Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 06-01-1993i
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 1, 1893.7 p.m.
Members: Cindy l.emm, Richard Martie, John Bogart, Richard Carlson, Brian
Stumpf
7:00 p.m. 1.
Call to order.
7:02 p.m. 2.
Approval of the minutes of the special meeting held April 26,
1993.
7:04 p.m. 3.
Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held May 4, 1993.
7:06 p.m. 4.
Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of a request to amend
the Monticello Zoning Ordinance which would modify the
regulations governing signs as follows: 3-1 ICJ (b), modify the
ordinance to allow a permit for promotional signage for two weeks
of every month, or for a total of 168 days each year; 3-9 ICI (h),
modify the ordinance which would state that the promotional
signage may bear an advertising message including product and
pricing; 3-9 IF] lel, modify the ordinance to allow for an annual
permit fee of $25 W cover advertising signage. Applicant, 9 local
businesses.
(Please review previous agenda supplement).
7:36 p.m. b.
Public Hearing --A conditional use request to allow commercial
storage contained entirely within a building in a B-3 (highway
business) zone. A variance request to allow no curbing or hard
surfacing of the off-street parking and driveway areas. Applicant,
Glen Posusta.
(No supplemental data; request motion to continue public
hearing. Jeff will report.)
8:01 p.m. 6.
Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of amendments to the
zoning map of Monticello proposed in coWunction with
development of the Monticello Commerce Center. Applicant,
Monticello Industrial Park, Inc.
8:21 p.m. 7.
Continued Public Hearing. -Consideration of amendments to the
City of Monticello Comprehensive (.and Use Plan. Amendment,
are proposed in conjunction with the request for zoning district
boundary changes. Applicant, Monticello Industrial Park, Inc.
Planning Commission Agenda
June 1, 1993
Page 2
i
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
8:41 p.m. 1.
Consideration of a variance request to allow development of a
driveway within the 5 -ft minimum setback area. Applicant,
Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital. Council action:
Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
8:43 p.m. 2.
Consideration of a variance request to the front yard setback
requirement that would allow construction of a canopy over the
clinic entrance. Applicant, Monticello -Big Lake Community
Hospital. Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission
recommendation.
8:45 p.m. 3.
Consideration of amendments to the zoning map of Monticello
proposed in conjunction with the development of the Monticello
Commerce Center. Applicant, Monticello Industrial Park, Inc.
Council action: No action required, as the request did not come
before them.
8:47 p.m. 4.
Consideration of amendments to die City of Monticello
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Amendments are proposed in
conjunction with the request for zoning district boundary changes.
Applicant, Monticello Industrial Park, Inc. Council action: No
action required, as the request did not come before them.
8:49 p.m. 5. Consideration ofa zoning ordinance amendment allowing banners
and portable signs to be displayed 40 days per year. Council
action: No action required, as the request did not come before
them.
8:51 P.M. 8. Consideration of a petition for extension of conditional use permit
allowing a public works building in a P`/,M zone. Applicant, City
of Monticello. Council action: No action required, us the request
did not come before them.
8:53 p.m. 7. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for Tuesday, July 8, 1993, at 7 p.m.
8:55 P.M. S. Adjournment
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 4, 1993. 7 p m.
Members Present: Jon Bogart, Richard Martie, Richard Carlson, Cindy Lemm
Members Absent: Brian Stumpf
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill, Rick Wolfsteller, Steve Grittman
1. The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson, Jon Bogart, at
7:04 p.m.
2. A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve
the minutes of the regular meeting held April 6, 1993, and the special meeting
held April 12, 1993. Voting in favor: Jon Bogart, Richard Martie, Cindy
Lemm. Abstaining: Richard Carlson. Absent: Brian Stumpf.
3. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance reuuest to allow development; of
it drivgwav within the 5-2 minimum setback area. Aoelicant. Monticello -Big'
Lake Communitv Hosoitai District. AND
4. Public Henrine--Consideration of a variance reouest to the front vard setback
reouirement that would allow construction of q canopy over the clinic entrance.,
Aunheant. Monticello-Bie Lake Community Hosoital Diatrict.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning Commission
members the hospital district's request to be allowed to develop a driveway
within the 5-11 minimum green area setback requirement and also to be
allowed to construct a canopy in the front yard setback requirement. O'Neill
turned it over to Mr. Steve Grittruan, Consulting Planner, for his comments
on the justification for approval of a variance in this request.
