No preview available
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