Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 04-11-1978 (Special Meeting) " # .~ MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING April 11, 1978 - 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING REVISED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING DISTRICT AMENDMENTS, AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Fran Fair, Fred Topel, Dave Bauer, Denton Erickson*, Loren Klein. 1. Review by Planner, Dick Dwinell. Dick Dwinell, consulting planner with Howard Dahlgren Associates, reviewed the revised comprehensive plan indiLating that it is a three-fold process to develop such a plan. Elements of the plan implementation include research and analysis, definition of goals and policies, and the actual development of the comprehensive plan for land uses within the City of Monticello. Mr. Dwinell also reviewed the proposed zoning district changes and the zoning ordinance amendments. 2. Zoning District Amendments. .~ ..=W The following described parcels of land are proposed for rezoning in accord~nce with the revised comprehensive plan; Area 1: Approximately 120 acres located between County Highway #75 and 1-94, North of Prairie Road from R-l (Single Family Residential) to I-I (Light Industrial). Mr. Dwinell indicated that the reason for proposing such a change was to make it consistent with the abutting property to the north, that being Northern States power Co., and to the property to the west, that being used as industrial by Mr. Bill Seefeldt. The following testimony was presented: Larry Nolan: Opposed to rezoning due to proximity of residential area to the east. Jim Maus: Indicated that he was an owner of the land being proposed for rezoning and he would favor such a rezoning. ~ -- ... * Denton Erickson was not present at the commencement of the meeting. . -. - .1-' 4~11-78 P. C. The Planning Commission indicated that there would be a buffer of the railroad tracks and County Road #75 from the present residential area to the industrial area and a motion was made by Fred Topel, seconded by Fran Fair to approve the rezoning. Voting in favor: Topel, Fair, Ridgeway Bauer. Absent: Erickson. Area 2: Approximately a 400-500' wide strip of land located between West County Road 39 (Golf Course Road) to the West and Marvin Road (Minnesota Street) to the East, all bordering the North Side of 1-94 from R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) and B-4 (Regional Business) to B-3 (Highway Business). (Area is approximately 3/4 mile long and 43 acres in size.) Mr. Dwinell indicated that reason for proposal is to make the area bordering 1-94 to the north of the freeway commercial from County Road #39 to State Highway #25. The following testimony was given: William Hoffman, representing Harold Ruff: Felt the area entirely south of West County Road #39 to the freeway should be zoned as commercial and in addition, the area including current Ruff Salvage Yard to the east of Elm Street should be commercial since that is the current use of that area. Reason for this, Mr. Hoffman indicated, 1) the overpass on County Road 39 over the freeway will create alot of traffic on West County Road 39, 2) proposed plans show that Elm Street one day would be an overpass over 1-94, 3) there were presently many uses in the area that would be nonconforming if they were to be zoned as residential, 4) felt that any other zoning would be very restrictive for current commercial uses presently located in the area. Gordon Monsen: inquired as to the zoning of the area and inquired as to the amount of land that would be rezoned to commercial north of 1-94 in the particular area. William Hoffman: indicated a law suit is forseeable if area would be rezoned to residential. A motion was made by Dave Bauer, seconded by Fran Fair and unan- imously carried, (Erickson absent), to approve the rezoning as indicated. NOTE: At this point, Denton Erickson arrived at the meeting. -2- . ~. -- --. 4-11-78 P.C. Area 3: Lots 3 through 8, Block 33 and Lots 3 through 8, Block 16, Upper Monticello from B-4 (Regional Business) to R-B (Residential Business). Mr. Dwinell explained the reason for proposing a rezoning from B-4 to R-B was that there was a concern expressed from residences in Block 33 and Block 16 since they would currently be nonconforming uses and not allowed to be rebuilt in case of fire or added on to. The following testimony was given: Ben Smith: owner of land in Block 33, favored rezoning to R-B since that would allow present residential property owners to rebuild and also add on to their homes and make improve- ments. Clifford Olson: owner of land in Block 16, would oppose the rezoning of Block 16 since this would only leave the first two 66' lots east of Highway 25 as B-4 and this he certainly felt would inhibit future commercial develop- ment because of restrictions in terms of lot size and additionally felt that the area with its proximity to the railroad tracks would be more compatible in a commericial zone. At this point, Mr. Dwinell did indicate that there would be various uses of a business nature allowed within an R-B. Mary Jo Quick: property owner in Block 33, indicated she would favor rezoning the area to R-B. Russell Olson: indicated that he would favor the rezoning of Block 33 from B-4 to R-B. Keith Crandall: property owner in Block 33, would favor the rezoning to an R-B, of Block 33. The Planning Commission felt that since the property owners in Block 33 would be infavor of the rezoning but the only testimony received from Block 16 was somewhat opposed, that it might be well to just rezone lots 3 - 8 of Block 33 to R-B, and leave lots 3 - 8 of Block 16 at B-4. A motion was made by Dave Bauer, seconded by Denton Erickson and unanimously carried to rezone only lots 3 - 8 of Block 33 from B-4 (Regional Business) to R-~ (Residential Business). Area 4: Lots 1 through 10, Block 30 and Lots 1 through 5, Block 37, from B-4 (Regional Business) to R-B (Residential Business). Mr. Dwinell indicated that the reason for reviewing this particular area at this time was to determine if the area should be more -3- . -. - ,.... 