional use permit.
4.
.
2. Move to recommend to the City Council that the issuance of the
conditional use permit be denie for reasons to be determined by the
Planning Commission.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends issuance of a condi ional use permit for 103 Pine Street
according to Alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Copy of applicable ordina ce, Section: 3-9 [E] 3
Exhibit B - Location map
Exhibit C - Copy ofland survey of 10 Pine St., Lots 11 & 12, Block 52,
Original Plat
Exhibit D - Copy of Sign Plan for 103 'ne St. as submitted by applicant
Exhibit E - Photographs of signs at 1 3 Pine St.
Exhibit F - Copy of 1995 Planning Co mission minutes
.
10
(b) For buildin s in which there is one (1) or two (2) business
uses within the B~2, B~3, B~4,
I~l, and 1-2 istricts, and for buildings used for
commercial retail activities located within a PZM district
and located on property adjacent to B~2, Bp3, B-4, I-I, or 1-
2 districts, here shall be two (2) options for permitted
signs, as lis ed below in 2.(b)i. And 2.(b)ii. The property
owner shall select one option, which shall control sign
developme t on the property.
.
CURRENT
ORDINANCE
1.
.
11.
.
Opt on A. Under Option A, only wall signs shall
be lowed. The maximum number of signs on
any principal building shall be six sign boards or
pIa ards, no more than four (4) of which may be
pro uct identification signs. Si B ma
dis la ed on at least two wa B or
n er tree s u on whic e property as
eg rontage, w lC ever is greater. Each wall
sh I contain no more than two product
ide tification signs and two business
ide tification signs. The total maximum area of
wal signs shall be determined by taking twenty
per ent (20%) of the gross silhouette area of the
fro t of the building up to three hundred (300)
-squ e' feet, whichever is less. If a principal
buiding is on a corner lot, the l~ie~2e of the
bui ding may be used to cteteriiiine t e gross
silh uette area.
For purposes of determining the gross area of the
sil uette of the principal building, the silhouette
sh I be defined as that area within an outline
dra 'ng of the principal building as viewed from
the front lot line or from the related public
str et(s).
-''''''' ,
EXHIBIT A
.
.
.
whic ever is less. The method for determining
the oss silhouette area shall be as indica ted in
Subd 2.(b)i. Above. Pylon signs shall be
regul ted as in Subd. 4 below. For single or
doub e occupancy business structures, the total
maxi urn allowable signage on the property shall
be th ee hundred (300) square feet. For multiple
occu ancy structures, the total maximum
allo able signage on the property shall be as
dete mined under Subd. 3 below.
(#272, 06/26/95)
(#230, 06/22/92)
(#247,03/14/94)
(#265, 12/12/94)
3. Conditional Uses i Commercial and Industrial Districts: The
purpose of this see ion is to provide aesthetic control to signage
and to prevent a p oliferation of individual signs on buildings
with three (3) or ore business uses. The City shall encourage
the use of single si boards, placards, or building directory
SIgnS.
In the case f a building where there are three (3) or more
business us s, but which, by generally understood and
accepted de nitions, is not considered a shopping center
or shopping mall, a conditional use shall be granted to the
entire build ng in accordance with an overall site plan
under the p ovisions of Option A or Option B (described
in 2 (b) i an ii above) provided that:
(a)
1. Th owner of the building files with the Zoning
Ad 'nistrator a detailed plan for signing
illu trating location, size in square feet, size in
per ent of gross silhouette area, and to which
bus'ness said sign is dedicated.
11.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
No tenant shall be allowed more than one sign,
ex pt that in the case of a building that is
sit ated in the interior of a block and having
an ther building on each side of it, one sign shall
be Howed on the front and one sign shall be
all wed on the rear provided that the total square
foo age of the two signs does not exceed the
m ximum allowable square footage under Option
A r Option B described in 2 (b) i and ii above.
q.., 2--
3/49
.
.
.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
111. No i dividual business sign board/placard shall
exce d twentYRfive percent (25%) of the total
allo able sign area.
An 0 ner of the building desiring any alteration
of si s, sign location, sign size, or number of
sign shall first submit an application to the
Zoni g Administrator for an amended sign plan,
said application to be reviewed and acted upon by
the oning Administrator within ten (10) days of
appl' cation. If the application is denied by the
Zoni g Administrator, the applicant may go
befo e the Planning Commission at their next
re arly scheduled meeting.
IV.
v. In e event that one tenant of the building does
not I tilize the full allotment of allowable area, the
exce s may not be granted, traded, sold, or in any
othe' way transfeITed to another tenant for the
pur 'ose of allowing a sign larger than twenty-five
perc nt (25%) of the total allowable area for signs.
VI.
Any building identification sign or building
dire tory sign shall be included in the total
allo able area for signs.
VII. Any! sign that is shared by or is a combination of
two r more tenants shall be considered as
sep ate signs for square footage allowance and
shal meet the requirements thereof.
I
viii. All igns shall be consistent in desigD, material,
sha e, and method of illumination.
In the case f a building where there are two (2) or more
uses and w . ch, by generally understood and accepted
definitions, . s considered to be a shopping center or
shopping m 1, a conditional use permit shall be granted
to the entir building in accordance to an overall site plan
indicating t eir size, location, and height of all signs
presented the Planning Commission.
(b)
A maxim oftive percent (5%) of the gross area of the
front silhou tte shall apply to the principal building
where the ggregate allowable sign area is equitably
distributed among the several businesses. In the case of
applying t s conditional use permit to a building, the
building m y have one (1) pylon or freestanding sign
identifying he building which is in conformance with this
3/50
.
.~.
I Use Permit
ditiona
dment to a Con ree or more
A ques for an amein District to allow th
re PZM Zon ng . I ilding.
..Uhl. t .. .. ....mm.a1 ,. 0'101..1 PI.t.
business signs 0 . . d 12, Block 52,
Lots 11 an
. . 103 Pine Street, '.
Location.
EXHIBIT
B
~~ 'f--- ~--";'..::,:.-,~------
--.----- ...-.....
".. ;n.
" 'l.
~-~~---~----
r-'
'---'
C:)
..... ...
...........---'~-~-~
,
I
_____.J
--""' --"" ~ ~ - ---.---..
LAND SURV Y
RI ER STREET
No P'IWCMI: ..
NO ~...... .....
- - - -1- --
I
I
I
I
DO MOT DI1d ...,
7
. -
,'r
------ r-
....)
,
\..'
,').
\...J
':oro
Pl.O
0> .
PI02.7J
gl.O
.....
z
"
.-
"
Iv
'"
c
~
:>
.<>
I
11
i
II
.
('
....J
........
""lr~ ..."" jl./
66.31
66.31
4'-<<"
" ,
5 89"12'48" W
132.62
rock .If shrub.
'I
y 8.98
.g.
. '
2,89
44.05
. ""A,
,~
.' .II'
~ t
I
! "
J
..
t ",
~ :1':
, ~:
PR : G',
g'
,4;
". ~
)s; 3:
l.O N
ro ~
. .....
'2 :0> 0
'Ii --:: 0
.. z
i ,
0.30
I
TREET STATION ~
10J PIne St. ,;.
Monticello, MN 55362 ". ,
blod< ... bt1ck """.lrucl"'" -L '
5.465 .q. fl., r \J
11435
8
<;j
todr: .a Ihrub.