Mr. Grittman commented on the 19 -ft driveway width versus the proposed
24 -ft driveway width. With the proposed 24-f1 driving width, the vehicles
would be allowed to go around a parked vehicle in front of the entrance,
therefore mitigating congestion with people waiting in line under the 194
driveway width with the vehicle in front of them to move. Mr. Grittman
highlighted the concern with being able to develop something that's functional
and look at variances to accommodate that rather than allow something to be
built that wouldn't be functional to utilize its purpose.
Acting Chairperson, Jon Bogart, then opened the public hearing.
Concerns raised from a consulting engineering firm for the hospital district by
increasing the driveway width from 19 ft to 24 ft would allow better
accessibility and use of the front entrance as a major area for handicapped/
Page I ;� ;
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/93
disabled people to be brought to the clinic and dropped off or picked up at this
location. The canopy would be constructed so as to be permanently attached
to the ground and to the existing building to facilitate a covered canopy over
the front entrance and the driving lane in front of it.
Acting Chairperson, Jon Bogart, then closed the public hearing and opened the
meeting for further input from the Planning Commission members.
Questions raised on how this particular request affects the overall planning
issue, if the Council had approved a joint planning with the hospital district
to come up with an overall plan for the hospital district area.
There being no further input from the Planning Commission members, a
motion was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Richard Martie to
approve the variance request to allow development of a driveway within the
5 -ft minimum setback area requirement and to approve the variance request
to the front yard setback requirement that would allow construction of a
canopy over the clinic entrance. Motion carried unanimously with Brian
Stumpf absent. Reason for approval: It makes more sense to use the wider
width to allow for movement of traffic around a parked vehicle. It would allow
handicapped/elderly access to a facility and use that provides needed health
services to the handicapped and elderly.
Consideration of amendments to the zonine man of NUnticello nroagsed in
conianction with the dovelovment of the Monticello Commerce Center.
Aonlicant. Monticello Industrial Park Inc. AND
eublic Hearing--Consider%ion of amendments to the Citv of Monticello
Comnrehensive Land Use Plpn, Amendments are oronosed in coniunction with
the request for zoning district bnundary chnn=.
Jeff O'Neill provided a brief history of the circumstances leading to the
rezoning request and described the request in detail. Steve Grittman reviewed
the Chelsea Corridor Study and outlined reasons supporting the zoning district
amendments made in conjunction with the Chelsea Corridor Study.
Chairperson Cindy Umm then opened the public hearing.
Charlie Pfeffer commented on the background of his ownership of the property
to his request as presented before the Monticello Planning Commission. Mr.
Mike Gair, Mr. Pfeffers consulting engineer, commented on his background in
regard to industrial/commercial planning of properties like this.
In his presentation, Gair noted that the developers rezoning proposal
reinstates land uses that were believed to be appropriate prior to the Chelsea
Corridor Study.
Pago 2
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/93
Mr. Gair then gave a detailed outline of his presentation. Mr. Steve Grittman
commented on the freeway ramp. What should be the zoning there if a
freeway was there versus if you applied zoning if it is not. If a freeway ramp
is installed eastbound, this doesn't increase the travelers stopping because of
this interchange. But it causes problems, taking away from existing Highway
25 businesses with the amount of travelers going through on Highway 25.
Mr. Pfeffer commented that all the rezoning in this area has been generated
by the City and not by a private owner.
Candace Bergstrom, a concerned resident, commented on bringing in
commercial across from the middle school entrance. Bringing in commercial
around residentially -located school buildings is something she felt shouldn't be
a compatible use with the school in this area.
Commission member, Richard Martie, commented he would like to see the
zoning remain as it is, maybe some changes in the future but not for now. Mr.
Martie was referring to the B-3 (highway business) zoning and the B-2 (limited
business) zoning on the east side of County Road 118.
Jon Bogart felt that there should be some type of 1-1 zoning next to Fallon
Avenue.
There being no further input from the Planning Co%pnission members, a
motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to table the
consideration of amendments to the zoning map of Monticello proposed in
conjunction with the development of the Monticello Commerce Center and to
table the consideration of amendments to the City of Monticello Comprehensive
Land Use Plan. Amendments.are proposed in conjunction with the request for
zoning district boundary changes. Motion carried unanimously with Brian
Stumpf absent.