4-11-78 P.C. properly a quasi residential business area as opposed to a B-4 which it is presently zoned as. Currently the entire area proposed for the rezoning is in residential usage. The following testimony was received: George Kirscht: owner of property in Block 30; inquired about types of uses that would be allowed within a residential business district. Mr. Dick Dwinell then read the uses from the ordinances that would be allowed as both permitted and conditional uses within an R-B zone. Mr. Kirscht in- dicated that he would favor a more restrictive residential zoning district for the area such as R-1 as opposed to R-B. Lawrence Clausen: owner of property on north half of Block 37, indicated he felt that Block 37 should remain B-4 to allow for future expansion of those businesses presently on the north half of Block 37. He felt that the setback require- ments would be more restrictive in an R-B. John Sandberg: feels the entire area should be R-1 since all the property owners that are curt'ently utilizing the property favor such a zoning. Hugh McKinnon: indicated also that he would favor R-1 zoning. A motion was made by Fred Topel to rezone the above indicated property from B-4 to R-B. This motion died for lack of a second. By consensus the Planning Commission decided to hold another hearing on both the south half of Block 37 plus Block 30 for consideration of rezoning the area to R-2, or Single and Two Family Residential. This meeting should take place at the Planning Commission's regular meeting in May. Area 5: Lots 1 through 5, Block 13 from R-3 (Multiple Family Residen- tial) to B-3 (Highway Business). Mr. Dick Dwinell explained that this area is being considered for rezoning based on the fact that it abutts Walnut street which is planned to be improved in 1978 and all the uses along Walnut Street would be proposed to be of a commercial nature. Additionally, the block immediately to the south of block 13 did get rezoned approxi- mately six months ago and it was felt at the time that block 13 should also be reviewed at a later date. No testimony was received from the audience relative to area 5 and a motion was made by Denton Erickson, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously carried to approve the rezoning. -4- . -. ~ - ~ 4-11-78 P.c. Area 6: That part of the Northerly! of the SE i of NWi, Section 14, Township 121, Range 25 lying between County Highway 117 on the East to State Highway 25 on the West from 1-2 (Heavy Industrial) to B-3 (Highway Business). Area consists of approximately 12 acres. Mr. Dwinell indicated the reason behind this request would be to bring the zoning of the a~ea in line with the proposed comprehensive plan and it appeared that the area would be better utilized in terms of zoning as commercial as opposed to the present zoning of heavy industrial. The following testimony was received: Joseph Culp: owner of land in the area just east of Cedar Street indicated he would favor a commercial zoning of the property feeling that it was more consistent with future potential use of the land. A motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Fred Topel and unan- imously carried to rezone the area to B-3, highway business. Area 7: Approximately 14 acres lying North of County Highway #75 and East of East County Road #39 from R-l (Single Family Residen- tial) to R-3 (Multiple Family Residential). Mr. Dwinell indicated the reason for the proposed change is that p~eviously a portion of the property that is currently lying to the SE of East County Road 39 and north of County Road 75 was re- zoned to R-3 and this would be compatible with the surrounding area; furthermore, it was indicated this was a part of the overall compre- hensive plan for this area to have it as a multiple family zoning district. There was some discussion whether or not to leave the area as R-l or single family residential not knowing exactly what potential use the property could be put to. However, it was felt that it would be more appropriate to zone it to R-3 at this time and then this in effect, would be one of the reasons for the Planning Commission in reviewing the comprehensive plan rather than to be dictated to by development, this would set a guide plan in terms of future use of the property. A motion was made by Denton Erickson, seconded by Fran Fair and unan- imously carried to approve the rezoning. -5- -. . . 4-11-78 P.C. 3. Consideration of Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Amendmen t 1. Section 10-3-4, Area and Building Size: (A) This section identifies minimum building size requirements to be Zoning District as listed in the land provided ta bl e PURPOSE: area and for each below: DISTRICT R-3 (B) LOT AREA 8,000 3 stories BUILDING HEIGHT LOT WIDTH 80 LOT AREA PER UNIT: The lot area per unit require- ment for town houses, apartments, condominiums, and planned unit developments shall be calculated on the basis of the total area in the project: Multiple Family 8,000 square feet for first unit plus 2,000 square feet for each additional one bedroom unit plus 2,500 square feet for each additional two bedroom unit A motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Fred Topel and unanimously carried to approve this amendment. Amendment 2. Section 10-3-5, Off-Street Parking Requirements: (H) NUMBER OF SPACES REQUIRED: 3. MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS: at least~ (2) off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit with one enclosed space per two (2) units. A motion was made by Fred Topel, seconded by Denton Erickson and unanimously carried to approve the amendment. Amendment 3. Section 10-13-4 "B-3" Highway Business District, Conditional Uses: (H) Commercial planned unit development as regulated by chapter 20 of this Ordinance. A motion was made by Dave Bauer, seconded by Fran Fair and unanimously carried to approve the amendment. Amendment 4. Section 10-14-4 "B-3" Regional Business District, Conditional Uses: (E) Commercial planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 20 of this Ordinance. -6- . ~. - -. . 