..~
; 'oil'
J.90
..,
I....
g
:a
I
, ~....
\
t
0/
'J'''''
../'
~
...
PP
2.20
D
I
o "
o . .Ii
~ .,~:;
\
I
I
, I , '
" "',, " ,,'" ,', ':' I ,,'" 'I "
. . f ,.1- '" . '/I"'.~"" oncreta alleyway. ."'
.. '" ':.& ,"'.: "': ' ~'. '" '.',f. f, .. II. ....... .....,'
--
--
Line A
" "33.46
: N 89"17'33" E "
Un. p_,eI lrilh ond
I 10 feel oouth of LIn. ",
1I"uJ"na/er,0SI oa.."..ht . ".
-,
I
8
9
.r,
II.)
tf- S-
EXHIBIT C
,'-
.' "~
'~.
'c,
"
:";:
ii,
g. '
___\- \.,/r' 1_
J
1 r'\ r
II..)\.
~
~ "..........
~ 1.0
~ N
E-t ~
if1
I
w
~ I-
Z <(
I-
.....-4 (f)
P-.t "--"
Horthooot .om... Lot 10
Eot,t '''1I!l lot 10
dopo-_ "".t>
tQl" vohlc:l_ '"try
1
I
,-'
--
~
1--
1__
,.
MONTICELLO
.
DEVELOPMENT SERVI ES - BUILDING INSPECTIONS
250 EAST BROAD AY, PO BOX 1147
SIGN (51)
Permit Application
MONTICELLO, Mr\"""362
City Hall (612) 295-:'..'11
Fax (612)295-4404
. Building Inspections (612) 295-3060
~:~::~~~~:J:fm::~~~r"..:;rm,:;:,:::;)\::J!~t8~~~::t~?:::qi:::ii.
::i::glm!~'.!~i;~:::'i;i:.~~~::::::!.::::~::~:r!:i:~.:::::,..::~::.:,:.~,
:;~:i::;~:;i::::i::::i:::;::::::::::~\1~iliili1ili~)i;\i::::::::;~f::i::iii:::::1:ij::::::::::i::j::::'::';;
Date:
J I - IS " 9'7
0::' \> \~"
~f.
.5 s 3 (0.2..
The Applicant is: . 0 Contractor
Property Name: -EB&.~> L'
O LAST
wner Address:
NUMBER . I I
otu,lce '''''''
Site location:
NUMBER
TenanVBuilding Name:
LOT BLOCK
11+ ''^
City:
Contractor Company:
. Name:
LAST
Address;
City:
~r1pliOn of Work:
Width 11
X Height
location of Property:
(Site Plan May Be Required)
STREET
SUITE/UNIT NO,
ZIP CODE
\ 0't {S \('K. ~(T
ADDITION OR SUB-DIVISION
\ ~ A-L P 14+ AO~h~ l(.S
PROPERTY 10 NUMBER
I Ss- O) 0 - 05 tX , 10
Phone: c-:J 9 s - /77 &:
STREET
UNIT
Zip Code; 5 $ 3(0
State:
f') ,. tv IV
License No..
Phone:
FIRST
MI
NUMBER
STREET
UNIT
Zip Code:
State:
Sign Message:
e
S _ Total Sq. Fee g 5
@ 'ANf''6u~; 4 X ~
Zoning District:
3~
List All Existing Signs on Premises:
(Add Additional Pages if Necessary)
ao '.toiQ s~e 5
17 x a
3 x~-
q, Feet
o
sa
3a.
e
lee's TA-\ (fOl..J ho ....
R \\J f'isfft'e,+ AtJ:lLr
x
..
x
=
x
j \ Please Complete Other Side
'1--(,
EXHIBIT D
.
PHOTOGRAPHS OF SIGNS AT 103 PINE STREET
KATHY FROSLIE CONDITI NAL USE REQUEST
.
.
EXHIBIT E
t;-1
.
PHOTOGRAPHS OF SIGN AT 103 PINE STREET
KATHY FROSLIE CONDIT ONAL USE REQUEST
.
-~ ~-_..........-.----
"'co-
,tit
EXHIBIT E
CJ-8'
.
.
.
3.
Special PI nning Commission Minutes - O~
. . .. I~'=OA
.. under a :J.-.
O'Neill explained that Riverstreet St tion is seeking a conditional use permit
which would allow establishment of sign system tor a building that
contains three or more business uses Presently, Riverstreet Station
contains eight business uses, which i cludes an antique mall and seven office
uses. There were a number of varian es that were requested associated with
the original sign plan proposed by Ri erstreet Station. After further review
of the sign ordinance and site conditi ns, the applicant has decided to modify
the original application by utilizing primarily a pylon sign versus wall signs
as originally contemplated. This dec' sion has a positive effect of allowing the
development of the sign system that eeds no variances. Under the original
proposal, at least two variances were needed in order for the conditional use
permit to be approved.
Riverstreet has 191 lineal feet of fron age, which per city code, will allow 58
square feet of signage on a two-sided ylon sign. In addition there will be a
wall sign on the south side of the str cture.
Chairman Frie opened the public hea 'ng.
Tom Brion, owner Riverstreet Statio ,wanted to clarify that the CUP would
allow three or more signs on one prop rty.
O'Neill stated that three or more sign would be correct. It is time that the
Commission looked at the entire sign ordinance to make sure it is up to date.
There have been many changes in th last 15 years, especially in the
downtown area, and time should be ken to review our sign ordinance
during the comprehensive planning p ocedure.
There was an agreement among the c mmissioners to study the sign
ordinance at the next comprehensive Ian meeting in July.
Chairman Frie closed the public hea
JON BOGART MADE A MOTION T APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT ALLOWING A SIGN SYST M WITH THREE OR MORE
BUSINESS USES BASED ON THE INDING THAT THE SIGN SYSTEM
PROPOSED IS CONSISTENT WITH CITY CODE IN ALL RESPECTS AND
IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CH CTER OF THE BUSINESS IN
WHICH IT IS LOCATED. SECOND D BY DICK MARTIE. Motion passed
unanimously.
'I... '.
EXHIBIT F
.
10.
11.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/6/98
Trucking:. (NAC)
This report is intended to follow up 0 the City Council's decision not to
approve the amendment to allow truc . ng uses in the B-3 district by
conditional use permit. The City Cou cil referred the issue back to the
Planning Commission to consider an i terim use permit approach in an effort
to avoid a permanent industrial use i the highway commercial district.
Under the language in the attached z ning amendment, this use would be
allowed by interim use permit subject to a series of specific conditions as
suggested by staff in its discussion of he agenda item.
The proposed zoning ordinance amen ment attached to this report includes a
limiting factor by restricting the amo t of area and location on a site which
can be devoted to the keeping or stora e of commercial trucks. The Building
Official has suggested that a specific umber of such trucks would be too
difficult to enforce. The method prop sed in the attached ordinance would
establish the appropriate size and loc tion at the time of interim use permit
approval. While this method is not fo lproof, it would relate the use of the
site to an approved plan.
Since Danner has suggested that the would be developing the site to permit
future conversion to another B-3 use, n interim use permit process could
solve Danner's redevelopment proble with less possibility of other B-3 areas
being put to heavy truck repair uses. Staff continues to have concern over
the effect of adopting an amendment 0 the B-3 district (the City's most
visible commercial zone) which would allow a use which is industrial in
nature, particularly with the aspect 0 outdoor semi-trailer storage.