Stall' was asked to provide agendas and meeting minutes relating to zoning
amendments made prior to the Chelsea Corridor Study.
Page 3 C`3
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/93
Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment which would allow a hermit
for promotional signage/hanner for 2 weeks out of every month, or a total of
168 days a year. AND
Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment that would allow nromotional
signage/banner to bear an advertising message, including nroduct and nricine.
AND
Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment that would allow for an
annual permit fee of $25 to cover permitting costs associated with promotional
sienaae fees. Applicant. 9 local businesses.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the three zoning ordinance
amendment requests as follows:
1. Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment that would allow
promotional signage/banner to bear advertising message, including
product and pricing.
After closer review of the ordinance, it was discovered that this
amendment is unnecessary because a banner which carries a specific
message is permissible.
2. Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment that would allow for an
annual permit fee of $25 to cover permitting costs associated with
promotional signage fees.
Under the present ordinance, there is a one-time annual fee of $5 to
cover the 20 -day period proposed for display of portable signs/banners.
It is suggested that no changes be made to this particular requirement,
which requires the business owner to submit a single application for a
portable sign or banner.
The current ordinance requires that an application form be used to
identify particular times of the year that a portable sign will be in use.
Obviously, it is maybe difficult for a business owner to say exactly when
or how long each banner will be displayed during a 40 -day period
allowed. It is proposed that the ordinance and associated process for
administering the permitting process be changed to require an applicant
simply to keep a daily log of banner use. From time to time, the
Building Inspector can spot check individual businesses to make sure
they aro documenting the days when the sign is displayed. The form
would be used to identify the type of banner displayed and to document
each day that the banner is up. Once a total of 40 days have been used
up, the banner can no longer be displayed at the location identified in
Page 4
Planning Commission Minutes - 514/93
the annual permit. As a clarification to the existing ordinance, the
process includes permitting for decorative attention -getting devices.
Attention -getting devices are permitted on an individual basis for a
maximum period of 10 days with a minimum period of 180 days between
consecutive issuance of such permits for any property or parcel.
Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment which would allow a
permit for promotional signage/banner for 2 weeks out of every month
or for a total of 168 days a year.
This was part of the original request as submitted by the applicants.
City staff is proposing that the days he increased from 20 days to 40
total days in a calendar year.
Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing. Comments raised from the
public were as follows.
Larry Nordman, Monticello Vacuum Center, commented on there should be no
sign limit or limitation of banners, let businesses do as they please.
Ron Chios, General Rental, indicated that Monticello and St. Cloud are the
only communities that require a permit for a portable sign/banner. He felt
that portable signs and/or banners should be allowed to be put up at any time.
There being no further input from the public, the public hearing was closed,
and the meeting was opened for further input from the Planning Commission
members.
Concerns of the Planning Commission members with only two businesses
represented out of several businesses in Monticello, they agreed to continue the
public hearing for one more month until their next regularly scheduled
meeting and to schedule this for the first agenda item on the agenda.
A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to table the
consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment allowing banners and portable
signs to he displayed for 40 days per year and continue the public hearing until
the next regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, June 1, 1993, beginning at
7 p.m. Motion carried unanimously with Brian Stumpf absent.
8. Consideration of a petition for pxtensinq of conditignal use oermit allowing
public works buildine in a PZM zone. Qpnlicant.. Citv of Montimllo.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained that the Monticello Public
Works Department requests the City consider granting an extension of time
in which to complete the public works facility. According to city ordinance,
Pago 5 }
Planning Commission Minutes - 5/4/93
whenever within one year of granting a conditional use permit the work as
permitted by the permit shall not have been completed, then such permit shall
become null and void unless a petition for an extension of time in which to
complete the work has been granted by the City Council.
It is requested that the conditional use permit be granted to include
construction of the development of the entire site, which includes three phases
of construction.
Cindy Lemm then opened the public hearing.
There being no input from the public, Cindy Lemm then closed the public
hearing and asked for comments from the Planning Commission members.