4-11-78 P.C. A motion was made by Denton Erickson, seconded by Fred Topel and unanimously carried to approve the amendment. Amendment 5. Section 10-8-2 "R-3" Medium Density Residential District: 10-8-2 PERMITTED USES (G) Any use permitted in the "R-2" District and as regulated therein A motion was made by Denton Erickson, seconded by Dave Bauer and unanimously carried to recommend adoption of the amendment. Amendment 6. Section 10-8-4 "R-3" Medium Density Residential District: (C) Multiple family dwelling structures containing thirteen (13) or more dwelling units, provided that where the multiple family units are contiguous to single family residential zoned property, the front, side and rear yard setbacks will be a minimum of forty (40) feet, and that the minimum setbacks for parking areas shall be forty (40) feet on the front yard, and fifteen (15) feet on the side and rear yeards, with appropriate screening and landscaping with durable materials designed in harmony with the principal structures and an overall landscaping plan. A motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Fred Topel, and unanimously carried to recommend adoption of the amendment. Amendment 7. Section 10-3-5 Off-Street Parking Requirements: (D) GENERAL PROVISIONS: 8 STALL, AISLE AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN: (q) Curbing: All open off-street parking areas and driveways in industrial and commercial areas shall have a six (6) inch nonsurmountable con- tinuous concrete curb around the perimeter of the parking area and driveways. All curb designs and materials shall be approved by the City Engineer. Atthis point a discussion was held whether or not to include apart- ment houses within the provision and it was felt that they certainly should be included along with townhouses. Additionally, provision was noted in the ordinance relative to curbing and landscaping which was section 10-3-5-(0) that curbing and landscaping would be exempted for single, two family and townhouses and it was felt by the Planning Commission that this provision should not exempt town- houses. Motion was made by Dave Bauer, seconded by Fred Topel and unanimously carried to approve the above ordinance amendment with the provision -7- . 4-11-78 P.C. that it be amended to include all areas except for single and two family developments and in addition that the previously mentioned ordinance reference relative to curbing and landscaping not exempt townhouses from those requirements. . Amendment 8. -. Section 10-3-9 Signs Section )E): 3. Signs for promoting and/or selling a development project for the purpose of promoting or selling a development project of three (3) to twenty- five (Z5) acres, one sign not to exceed one hundred (100) square feet of advertising surface may be erected on the project site. For projects of twenty-six (z6) to fifty (50) acres, one or two signs not to exceed two hundred (ZOO) aggre- gate square feet of advertising surface may be erected. For projects over fifty-one (51) acres, one, two or three signs, not to exceed three hundred (300) aggregate square feet of ad- vertising surface may be erected. No dimension shall exceed twenty-five (25) feet exclusive of supporting structures. Such signs shall not remain after ninety five (95) percent of the project is developed. Such sign permit shall be reviewed and renewed annually by the City Council. If said sign is lighted, it shall be illuminated only during those hours when business is in operation or when the model homes or other developments are open for business purposes. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Fred Topel, unanimously carried to approve the adoption of the ordinance. Amendment 9. Section 10-3-9 Signs Section (E) 2 (B) (4) III. Area, Height Regulations: Road Classification Speed Area Height (MPH) (Sq.Ft) (Feet) Major Thoroughfares 30 100 22 40 150 25 50 200 28 A discussion was held relative to the merits of increasing the proposed square footage and height areas of the signs within a major thoroughfare. It was pointed out by Dick Dwinell that the affect of the amendment would enlarge the signs quite significantly; however, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the proposal was reasonable within a major thoroughfare area. Motion was made by Dave Bauer, seconded by Fred Topel and unanimously carried to approve of the proposed ordinance amendment. -. ~. -8- , , - e e .. 4-11-78 P.C. .., Amendment 10. Adoption of an ordinance for the management of the Mississippi Wild Scenic and Recreational River System and the shoreland areas of the City of Monticello. (See supplement 4-11-78 #1.) Motion was made by Fred Topel, seconded by Fran Fair, unanimously carried to recommend the adoption of the proposed ordinance amend- men t . 4. Comprehensive Plan. At the conclusion of the review of the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed zoning district changes and proposed ordinance amendments, a motion was made by Dave Bauer, seconded by Fred Topel and unani- mously carried to approve the revised comprehensive plans with re- visions to keep Block 16 as commercial and that the revised comp- rehensive plan would be further amended if necessary if the public hearing for the south half of Block 37 and Block 30, that would be later held at the Planning Commission level, and if ultimately approved by the City Council, would be coordinated into the Comp- rehensive Plan. It was brought to the attention of the Planning Commission that the City Council would hold hearings on the very same issues relative to the Comprehensive Plan adoption and the zoning district amendments at possibly their first meeting in May of 1978. There being no further business, a motion was made by Dave Bauer, seconded by Denton Erickson, and unanimously carried to adjourn. Q t:/J~ GaCJw~r , City Administrator GW/mjq -9-