With regard to the issuance of an inte 'm use permit to Danner for this site,
the following requirements would be ecessary to accommodate the request:
A.
Vacation of the Marvin Road ri ht-of-way which extends through a
portion of the proposed Danner site. Marvin Road is not programmed
to be constructed in this area; owever, a relocation of Cedar Street to
serve a ''backage'' road system or TH 25 is probable.
11
.
.
.
B.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/6/98
Compliance of the Danner site Ian with the criteria listed in the
ordinance amendment as adop ed. Those criteria are summarized
below:
1. Architectural Appear nce. The building is proposed to be a
metal building accordin to previous discussions with the
applicant's representati e. This material is not prohibited in
the B-3 district and woud appear to be similar to a number of
neighboring buildings.
2. Screened Parking Are s. There are no adjacent residential
districts.
Parking, Driveway, d Storage Area Surfacing. The
zoning ordinance requires that a surface material for storage
areas is used which avoi s dust and drainage problems. This is
typically considered to b gravel. Staff would recommend that
some containment of the gravel storage area be provided such as
concrete parking barrier . With regard to the parking lot, this
area must be paved with bituminous or concrete surfacing and
surrounded by a peri met r curb. The only way of avoiding this
requirement is through conditional use permit in the I-lor 1-2
industrial districts.
3.
4. B-3 Minimum Lot Dim nsions. There is currently no
minimum lot area for th district. Minimum lot width is 100 ft.
For the site in question, edar Street would be the front lot line
as the narrowest confo 'ng legal frontage. The site plan shows
a frontage well in excess of 100 ft.
5. Outside Storage. No s orage (other than semi-trailers
discussed under point 7) . s proposed.
6.
Parking Area Accessi ility and Paving. No surfacing detail
has been proposed. The arking areas must be paved as noted
above and surrounded b a continuous perimeter curb. One
significant problem with the proposed site plan is accessibility of
the parking area. Altho gh the dimensions of the site plan are
not exact, it would appe that there is just 35-40 ft between the
southeast comer of the b ilding and the lot line. A minimum
parking area depth woul include a 5-ft separation from the
building, a 20-ft deep pa king stall, a 24-ft wide drive aisle, and
a minimum 5-ft setback om Cedar Street. This would require
at least 54 ft to accommo ate a parking area in the proposed
location.
12
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/6/98
A commercial building 0 the size proposed would require
approximately 26 parkin spaces. Therefore, the site appears to
have inadequate room to supply the required off-street parking
as designed. The applic nt has shown 13 spaces, although these
are inaccessible as noted above. It would be necessary to
relocate the parking are to the proposed circulation space to
the south of the building Twenty-six (26) spaces would
consume much of the tr ler parking area shown on the plan.
Trailer Parking Area. The proposed amendment would allow
a maximum of 6,000 sq fi of area to be devoted to outdoor trailer
parking and circulation. This would typically accommodate four
to five trailers and circul tion space to move them on site. This
6,000 sq ft would be the aximum allowable gravel area. All
other circulation and par ing areas must be paved. The
proposed plan shows a tr iler parking and circulation area of
approximately 10,000 sq ft south of the proposed building. The
circulation area is proba lyoversized. Moreover, it would be
necessary to relocate the parking area to a portion of this space.
Finally, the site plan det ils a lot width in this area ofless than
50 ft, although it me as s more. If the detail is correct, it
would be insufficient to t semi-trailers on the property in the
proposed location.
7.
.
8. Service in the Buildin . The applicant has indicated that all
service will be conducted inside of the new building.
9. Chapter 22 Procedura Provisions. This section requires
consistency with existin land uses and the comprehensive plan.
The City would have to ake a finding that the proposed use is
consistent with the plan, which generally calls for commercial
uses in the area.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
DECISION 1: INTERIM USE ORDINANC AMENDMENT
Motion to approve the ordinan amendment to allow truck repair by
interim use permit as proposed in the ordinance included as Exhibit A,
based upon the findings that th amendment would be consistent with
the City's goals in the TH 25 co ridor and would be consistent with the
intent of the B-3 district.
1.
.
13
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/6/98
.
2.
Motion to deny the ordinance endment based upon the findings that
the proposed use does not consist of retail/commercial uses as intended
in the B-3 district.
3. Motion to table action on the 0 dinance amendment pending further
consideration by the City and t e applicant.
DECISION 2: INTERIM USE PERMIT FO DANNER TRUCKING
1. Motion to approve the interim se permit for Danner Trucking subject
to the conditions listed in Exhi it C, based upon a finding that the
interim use permit allows the ity to manage the current and future
land use of the area, and the co ditions attached to the permit would
mitigate the potential negative impacts of an industrial use in the
commercial district.
2. Motion to deny the interim use permit for Danner Trucking, based
upon a finding that the propos d use cannot be made to be consistent
with the comprehensive plan.
.
3.
Motion to table action on the i erim use permit pending additional
information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As with the original request, staffis c ncemed that the use has more in
common with industrial uses than wih retail/commercial uses commonly
found in the B-3 district. While some of the specific activities are similar to
those of other B-3 uses, the commerci I interchange would not occur with this
use. The interim use permit process ould allow the City to permit Danner
to remain on the site with specific im rovements; however, the site plan
proposed by the applicant would need redesign to accommodate the proposed
use, as well as a future conversion to more mainstream B-3 land use. We
would recommend that if the interim se permit is granted, it is accompanied
by a security to ensure the installatio of all required site improvements and
is issued for a term of five or fewer ye s. The City anticipates an active
commercial development market in t is area during the five-year time frame.
The City could consider re-issuing th permit if conditions are significantly
different than anticipated.
~-.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Proposed ordinance amen
Exhibit B - Danner site plan
Exhibit C - Proposed conditions of ap
14
ment
.
.
.
City of M ntlc.Uo
Wright Coun , Minnesota
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHA TER 13, OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING
'ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ESTABLI HMENT OF TRUCKING SERVICE AS AN
INTERIM USE IN THE B-3, HIGHWAY BUSI ESS DISTRICT.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONT CELLO, MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS
AS FOLLOWS:
Chapter 13 is amended to add the following:
1.
13-5: INTERIM USES: The fOllowing a e interim uses in a "B-3" District (requires
in interim use permit based upon oprocedures set forth in and regulated by
Chapter 22 of this ordinance).
[A] Trucking and Trucking S ice provided that:
1. The architectural ppearance and functional plan of the
building and site hall not be so dissimilar to the existing,
conforming buildin s or areas as to cause impairment in
property values or constitute a blighting influence within the
district in which the proposed use is located.
2. Parking areas sh II be screened from view of abutting
residential districts i compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 of
this ordinance.
3. The entire site, 0 her than that taken up by a building,
structure, or planti gs shall be surfaced with a material to
control dust and d inage, which is subject to the approval of
the City Engineer.
5.
4. The site shall meet inimum lot dimension requirements of the
District.
No outside 8torag except as allowed in compliance with
Chapter 13, Section 4 [E] of this ordinance.
it A - Ordinance Amendment
10/1' - I
.
.
.
6.
Parking areas a sslble to the public. including customers
and employees s all be paved in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 5 of this rdinance.