There being no comments from the Planning Commission members, a motion
was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Richard Carlson to grant a one-
year extension to the conditional use permit allowing the public works facility
to be constructed in a PZM zone. Motion carried unanimously with Brian
Stumpf absent.
9. A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to adjourn
the meeting. Motion carried unanimously with Brian Stumpf absent. The
meeting adjourned at 9:46 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Page 6 3
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/1/93
Continped Public Hearing-Consideration of amendments to the zoning
mLap of Monticello oroposed in cogiunction with development of the
Monticello Commerce Center. Applicant. Monticello Industrial Park,
W.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On Thursday, May 20, 1993, 1 reviewed the matter with the IDC. After
discussion, a motion was made to recommend that the western edge of the BC
area (along Fallon) be rezoned from BC to 1-1. The depth of the I-1 zone to be
defined by the Planning Commission.
The attached meeting minute/agenda packet summary is in reverse
chronological order. Please review for history behind previous rezoning
decisions relating to the petitioned area.
Council Minutes - 9/28/81
U. Consideration of taming Map )fit - Boyle PtOMM.
at the previous Council meeting, caste ratiam o t� g the school
taming
classification an the Boyle property jaaen
t to sitevas tabled to allow Mr. dM is Mrr .scy1e, inti"s a written
additional
tete to review the proposedZoning
letter to the Council, objected to the prqpwW
all light industrial
but did
feel that a rezoning change
acceptable.
The City's Cunsultimg Planner, along with the Planning Caamiasian,
that chlogesbe made to the zoning bemuseof the school
she such
as location reclassifYiD9 �n M
°y ==°1 zm
commercial and light industrial. It was noted by thea CbUlow"ncchanges an this lthatProperty e
City would certainly cassider future zoning
as
development occurs std proposals are presentedi but a motion was mads
by Bill Pair, seeorded by Warren smith, and unanimouslY carried to
amend the City taming ordinance KV for the Boyle prgWtY in auestimn m
to ordi MAF hiomay 8 business, -and limited business. sae
oF `.
Council Agenda - 9/28/87
11. Consideration of Zoning Map Amendment - Boyle Property (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the previous Council meeting, consideration of changing the zoning on
the Boyle property adjacent to the new middle school site was tabled to
allow Mr. Boyle and his representatives additional time to review the
proposed zoning changes. At the previous meeting, comments from the
City's Consulting Planner were distributed which basically confirmed the
Planning Commission and staff's recommendation that zoning changes be
Jmplemented on Mr. Boyle's property now that the school is nearing
completion.
The City staff initially requested the Planning Commission consider down
zoning a portion of the property from its current heavy industrial zoning
to a lower classification to prevent a heavy industrial use from being
established adjacent to the school property. Because at this time
Mr. Boyle does not have a firm development plan for the area, nor has he
submitted a subdivision request, the staff felt that using existing
section lines and reclassifying the zoning to a lower use would be
appropriate at this time. I believe the Planning Commiasion and the,City
staff feel that the City would certainly be willing to look at any
proposed development and zoning changes at a later date when a
subdivision plan or proposal is presented. We are certainly not
advocating that the proposed zoning changes being recommended are cast in
concrete, but we feel it is in the best interest of the city and the
adjacent property to implement a zoning change at this time.
Mr. Jim Boyle and his development representatives have been sent a copy
of the proposed zoning changes and comments received from the City's
Consulting Planner. Enclosed with the agenda is a letter from Mr. Jim
Boyle requesting that the City Council only down zone the property
currently zoned heavy industrial to light industrial at this time but
leave open the option for•further down zoning to commercial uses at a
later date. I explained to Mr. Boyle and hie development representatives
that the City staff and Planning Commission did not feel the entire
property should be only zoned light industrial and that the City's
proposal would be flexible in the future depending on his future plans.
It appears that Mr. Boyle is certainly agreeable to light industrial
zoning, which would leave him more options for selling the property: but
I believe the Planner's recommendations and the Planning Commission's
recommendation are more appropriate.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the zoning amendment an proposed by the planning Commission.
2. Approve the rezoning to only light industrial per Mr. Boyle's
request.