7. No more than six sand (6,000). square feet of the site shall
be devoted to the torage, parking, andlor circulation of semi-
tractors and traile 8, as illustrated on a site plan submitted in
connedion with a application for a Conditional Use Perm it.
8. All service activiti shall occur within the principal building or
approved access ry buildings
9. The provisions of hapter 22 of this ordinance are considered
and satisfactorily et.
This ordinance shall become effective from a d after its passage and publication.
I/slI
,0/'1- z..
'.
.'
~'
t..
t'.
'.' ~
....
L~
~.
i j
j ,
. f!
:. ,1, I
f~ g
{;.~ ;
.~: ~ !
:~, 1 :
Ii
-!~ "
!-,;::~, '
:r r t
I
!
,
.;,~
t;.
"
.
\~
.
I;
I
I
,
E
.
.
;
f~
!
I
f
~ ' .
4
.
,
. .
I
~lI)
i~
! .
:0::
~rr;
I
.
~
~I
t
~l
{ ,
~ 0 ~
!l
!
!
: ~ I
~
"
. -
~'
IIQ"'
.
N
Lf')
I"":l
:",. ~
,. .
.
{
. ::-0
.
t
'-..
;'
,
.
\'.
,
\~
- .,
t
..
..I
'"
_...01 " ..,
'II "_.
,~'
":\
.,
~
fb~
~
~
, ,
". :\ ~
~~
I
;
,
'~~
, G
I
... -
; ~-
c.,:)
.~
'- -.
i Q t'
! -J ...
1-. ~
: .::, ~
; CO I4.i
..t
~
~ ,
" j
.
"oj.:
",
<y =,
"
I
z
.. - ....
J
... --
r- - "
I
L '...7--
'1--.'"
f~
....--
1_ 1._ _
. I,.. ,
1_..-
I
,
I
'~
;1
.:. ..
.I
-"1.
J~
-J .~
3-
~,~
~ .....
(
~ t' "
: J ~
',c I ~
~ 1
:I> '~'7
j
j
I~
i
l....-_.... ." 'oL
"'- -...- ,
.. -
, ~cP"'$" ~
-- -
.
..
-r I
(' r
, l '
I .\,
J' "
. ~
......
1 ..
I"
trO
It\!
'1
I.
'I: ' .
,
--
./ I~
",
'. .! 'r - -. -
~-. l- ouern;!3""'"
!... ~ ~ ... -
" ,
,...... ... ~ ...,
_/ l! t ~ ~ T"('A.: Jrr ..
I.:' ~.... ... ~
.
<::!l
,
. ."
1.
.-
,
(
~ i
,
~-!.t
,.' 1:
~ ':t~J
. ..... "-
. ,....v:)
I, ..t:t
,,3 '\
~ ~ "
I U 'I! II(
.e ~
.--
,:t
- ....
I ;
" "':;!
0
I q:
'., .J
- { ~
I~ ( . ~ ..
',' <ol
~ 0, J , .....
... '. , 'it
l'l. ~ I ..
. .. ~
oJ .J ~ .........
\oJ ... "J'" ,~
I'" ; - ;.,c"I
.~{ .. ;l
..- ~
..... ~
::a. '
oj ~
- - ,..
I
. .j.....'.. ....
..1 I",. '2,
... .":'J' ~
't'-
O
,..-----
~ ; ~4r.r'~ .
... L.-. ~ __ __.........-. ....
r"
fJ\
\0
~
't-
~'S
.... "<t
.~ "'l;.
,'?h
.
fI ~,
. Exhibit B · Danner Site Plan
/0/11- 3
.
.
.
CONDITIONS OF INTERIM SE PERMIT APPROVAL
DANNER TUCKING
1.
Compliance with the terms of the or nance amendment allowing trucking
service as an interim use in the B-3 d'strict.
2.
Revision of the site plan to show ade uate parking (or parking area) with
appropriate improvements, including paving and curbing.
3.
Revision of the site plan to show no ore than 6,000 sq ft of trailer parking
area, with a gravel surface and a met od of gravel containment.
4.
Submission of a survey and site plan rawn to scale documenting adequate
dimensions of the site to accommodat the proposed layout,
5.
Submission of financial guarantees t ensure installation of all
improvements as shown on the final 'te plan,
6,
Execution of a development contract r the interim use permit indicating a
specific termination date for the per 't, signed by the City and the applicant.
7.
Compliance with all building code req . rements.
Exh "bit C. Conditions of Approval
10/"_ 'I-
.
12.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/6/98
Mr. Larry Carter, the owner of the bu'lding located at 731 East Broadway, is
requesting that a variance be conside ed to allow the erection of one (1)
business sign in the required front ya d setback area. Within the PZM
zoning district, the required front yar setback for pylon/freestanding signs is
15 ft from the front property line.
Within the PZM zoning district, busin sses have two opportunities to
construct signs:
.
"Option A" -- signs may be e ected only on walls. Total
maximum sign area is 76 sq t (20% of the area of the front
facade of the building).
OR
.
"Option B" -- a combination of wall signs and a one (1) pylon
sign may be erected. Total aximum sign area for wall signs is
36 sq ft (10% of the area of t e front facade of the building).
Total maximum sign area ~ r the pylon sign is 50 sq ft.
If you visit the site, you will find that the sign considered by this variance
application has been erected. Thoug the sign appears to be permanent in
its construction, the applicant has ch sen to construct the sign under a
permit for a temporary sign in hopes f making the sign permanent. This
sign and sign structure are intended 0 replace a sign and sign structure that
were destroyed by the July 1, 1997, 'ndstorm. However, even if the sign
structure had not been destroyed, a v riance would be required to change the
previous non-conforming sign to anot er non-conforming sign.
As depicted by the attached site plan the building is located within 14.2 ft
back of the front property line. If a p lon/freestanding sign were setback
15 ft from the front property line as r quired by city ordinance, the sign
would be located behind the front wa I of the building. Mr. Carter has
expressed that wall signs alone are i sufficient and that he must have a
pylon sign to reasonably advertise hi business. Mr. Carter also believes that
locating a pylon sign behind the fron of his building in not acceptable, as it
would be unattractive and obstructe .
15
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/6/98
The proposed sign is approximately 20 sq ft in area. The sign structure is
located on the front property line an extending back toward the front of the
building 6 ft.
Variance Review:
As previously noted, the applicant ha requested a variance from the 15-ft
front yard setback for pylon/freestan 'ng signs as required in the PZM
zoning district.
Section 23-3 of the ordinance require that in consideration of variance
applications, the Planning Commissi n must make findings that approval of
the variance will not:
1. Impair an adequate supply of! ght and air to adjacent property.
2. Unreasonably increase the con estion of a public street.
3. Increase the danger offire or e danger the public safety.
4. Unreasonably diminish or imp ir established property values within
the neighborhood or in any oth r way be contrary to the intent of the
ordinance.
.
The Planning Commission must mak a finding that a non-economic
hardship exists and that the property cannot be put to reasonable use if the
variance is denied.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Move to recommend to the City Council that a variance be granted to
erect a sign structure and sign n the front yard setback area in front
of the existing building conting nt upon the following requirements:
1. The sign structure and s' gn must be setback at least 7 ft from
the front property line.
2. The future signs that ma be erected upon the proposed sign
structure will be conside ed allowed uses, not requiring future
variances if required si permits are obtained from the
Building Official.
3. Future signs erected on t e sign structure must not be higher
nor larger in area than a lowed by this variance if granted.
.
4.
The variance must expir with the building. If the building is
razed or altered to permi the erection of a conforming
pylon/freestanding sign, hen the sign structure and sign
16
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/6/98
allowed by this varianc must be removed, and any future sign
structure and sign mus be made to comply with city ordinances,
except as otherwise app oved by City Council.
Making the findings that:
1. The sign structure and ign will not have adverse impacts upon
adjacent property, traffi , public safety or diminish property
values.
2. The unique location an design of the building and other
improvements on the p perty unreasonably diminish the
opportunity to advertise the permitted business use of the
property without a vari nee allowing for a pylon/freestanding
sign.
2.
Move to recommend to the Cit Council that a variance be granted to
erect a sign structure and sign in the front yard setback area in front
of the existing building con tin ent upon:
.
(Requirements to be determ ned by Planning Commission), and
making the findings that:
1. The sign structure and ign will not have adverse impacts upon
adjacent property, traffi , public safety or diminish property
values.
2. (As determined by PIa ning Commission.)
3. Move to recommend to the Cit Council that the variance be denied, as
the ordinance provides sufficie t opportunity to erect wall signs to
advertise.
Staff recommends Alternative #1. I erected according to the four criteria
listed above, the sign and sign struct e will not have adverse impacts. The
non-conforming location of the buildi g upon the property is unique to this
property and does not provide reason ble opportunity to advertise with wall
signs only. Because of the design of he building, large wall signs located
upon the building will substantially etract from the aesthetic appeal of the
building.
.
17
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/6/98
.
The "temporary" sign erected by the pplicant appears to be set too close to
the front property line to be consiste t with the intent of the ordinance and
begins to set a dangerous precedent 0 future signs that may be erected in the
PZM district. The applicant subject d himself to risk by erecting the sign
under a temporary sign permit. By anting the variance according to the
recommendation of staff, the applica t will be required to move his sign
structure and sign back 7 ft further ward the building.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Copy of applicable ordina ce, Section: 3-9 [E] 3.
Exhibit B - Location map
Exhibit C - Copy of sign plan for 731 ast Broadway as submitted by
applicant
Exhibit D - Photograph of sign at 731 East Broadway
.
.
18
.
.
.
[E]
2. A non-conforming sign may not be:
(a) Changed to another non-conforming sign.
(b) Structurall altered except to bring into compliance with
the provisi ns of this subdivision.
(c) Expanded.
(d) Re-establis ed after its removal for thirty (30) days.
(e) Re-establis ed after damage of more than fifty (50)
percent of s' go replacement cost except to bring into
compliance
3. All non-conformi g and prohibited signs shall be removed or
brought into com rmity with this ordinance after notification in
writing within th following time period.
(a) Any sign i violation of the prohibited signs as defined in
[B] 2: Thir y (30) days (exception: advertising signs, five
(5) years).
(b) For all oth r non-conforming signs: five (5) years.
DISTRICT REGULAT ONS: The following sections concern signs
which require applicat" on and permit.
1. Within the A-a, -1, R-2, R-3, R-4, and PZR districts, signs are
subject to the foll wing size and type regulations:
(a) Institution or area identification signs, proVided that
the gross s uare footage of sign area does not exceed
eighteen (1 ) square feet, and if the sign is freestanding,
the height oes not exceed eight (8) feet.
2. Within the PZM, -1, B-2(B-i, B-4, I-I, and 1-2 districts, signs
are subject to the following .sIze and type regulations:
e
Within the PZM and B-1 districts, the maximwn
allowable s uare footage of sign area per lot shall not
exceed the sum of one (1) square foot per front foot of the
building pI s one (1) square foot for each front foot oflot
not occupi d by a building, up to one hnndred (100)
square fee. Each lot will be allowed one (1) pylon or
free standi g sign and one (1) wall sign or two (2) wall
signs total.
EXHIBIT A
\ 'Z.. ..
3/47
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
.
.
.
(b) For building in which there is one (1) or two (2) business
uses within he B-2, B-3, B-4,
1-1, and 1-2 istricts, and for buildings used for
commercial etail activities located within a PZM district
and located n property adjacent to B-2, B-3, B-4, 1-1, or 1-
2 districts, t ere shall be two (2) options for permitted
signs, as list d below in 2.(b)i. And 2.(b)ii. The property
owner shall elect one option, which shall control sign
developmen on the property.
{9
(9
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
Opti n A. Under Option A, only wall signs shall
be owed. The maximum number of signs on
any rincipal building shall be six sign boards or
plac rds, no more than four (4) of which may be
prod ct identification signs. Signs may be
diap ayed on at least two walls, or e~qu:artiLthe
nu erof streets upon whicl11Jie property has
eg rontage, whichever is greater. Each wall
shal contain no more than two product
iden ification signs and two business
iden ification signs. The total maximum area of
wall signs shall be determined by taking twenty
per nt (20%) of the gross silhouette area of the
fron of the building up to three hundred (300)
squ e' feet, whichever is less. If a principal
buil ing is on a corner lot, the largest side of the
buil ing may be used to determine the g~I:OSS
sUh uette area.
For purposes of determining the gross area of the
silh uette of the principal building, the silhouette
sha 1 be defined as that area within a-n outline
dra 'ng of the principal building as viewed from
the front lot line or from the related public
str et(s).
Op ion B. Under Option B, a combination of wall
si s and a maximum of one (1) pylon sign may
be tilized. The total number of business
ide tification signs-al1o-~-@- (whether wall or
pyl rilsha11 be-lit least two (2), or equal to the
n ber of ~~reets up_~~_~!1:~~!I the PEC?P~~tYJias_
e front~ge, whichever is greater. Only two
pr duct identification signs shall be allowed, and
th se wall signs may be only on one wall. The
tot 1 maximum allowable sign area for any wall
sh 11 be determined by taking ten percent (10%)
of he gross silhouette area of the front of the
bIding up to one huncred (100) square feet,
3/48
.
()7' n any district, an portion of any sign exceeding two (2) square
feet shall be set b ck a distance equal to fifty percent (50%) of
the required buil . ng setback for that district as defined in
Section 3~3 [C] of he Monticello Zoning Ordinance, as may be
amended.
(#269,5/8/95)
8. Any sign now or ereafter existing which no longer advertises,
or identifies a bo a fide business conducted, or a service
rendered, or a pr duct sold, shall be removed by the owner,
agent, or person aving the beneficial use and/or control of the
building or struct re upon which the sign may be found within
ten (10) days afte written notice from the Building Inspector.
.
9. The City of Monfcello or its agent is authorized and required by
this ordinance to nter into an agreement with the United
States or any of i s agencies or departments to the end that the
objective stated i Title 23, United States Code, Section 131,
Section 319, or yother applicable federal statute to obtain
non-conforming s' gns along the Great River Road within the city
of Monticello. H wever, the City of Monticello or its agent shall
not be required, or allowed, to expend funds for the acquisition
of non-conformin signs or advertising devices under this
chapter until fed ral funds in the amount of 75% or more to his
acquisition cost re made available to the City of Monticello for
the purpose of ying out this ordinance. No sign nor
advertising devi e legal under Laws 1971, Chapter 883, shall be
required to be re oved or relocated until payment, as provided
in Laws 1971, C apter 883, is tendered by the City of
Monticello.