7. Leave as is.
-8-
Q
r
C
Council Agenda - 9/28/87
C. STAPP REO 9 MDATION:
It is the staff's recommendation that the initial down zoning of the area
as approved and submitted at the last council meeting be adopted. I
believe it is appropriate that the minutes indicate that the council is
certainly willing to look at additional zoning changes in the future as
development plans are presented by the owner; but the staff feels it is
important that zoning changes are implemented at this time primarily to
avoid the heavy industrial usage adjacent to the school. It should be
noted that the proposed zoning changes in the 8-2 and B-3 classifications
would allow the developer flexibility to present proposed uses in both
the multiple family and commercial atmosphere. Mr. Boyle's request to
down zone all of the property to only light industrial is certainly
better than the current heavy industrial zoning, but the staff feels that
further down zoning into business uses is more appropriate.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Oopy of a letter from Kr. Boyle regarding the zoning change; Copy of the
proposed zoning changes recommended by the Planning Commission.
"Onp
ORDINANCE AKENDMEif NO. 159
THE MDNTICEIJ CITY COUNCIL HEREBY ORDAINS THAT THE OFFICIAL ZONING NAF FOR THE
CITY OF M1WICELLO BE ANTED AS FOLLOWS:
Description of Property
The following property in Auditor's Subdivision No. 1 lying southwest of
Interstate 94 encoapasses the following boundary limits: On the vest by
Fallon Avenel on the east by County Road 1181 on the south by the
Monticello City/Monticello Township line.
The attached Zoning Maps show the previous zoning and the new zoning for the
above unplatted property.
Adopted this 28th day of September, 1987.
Arve A. CrIMOMDP Mayor
N
cam^
elf at
'i-t4y-nistfator
i �tv
so>+o B..�iiear,�Gd., ,�iilr SD-Pof .Qaol4dal� .+dwfowo8sYs0 /6i0P/4av�4sss
Today is Thursdav
September 24, 1987
Mr. Rick Wolfeteller
City of Monticello
250 East 6roadwav
Monticello. Minnesota 55362-9245
RE: Proposed Rezoning of the Industrial Park
Dear Ricke
We totally oppose the City Councils intention of acting cn the
proposed down zoning at their meeting Monday evening. September
28th.
�i I feel this action will devalue the property considerably. As I
mentioned in my September 14th letter, our intention is to plan
the entire park and it is impossible to do a thcroun_h plan in
such a short time.
Sincerely,
Jim Boyle
JB/kb All
cc Ken Pinckard. Attorney
Lynn Clark
t
1f
4
A.-" soso d 3iiaa old, .�n.Y.-rep ,�co!ladol.; a�:jo..ryesQsa /ser/aas.psss
Today is Monday
September 14. 19e7
Mr. Rick Wolfsteller
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55362-9245
REs Zoning - Industrial Park
Dear Ricks
We have had extensive conversation with legal counsel regarding
the down zoning of the Industrial Park. Their recommendation is
to not change zoning at this time.
In the spirit of cooperation and understanding of the Citv's
concern, we would agree to a down zoning of the heavy industrial
to light industrial. We would also request that we have the
option to further down :one the•liSht industrial t8`8-1-2 and/or
3.
We intend to commence to do a thorough study with consultants to
plan a designed business and residential communsty, with design
complimenting the school site.
Sincerely,
Jim Boyle
JB/kb .°
cc Lynn Clark
I
CONSULTING PLANNERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH
SUITE 210
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55101
612-339.3300
hCEMORANDLIM
DATE: 11 September 1987
TO: Rick Wolfsteller
FROM: John Uban, Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc.
RE: Middle School Development
I have reviewed the new Middle School development and surrounding property
In light of future land uses for that general area of Monticello. Also, under
consideration will be future road patterns and anticipated changes in market
demand for various land uses. Special attention was paid to the land owned
by Jim Boyle as it surrounds the school on three sides.
The following are my observations and suggestions for addressing the land use
Issues:
I. The land to the east and southeast Is proposed to be residential in
character with the approved PUD for Oak Meadows and the anticipated
development around the future water tower site. Tho Middle School
relates very well to the land uses that we anticipate on the eastern
edge of the school site.
2. The school Is projecting modest, but steady growth through the 1990 -
1991 year. The school experienced a 4 percent growth in the 1985 -
1986 year which could happen again should additional lends In the
general area be converted to residential housing.