10. Signs may be 10 ated on conforming fuel station pump island
canopies. Such igns shall be considered as wall signs, and
shall be regula d in the same manner as any other wall signs
on the property.
" (#247,3/14/94)
[D] NON-CONFORMIN SIGNS:
1. The following a e non-conforming signs:
(a) Off-prem se signs, except signs located inside ball parks
and on b s benches.
(b) Prohibited signs.
.
(c)
All other signs not expressly prohibited but which do not
conform 0 the provisions of this subdivision.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/46
LOCATION MAP
'~
'-~
. 'th'n the PZM zoning district to locate a
A varia ce WI I, d
. I' within the required 15 foot front yar
com mer la Sl2n
setback or signs.
1_ t 13 d 14 Blod( I, L.'wer Monticello.
Location: 731 East Broadway, ....., S an
----
r:....:.~
I ;
AD.
-1-'''~
, ,
","'v .-'
'?-'
c,'
,~
~""............
....~".................
"---..
I
I
I
... \~.. ~i
B..."'..".,.. I,
,,"---
...........
, :::~:."r,I"
'-"---~
.............~...................
..
Cf1ELS'EA
\\
'V \\
, 0 'V ~ \\\
! ~ : \'~
"
o \\~
, I
~. L------",-
D
)-
','
",
(') ~\,\ ".........
'-" "" I, ~........
.,~~
........................ '
:Ej(~,
",
.
.
---------
.
SIGN P AN
Ontu~
-,~2l
rfI11}Misl
Excel
101 West BrOadway, PO Box 180 @=.=_.
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Business (612) 295-3300
Fax (612) 295-5614
Residence (612) 878-2384
~ Larry Carter, GAl
'~Lt~nil Broker I Owner
licensed Since 1978
Each OffiC8 Js/ndBpendently OWned And Operated
-t=-~
/
(
(
(
!
/ ~/-"; If
----'----t= tt+~ '
...-
,r
. -- - -.--,-------
10'
-~--------'~~~ -.----.................
CKlD
-----------~.............---.._--'_._,--_.~-_..,~--,._~--
-------------.,.----., - -- ~---- - - -~~--
t:--__
~olaJl\-t:Q
-----=--~--=--=-~-==:==---=======-~
---------.
- ----------------------"-------
---
..-
~
EXHIBIT C
.
PHOTOGRAPHS OF SIGN A 731 EAST BROADWAY
LARRY CARTER VAR CE REQUEST
.
.
EXHIBIT D
I z.-"
.
.
.
13.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/6/98
Mr. John Olson, Parish Director, indi ated that he is providing a letter
requesting a continuance of the reque t for an amendment to the
comprehensive plan which would eli inate the Fallon Avenue bridge.
It appears that there is a compromise design that will work for the church;
however, details of the design remain 0 be determined. If an agreement on a
compromise design can be achieved, S . Henry's Church will withdraw their
request.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to continue the public h aring on consideration of an
amendment to the comprehens've plan eliminating or modifying the
Fallon Avenue bridge.
2.
Motion to deny amendment to he comprehensive plan.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Letter from St. Henry's Church.
19
Church of St. _ .enry
.
501 WEST F'OURTH ST1U.E
MONTICELLQ, MN SS]()1
TELEPHONE; (612) 195-1401
FAX: (611) 19S-6.U3
Janwuy 2. 19%
Dick Frie, Chainnar.
Plmming Commission
City of Monticeilo
250 East Broadway
Monlicello, MN 55362
DellI Mr. }o'rie:
TIle Church of S I. lleur'j again ks fur a contnuance of (01.1: request for a change in the
City ComprehEnsive Plaa
llle City Engineer and O'Jr 00t":6 Iring eng;.neen are still meeting on the ahematives that
ellll salisf)' foe needs of not on!. tt.c City of Monticello but also St. Hellry's plan for the
U3e of it:; property. Our dilY:uss ems end solatiom bye been forwuded to the State fot
considerdion and we aK awai . g an answer.
.
The Church makes its preOOllta an to the Archdiocese on Tuesday, January 6 and 'u.-
efforts liOW a:re. focused on L1ut eeting. Once that preseniation is made VIe can
coneenLrate on (he road md l,ri e iSSUES oc.ce again.
We agree that m:s il;l;UC needs be resol\'ed but one more continuance \1V~U allow both
llie Church and the City to:l_ e on the small difIereuucs woul design and to receive an
1lI1SWer frolll the Slale.
Shalom, ~..
/Y1J c...-..- I /"I'-1.c-~
Faill'erMare T. Ma-~
v
.
13-/
.
.
.
14.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/6/98
The existing fence ordinance is confu ing and has created undesirable land
use conditions. In addition, the curr nt fence ordinance does not address
community aesthetic concerns such a barbed wire installations and exposed
structural components.
Specific undesirable effects of the cu ent ordinance include:
Fences must be setback 2 f from property lines or a license
agreement must be signed y both property owners and
recorded at the Office of th Wright County Recorder. These
requirements have caused pro lems between neighbors and have
created a condition where usa Ie lot area is unjustifiably reduced.
Where two neighbors each wa t to erect a fence and do not want to
sign a license agreement, a 4-fi unusable and likely unmentioned area
would be created between the wo fences. If only one property owner
erects a fence on his property etback 2 ft from property lines, it is
likely that confusion and confl cts regarding location of property lines
will eventually occur. This m y result in adverse condemnation
actions between adjoining pro erty owners whereby portions of one
neighbor's land is granted by court to the other neighbor.
Enforcement of this provision as been unnecessarily burdensome on
staff.
.
· The current ordinance appear to prohibit the construction of 6-ft high
fences in the front yard setbac ; however, a 6-ft fence may be erected
at the property line on a side onting on a public street regardless of
the interior lot use. Only fenc s exceeding 6 ft in height may not be
constructed in required setbac areas. Unsafe conditions may be
created for traffic approachin or leaving an interior lot. A 6-ft fence
erected on a side yard frontin on a public street and adjoining an
interior lot will obstruct visibi ity.
The current ordinance does no prohibit undesirable, unsafe, or
blighting fences. The propose amendment will prohibit barbed wire,
razor ribbon, and electric fenc s, and require that the salvage end of
.
20
Planning Commission Agenda - 1/6/98
.
chain link fences must be tum d down. In addition, where fences
have aesthetically objectionabl structural components, the finished or
"good" side must face outward oward neighbors and public right-of-
way.
The proposed amendment to the curr nt ordinance will address each of the
concerns listed above and provide for afer and more aesthetically-pleasing
fence installations.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Move to recommend to the City Council that this ordinance amending
Chapter 3, Section 2, Item [F], f the Monticello Zoning Ordinance
establishing regulations for the installation of fences be approved.
2. Move to recommend to the Cit Council that this ordinance amending
Chapter 3, Section 2, Item [F], fthe Monticello Zoning Ordinance
establishing regulations for the installation of fences be denied.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
.
Staff recommends that the Planning ommission recommend Alternate #1
above.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Copy of proposed ordina ce with strike-out and underlining to
show amendments
Exhibit B - Copy of Chapter 3, Secti n 2 [F], of the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance as it will app ar if this ordinance is adopted
Exhibit C - Copy of current ordinan e
Exhibit D - Sketches illustrating the effect of both the current ordinance
and the new ordinance
.
21
.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
WITH STRIKE-OUT UNDERLINING
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF MO TICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-2 F THE MONTICELLO ZONING
ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING FENCING R GULATIONS.
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES ORDAIN:
Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 3-2, Item [F] of the City Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
[F] CCNCnAL FENCING,
.
.
1 .
m sur fr h
ad' in"n ve rad In the case of grade separation
such as the divisi n of properties by a retaining wall, the
height shall be de ermined on the basis of measurement
from the average oint between the highest and lowest
grade.
2.
/'-/... (
EXHIBIT A
.
.
.
C)(CCrTIONS:
required.
3.
It.!., 2-
.
.
.5....
.6...
.
.tL
,'-I --3
.
L
a.
.9...
1Q..
.
.
d ends mu
laced
I~ - 'I-
.
.
.
This Ordinance shall become effective imm diately upon its passage and
publication according to law.
ADOPTED by the Monticello City Co ncil this
1997.
day of
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:
ATTEST:
By:
Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
AYES:
NAYS:
Bill Fair, Mayor
IY"~
.
[F]
.
.
ORDINANCE AS W ULD APPEAR
IF ADOP ED
FENCING:
1. A building permit is required for the construction of a fence or wall
that will be more than six (6) fe t in height above grade, or for the
construction of a retaining wall hat is more than four (4) feet in
height from the bottom of the f oting to the top of the wall.
Fence and wall heights are to b measured from the adjoining average
grade. In the case of grade se aration such as the division of
properties by a retaining wall, t e height shall be determined on the
basis of measurement from the average point between the highest
and lowest grade.
2. No fence or wall shall exceed e"ght feet six inches (8'-6") in height
except as approved for comme cial and industrial properties, and
tennis courts which may have hain link fences not exceeding ten
(10) feet in height.
3. Fences and walls may be canst ucted anywhere on private property
except as provided below:
a.
Fences and walls exceeding 48 inches in height must be
setback at least 15 feet f any property line fronting on a
public street.
b. On corner lots, fences a d walls must not encroach on the 25
foot corner visibility are at a public street intersection. (The
corner visibility area referred to above shall be in the form of a
triangle, with two sides ormed by the property lines forming
the corner, or straight Ii e extensions of the property lines
forming the corner, and he third side formed by a straight line
connecting the two twe tv-five (25) foot points on both sides
of the corner as measur d from the intersection of the property
lines or property line ext nsions forming the corner.)
4. Fences and walls must not be onstructed on the public right of way
except for retaining walls as a proved by the City Engineer. Fences
and walls placed upon utility e sements are subject to removal if
required for the maintenance r improvement of the utility.
5. A Certificate of Survey may b required by the Zoning Administrator
to determine the location of fences and walls on a property.
6.
If the material used in the fen e or wall construction is not finished on
't.f-~
EXHIBIT B
.
7.
8.
9.
.
both sides, the finished side of the material must be on the outside,
facing the public street, or the abutting or adjoining properties. All
posts or structures supporting he fence or wall must be on the inside
of the fence or wall. All fenc s and walls must be constructed of
durable, weather resistant mat rials and properly anchored. Every
fence or wall must be maintain d in a condition of reasonable repair
and shall not be allowed to be orne and remain in a condition of
disrepair or danger or constitu e a nuisance. Fences or walls in a
state of disrepair may be remo ed by the City as provided by
Minnesota Statutes. The cost of removing fences may be levied
against the property as a speci I assessment.
Electrified wires, barber wire, razor ribbon and the like are prohibited
on fences.
All chain link fences must hav a top rail, barbed ends must be placed
at the bottom of the fence.
Where any fence or wall conn cts to a building used as a dwelling, at
least one gate not less than 2 eet 6 inches in width shall be required
to allow access around the buiding.
10. All swimming pools, hot tubs, pas and other water tanks exceeding
24 inches in depth must be co pletely fenced in.
.
a. Residential Swimming P 01 Fences shall be constructed as
follows:
I. Residential swim ing pool fences must be at least 48
inches in height. he fence must not permit the passage
of a 4 inch spher through openings in the fence.
Fences must be c nstructed of durable, corrosion and
decay resistive m terials. Openings below the fence to
grade must not e ceed 4 inches.
II. Where an above round pool structure has walls that are
at least 4 feet in eight, the pool wall may serve to meet
the fencing requir ments; however, the access to the
pool must provid equivalent protection to prevent
unauthorized entr
Fences for swim ing pools must include a self-closing,
self-latching devi e on all gates. Latches must be
installed at least feet 6 inches above grade. Gates
III.
1'1 -1
.
.
.
must not exceed feet in width and must meet the same
construction requ rements as fences. If the pool area is
not otherwise fenced in accordance with this ordinance,
temporary fencin must be provided during installation of
a swimming pool.
b.
Commercial Swimming 001 Fences shall be not less than 5 feet
in height and construct d as required by the Minnesota
Department of Health.
It{ -- V
.
[F]
.
.
GENERAL FENCING, SC EENING, AND LANDSCAPING:
1. No fence shall exceed six (6) feet in height within a required
yard; and in the case of grade separation such as the division of
properties by a retai ing wall, the height shall be determined on
the basis of measure ent from the average point between the
highest and lowest ade.
2. No fence, structure, lanting, trees, or shrubs shall be permitted
within the visibility rea of any comer formed by property lines
intersecting with a r ilway rightwof-way. (The visibility area
referred to above sh 11 be in the form of a triangle with two
sides formed by the roperty lines mentioned and the third side
formed by a straight line connecting the two (2) twenty-five (25)
foot points on both s'des of the corner.)
EXCEPTIONS:
(a) Chain link fe ces with openings of one and fiveweights (lw
5/8) inches to wo (2) inches and not exceeding a
maximum of rtyweight (48) inches in height may be
allowed anyw ere within the visibility area.
(b) Except as pr vided in Chapter 3, Section 2, [F] 2, fences,
plantings, tr es, or shrubs not over three feet in height
may be pe . tted if not prohibited by other areas of the
ordinances.
(c) Except as pr vided in Chapter 3, Section 2, [F] 2, fences
may be erect d on any part of a lot when they are to be
located behi d the front line of the principal building on
that lot.
(d) feet in height shall be treated as structures
Ore appropriate pemrits as required.
(e)
Except as pr vided in Chapter 3, Section 2 [F] 2, fences
may be erec ed on the side of rear lot lines of a property
subject to a ecordable agreement between adjacent
property ow ers. Said agreement shall assign
maintenanc and cost responsibilities between the
adjoining pr perties, shall become null and void upon
removal oft e fence, and shall be recorded against the
titles of eac property. Where no agreement is reached,
fences shall be set back a minimum of two (2) feet from
any lot line. .
Ii ...,
EXHIBIT .C
.,
.
At the discr tion of the Building Official, a boundary
survey may e required to ascertain the exact location of
the bound line.
3. In all zoning distri ts, the lot area remaining after providing for
off-street parking, ff-street loading, sidewalks, driveways,
building site, and! r other requirements shall be planted and
maintained in gra s sodding, shrubs, or other acceptable
vegetation or trea ent generally used in landscaping. Fences
or trees placed up n utility easements are subject to removal if
required for the m intenance or improvement of the utility.
Trees on utility ea ements containing overhead wires shall not
exceed ten (10) fee in height.