There are approximately 100 square miles that must be serviced totally
by school buses. Local and county roads are used primarily for access
for school buses to the site. In the future, the Comprehensive Plan
Indicates that a half diamond Intersection will be built on County Road
118 and Interstate 94. With the completion of Chelsea Rood and the
future frontage road on the north side of Interstate 94, the school's bus
circulation will be greatly enhanced. We anticipate that the primary
mode of getting children to the school will be that of school buses with
e minimum amount of children walking to school primarily from adjacent
neighborhoods to the east.
A
Middle School Development, 11 September 1987 Page 2
We think, however, that the county and city road system serving the
site should accommodate good bike trails to facilitate pedestrian and
bike access to the school.
3. As the transportation system changes, so will pressures for new land
uses south of the interstate. With the extension of Chelsea Road and
the future half diamond on County Road 1180 the opportunity for
business and commercial activity at the Intersection directly north of
the ' school site greatly increases.
We believe that this access to the interstate should not accommodate
regional road side business such as truck stops, but Instead should be a
convenient location for community retail and office facilities. Much of
this will not happen, of course, until the diamond Interchange Is put In
place.
4. The geometrics of land patterns creates some odd shaped parcels
because of the diagonal road system In the area. As Chelsea Road
Intersects with County Road 118, a triangular shaped parcel directly
north of the school is left. Some portion of this odd shaped lot would
be better attached to the school site then used for some other
development. Inefficiency and clumsiness of the parcel make it
Inappropriate for other development. This would also offer another
point of direct access to the school site from the frontage road.
S. Presently the zoning of all of the land directly north of the Middle
School property is I-2, heavy industrial. The continuation of this
particular land use Is not compatible with general school activity. It
also does not take advantage of the reasonably good access and
visibility to the Interstate system. We believe that the more
appropriate development along the Interstate would be of the light
Industrial of Office Warehouse/Showroom type development that strongly
requires visibility on an Interstate system. This type of development
also does not create a lot of truck traffic or unsightly storage yards
that would be detrimental to the Middle School. The Office Warehouse
type development tend* to be quieter and does not produce dust or
obnoxious odors and generally Is perceived as a more compatible use
with both residential and school activity. The Oakwood Industrial Park
which also fronts on Dundas Road will absorb most of the heavy
Industrial use* that will be required for future growth In the City. The
Industrial area east of Fallon Avenue end north of the Middle School
property can be converted to other uses.
6. Oundas Road Is an industrial road and Its terminus should be at Fallon
Avenue. The area east of Fallon Avenue Is relatively flat with a small
wetland depression in the center of It. This area could develop Into e
residential PUD mixing medium denelty and low density single-family
into a compatible arrangement addressing the Industrial land In the
Oakwood Industrial Park and the adjacent school property.
7. Enclosed with our area maps Is a schematic land use drawing that could
be considered one possible amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and
use as a guide for future rezonings.
a
Grave
959 pi 1
• • / � -. its �
DUNDA
S •� --
•
DLE SCHOOL SITEjO
°�C o
•
•H I
60
tIL ,
0 c
�� - �� • City of Monticellc
JtI n •. 4
S i -
F Grav
Pi
' •1b, TICE40 READ MIX
•
�p
i _ 1�!!p LE SCHOOL SITE E/
F.
-� YLE,I° o
.)
JAEE czi:��
� �o ' `�,'
_,�aI�� Rai
o . D&J gE4, _
>) �,
j ,� , City of Monticellc
F. DEN �� J IU Z I"" cawv Wnmmi
Grave
.95-9 P
LE SCHOOL SITE
8 -"cl-
--V
........ . ......
Qz)
Allm
0
o
•
1-0
City of Monticellc
N:A MGM C*60" mhmvm?�',
PETITIONED AREA
gtl n A 0
99
z
Rl,,
J�E SCHOO SITE \ ..
= r"
. �..:—✓% �, ^; _ 'v� • /'�, to
60
100
C-3 ' J�// City of Monticellc
NU mkgm C40"
ZONING
f .�
eft i n A IS '•* 4
� �� ° • � _ � �--\� � G'QF �• brave
959 Pi /
�GMT ROPOS -�
NSRY S� `•` % % O
LE SCHOO SITE J
(� r F 'S'
0.
o
City of Monticellc
LAID USE CONCEPT
Bit I n A e„�: �. 4
y_
Council Minutes - 9/14/97
Page 3
6. Consideration of Zoning Map Amendment - Boyle Property.
Recently the City staff initiated a proposed ordinance amendment that
would change the zoning on the Jim Boyle property lying South of I-94
and east of the Oakwood Industrial Park adjacent to the new middle
school property. The area was currently zoned partially light
industrial, with the majority heavy induariall and it was the staff's
opinion that the property should be down zoned somewhat to accommodate
uses adjacent to the new school.