(#248, 3/14/94)
.
.
,'1__ ID
.
.
~
~
z
~
>-
-<
~
~
z
.
~33'3~S <IOOA..
ol::ln:J
(", .-=-~=~~~>.=' ;:;--
, 1:::::::. , '" .. ~
.~
~
I~
OJ
a:
:::l
u
,i ~ ~ .~
': .0; " ;; " .:
~ '11 ..: t ~ -: -':
, 0: .t, {
.. .,'.
~r
.~ ~ '<': ': -: ..;
-: .; ,~ .~ .~
'" -': .: .;; ..; .~
.,:; -: " " ': ..: ,,: .:: -:; -: " : ~
,', '\ 0( .~ .~ .; ~
.'
U"'lIi.: __ __ ...... ""'- -..... -... "-. __ ...... '...... -_-_
.,;,:.,;,:.,;,:.;'.,;,0
----. ..
It)
't:Jg'C'Il
G.l G.l'7
Ii ,E ><
cE"
,~ 4i ~
... Q. 0
.... .=
3: lI)'ilj
.!!! 8 a:
>;10
~u.>-
.!lor:
(.)zO
3NIl AU::l3d 08
II)
CLI
'';:;
...
mCLICLI
c~g-
'c CLI ...
.- U Q..
0::
:c " m
~ CLI'E
E'E 0
00.0
...uJ:
-CLlm
- ... '4>>
$ ~ c
-
c c
C'IlCLICLI
~J:CLI
u3:,!
~-CLI
_ o...c
CLI CLI
II) ~ II)
CLlCLl0
.c II) ')(
_ CLI CLI
~,= -
E - c
~CLI
II) ... E
CLI CLI CLI
U Q.. CLI
co'"
CLI...m
u. 0.. ~
"
-\
~ uit)
=' aJ CLI
C"~-CLlE
~~~.o4i
....0>-0..
c-_~
.- g E >-
-.oQ.. .c
o_=,-
CCLI J:'t:J
II) II) .2' CLI
C CLlCLI-
1'EgJ:g
:;~.!c4i
en
'gaJ
o C a- ~
C =' ~
_t)C"~
en CLI CLI u
=' - a- ~
ECDc.c
.- t)
:a'g~ en
u CLI m"O
cu._a-
CLI >< CLI ~
U.CLlJ:>-
..;
CD
(.)
s::
ca
c
.-
"C
a..
o
CD
U
C
CD
U.
C)
C
.-
...
tn
.-
><
LLJ
.....
o
tn
..
U
CD
.....
.....
W
'&1,1'
EXHIBIT D
.
~
;:J
z
~
>
<
.~
~
z
't:J
Q)~
Q'f
r:: ~
.!! Q)
~a.
~ lhQ)
Q)
._ c.>
~ ~ . .. 9l:Il'l:J
as ""..lo.~.b~~~~~
~'O'
DZ
~33"3~S "3001.
p.mAalno
Q)
U
C
ca
C
.-
-c
l-
e 0
a:
c:(
~ Q)
t-
::J
0 U
w C
w () G)
z Z
:J W LL
>- U.
I- U.
'W 0 ;:
,a... W
,0
a: e G)
'a... en
, Z
, e
,
, w
, J: .....
, (/J 0
, Z
, u:
I 0
,
, ....
I U
,
, G)
I
f .....
, .....
I W
.
It)
,---N- ,-..
J ~::::~:\\\~i::i~'i~\!~:~l~
.: ..;: {
. . ".."
\~ ,..:
'., ,.
~ ': ,~
~ .. ~ ", ':
~: I;
. ..: f. .~ .-:
, ,
.; .::
, .... . .....
~-'~
. ,., ,..... "..." ........ ""... ."......
.. ""..". ....,,, "......., ",...., .."......:. '.....:.. .:....
.. ,,,.., "....... ..."",,""."'.. ........ ......
jq6!aqa.3U3j"x:QWIOOI,
DJ
a:
::J
U
],~--
. .
...
I ..c
'-. ~--
'G)
..r::
.~ :~t.~' :\'-:.I::~..~.e~"'~~~(~-f.,:":-:<~'- Co .: .
. . , -: -: (. .-: .:; --: ..: ..: ;: .. ~ .& ..; ~
" . (: ..: { \" ..: ' '" ~ -: -: I;
:.;;~;~',~:~~;::.: ~.e.: <,:':': ~ < ..:'~ ~ ": ~ .: (:.0: ~ ~ ;:.:: ~ .: (~(:..: ~.~ ,
:m:mmm:, ~mmm\m ,,:;: ~::: : ; ; , : :; ; ; ; : ; :;: :::; : ;
':"",.::: ~":::::::,, :;:; ~ ~ ;:::: ~;:::;:;;:::: ~::':
-:':~\'!\'ij\)'1 (B':,@\\ill\: ': < < < < , <, ,', '-,' ,< < < <"
x,";:~:: ~ ::::':::::;;: :;:;:;:;::~;;;;~ <';' <., <' " < .
m~ww: w :m~Hmm, ~ ~ ~ ,~ ": ;:." ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -: ~.( 'l {
:iUl~:i g5::Hi1jl)~' . ; ;: ::; ',~ ; ; ; : ; ~ ':! ;:;:;;;;;::
:~:mE~L 0 ,nHnWm~ : ~ : <. ': ~ ~ .; : ~ ~ ~ ~ ,e ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .: -: ~ ~ ~
~~W~~~~L;~)~~~~~~~~~~; ~ ,~ ,~ .: -= ~ -: U t: ~ ~ ~ ~ .: ; ~:
" e "',~ r. '~.' ~ " ~ ':.., '.< " : ; ; ; < .:;: ~ ; : ; ; ; : ; : :.! <;: -; ; ; ; : ;
":\~~. ~~,,-:~..:... "..:.-:-':"
~ '. 'J.: '.: -:".;: .:
,::"~.,~.;.~ -:".~.~,~' ,'"
"
~ -:
: " ~ \, ~
(" ,: ."
. ',: : ,,: ,,":: \~ -; ~ ',: ~ .: '
... ... . : . ~ t ..: .; .: ..;: ...
~ .:
;;;: >,,::-: ~ <, ': <;:.: <;;;;;: :;';;;; <';;>
...../-_.
Q)
c.>
'F'~__
I
f
,
,
,
,
,
,
, ::.Oir .
,
,
,
,
I
....-:;,.,.;:.,...,.'~. ;..,.;.."::,...
....x....
CIS
e
.: ~ '" ,~ .~ .;
"
~
ClI
>
G)
:J
o
CD
.:; .0: " ~ 01:
-: -: .c -: '- '=
..:: ..: -.: < ..
'" ~ -: "" ~ .,:
.( ~ ,: ,: .<;
.: .: .I, -: .~ .:
..: 'J .: .( ,~
-: -: ~ "' ~ ,:
.. 1i .; -: .:
.:: -: t ,: .:: ~
..:: ~ " .0; ~
..: .: -: .:: " ...
" 0'.: ...: ..: .e.
...: -< <; -: .: 0(
-: '", .: " ,~
-: ~ -.: { ..l ..;
,: -: ~ ~ ~ .~ ," .:
...
.2
...:-~
..SL
., ,,,......,,...
....-----_.
~. 3Ni,- K(83 d'O 8d ,..,
+
o
o::t
/'I ~/-V