A tentative rezoning of the area was proposed to the Planning
. Commission who recommended the City council adopt the rezoning as an
interim measure until the land owner subdivides the property in the
future. It was felt the proposed rezoning would not be necessarily
..permanent in nature but would depend primarily on how the developer
planned an platting the propertyn and at that time the entire area
could be reviewed for possible additional amendments.
Property owner, Jim Boyle, requested the City Council not take any
official action at their meeting to enable himself to further research
all the possibilities that the new zoning may affect higrproperty.
Mr. Boyle had been informed of the proposed rezoning hearing held by
the Planning Cammissicn but had not been shown a map of the area and
the actual rezoning proposed. In addition, the City Consulting
Planner, Dahlgren, Shardlw i Uban, had not yet completed their review
of the proposed rezoningi and this information was received on
September 14, 1987.
An a result, motion was made by Bill Pair, seconded by Dan Blonigen,
and unanimously carried to table final action on the proposed rezoning
of the Jim Boyle property until the nest regularly scheduled Council
meeting to allow the property owner additional time to review the
toning changes and provide comment.
Council Agenda - 9/14/87
Consideration of Zoning Map Amendment - Boyle property. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City staff would like to initiate a proposed ordinance amendment to
the Monticello Zoning Nap in the area bounded by the Past I-94 freeway,
on the east by County Road 118, on the south by our southerly most
border, and on the west by Fallon Avenue. This area is currently under
the ownership of Mr. Jim Boyle and all his creditors.
our main concern is under the current zoning with the newly constructed
Middle School just outside our borders, conceivably we could have a heavy
industrial building built right across from the new school. As you will
note on the enclosed site plan, you will see the existing zoning for it
and the new proposed zoning as we down zone into the area near the new
Middle School.
Public hearing notices were sent to property owners within a 350 -Foot
radius of this proposed rezoning area. Mr. Jim Boyle was one of the
affected property owners that was sent a letter that basically said an
amendment to a certain area in the Monticello Zoning map. It didn't
indicate any area that was to be rezoned in the initial public hearing
notices that were sent out.
Mr. Boyle requested of the City not to have the public hearing on
Tuesday, September 8, but to hold off on the public hearing until the
next regularly scheduled Planning oommission meeting that is to be held
on Wednesday, October 14, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Boyle's reason for
tabling the public hearing at this time was to further research all
possibilities for the new zoning which we attached to this affected
property.
Mr. Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator, requested that the Zoning
Administrator, prior to the September 8, 1987, Planning Commission
meeting, ask the Monticello Planning Commission to table the public
hearing for an amendment to a certain area in the Monticello Zoning map.
The Monticello Planning Commission, by unanimous consensus, recognized
Rick Wolfsteller's request for tabling the public hearing; but they saw
no need for tabling this public hearing in that Mr. Boyle was just using
it as a stall tactic not to have the area rezoned.
The Monticello Planning Commission, by unanimous vote, did recommend
approval of the proposed zoning changes to this area. Enclosed you will
find a copy of the existing zoning for this affected area and a copy of
the proposed rezoning of this area.
The Consulting Planner has been consulted to give us his opinion on the
proposed rezoning changes. Due to some conflicts in their work schedule,
the Conaplting Planner, John Uban, will have a report to us by Monday
evening.
-S-
r
C
Council Agenda - 9/14/87
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve an amendment to a certain area in the Monticello Zoning flap.
2. Do not approve an amendment to a certain area in the Monticello
Zoning Map.
3. Approve an amendment to a certain area in the Monticello Zoning Map
subject to some additional input from the City Council.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
City staff would recommend approval of an amendment to a certain area in
the Monticello Zoning Map. we feel the zoning which we have applied from
west to east coming across the property along the extension of Chelsea
Road does facilitate some down zoning into the area of the new Middle
School. Also, the proposed zoning does allow a developer flexibility of
the different types of industries, businesses, and multiple family which
could be built on these newly rezoned properties.
We also feel, as a matter of courtesy, we should allow Mr. Boyle some
additional time to study this rezoning map and what affect it would have
on the properties he has within this area. You may choose to approve the
amendment to the zoning map as presented or table it until your next
regularly scheduled meeting for September 28, or until your first meeting
in October, which would be October 13, 1987.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed zoning amendment areal Copy of the
site plan of the existing zonings Copy of the proposed new zoning.
-a-
Ott!! �trr r dtr � %lIJ/ �////II/J !��'"`�, ..+¢ - •.
'tlrt H�ttt�jr�lrr •r rttr/i Ertl //II��► �. <+'- , \
�? '`ram �r`�trflrrl, r`rgr� •%//,��_ l `,��: ,.
drtiA#Frr�MAI
i
F
C
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/8/87
8. Public Hearing - An amendment to a certain are. in the Monticello Zoning
Map. Applicant, City of Monticello.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to planning Commmission members
that the City Administrator, Rick Wolfsteller, would like to request the
Planning Commission members to table this rezoning request until the next
regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting.
The Planning Commission members acknowledged the City Administrator's
request for tabling it, but they felt time was of the essence in that
public hearing notices had been sent, the public hearing notification had
been met, and they felt now was the time to get on with it and apply some
new type of zoning to this affected area. Planning Commission member Jim
Ridgeway questioned applying B-2 zoning in the two middle sections of
this rezoning request. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated we put
8-2 zoning in to allow flexibility of some type of residential multiple
family to occur in and near the school district, the northwesterly most
portion of the school's property; and also by allowing B-2 in the area,
there would be the possibility of having some type of multiple family
next to the freeway. Mr. Ridgeway indicated he thACght the best use for
the area next to the freeway would be for some type of highway business.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for any input from
the public. Mr. Shelley Johnson, superintendent of Monticello Schools,
was present to indicate the Monticello School District had no problems
with the proposed zoning as indicated on the site plan. He did indicate,
however, that we might at some point in time look at some type of B-3
zoning in the northern one-half of this middle section.
With no further input from the public or Commission members, motion was
made by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to amend a certain area
of the Monticello Zoning Map with the only change going from B-2 (limited
business) to B-3 (highway business) in the north one-half of the center
section of this zoning map area. Motion carried unanimously.
Planning Commission Agenda 9/8/87
8. Public Hearing - An amendment to a certain area in the Monticello Zoning
Map. Applicant, City or Monticello. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The City staff would like to initiate a proposed ordinance amendment to
the Monticello Zoning Hap in the area bounded by the East I-94 freeway
and on the east by County Road 118, and on the south by our southerly
most border, and on the west by Fallon Street. This area is currently
under the ownership of Mr. Jim Boyle and all his creditors.
our main concern is under the current zoning, with the newly constructed
Monticello Middle School just outside our borders, conceivably we could
have a heavy industrial building built right across from the new
Monticello Middle School. As you will note on the enclosed site plan,
you will see the existing zoning for it and the new proposed zoning as we
down zone into the area near the Monticello Middle School.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve an amendment to a certain area in the Monticello Zoning Map.
2. Do not approve an amendment to a certain area in the Monticello
Zoning Map.
3. Approve an amendment to a certain area in the Monticello Zoning Map
subject to some additional input from the Monticello Planning
Coamission.
Staff recommends approval of an amendment to a certain area in the
Monticello Zoning Map. We feel the zoning which we have applied from
west to east coming across this property along the extension of Chelsea
Road does facilitate some down zoning into the area of the new Monticello
Middle School. Also, the proposed zoning does allow a developer
flexibility of the different types of industries, businesses, and
multiple family which could be built on this newly rezoned property.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Dopy of the location of the proposed zoning amendment area) copy of the
site plan of existing zonings Copy of the proposed new zoning for this
area.
e ��
.J \ ~�~ �•.-�. •.... " "fit.. \,\ ;r. cA�u�r
e� ` os�o � 1 t \ � • � \.
a \
• yl _ Icy �t
1 mlob t: 1 titOtY.E
�(Aron
StgOt)t I t y(STA t
PRgPEA1r t LIMIT I