Planning Commission Minutes 09-06-1977
,.
~
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
September 6, 1977 - 7:30 P. M.
Members present: Gillham, Bauer, Doerr, Miller, Topel.
Member absent:
Ridgeway.
1. Approval of Minutes.
Motion by Doerr, second by Topel and unanimously carried
to approve the minutes of August 16, 1977.
.
2. Public Hearing - Consideration of Rezoning Block 6 of
Upper Monticello from R-3 (Medium Density Residential)
to B-3 (Highway Business).
The Wright County State Bank has purchased Block 6 of
Upper Monticello and requested to have the entire block
rezoned to B-3 for the purpose of building a detached
banking facility on the north half of the block.
The adjacent blocks to the east and south are currently
zoned B-3 and with the future opening of Walnut Street
it would appear that a commercial zoning would be more
compatible than multiple family.
Motion was made by Bauer, second by Topel and unanimously
carried to approve the rezoning request for Block 6, Upper
Monticello from R-3 to B-3.
3. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Request to Allow
Sales of Motorized Vehicles in a B-4 (Regional Business
Z on e .
Denton Erickson, president of Moon Motors, Inc., re-
quested a conditional use permit to allow open or out-
door sales of motorized vehicles for Lots 1,2,3 of Block
16 of Upper Monticello (formerly Electro Industries).
.
Because Moon Motors sells and services motor bikes, snow-
mobiles, etc. and as part of this business, some of its
products may be displayed in an outside area for sales
purposes, a conditional use permit would be required
limiting outside sales to 30% of the gross floor area of
the principal building.
Monticello city ordinances also require that off street
parking areas be hard surfaced to control dust consisting
of blacktop or cement. The ordinances do not specifically
.
list a use similar to Moon Motors for determining the
number of parking spaces required, but Mr. Erickson did
indicate that he would have no problem in providing at
least 16 spaces which appeared reasonable to the Planning
Commission.
A motion was made by Topel, second by Bauer and unanimously
carried to recommend that a conditional use permit be
granted for outside sales and service and to not require
that the off street parking areas be blacktopped.
4. Consideration of Building Permit.
Larson Mfg. Co., an assembly plant producing combination
aluminum windows and doors is proposing to build a
12,000 square foot building on the south half of Lot 4
of Block 1 in the Industrial Park.
.
Mr. Frank Daniels, of Larson Mfg., also requested a variance
from the provisions of the ordinance that requires a curb
barrier around the per~meter of the parking lot. Reason
for the request was that if in the near future the building
and parking lot were to be expanded, it would be necessary
to remove at least a portion of the curb barrier.
Bauer made a motion, and seconded by Topel, unanimously
carried to recommend approval of the building permit for
Larson Mfg. and variance request to eliminate the curb
barrier from the north side of the parking lot only.
5. Consideration of Setback Variance - Halsted Wehmann.
Mr. Wehmann requested a setback variance of 10 feet to
allow a home to be built up to the western property line
on Lot 10, Block 42 of Upper Monticello.
This lot abuts Chestnut Street and the variance request is
for the west property line which abuts the streets. This
particular segment of street is platted but has never been
put in.
Motion was made by Bauer, second by Doerr and unanimously
carried to recommend approval of the variance to build up
to the westerly lot fine provided that the drip line of
the intended structure does not infringe upon city right-
of-way.
6. Consideration of Setback Variance - Jerome Nelson.
.
Mr. Jerome Nelson is requesting a variance to build a
24' x 241 double garage within 5' of his property line
on Lot 4, Block E, Riggs Addition, Lower Monticello. Current
zoning ordinances for an R-2 district require a 10' side-
yard setback.
-2-
.,
.
The existing house is located 5' from the west property
line and the variance request is to build a double garage
5' from the east property line.
Because both abutting lots have new homes being built 10'
from the property lines, Topel made a motion, second by
Bauer and unanimously carried to approve the 5' setback
variance request provided the south east corner of the
proposed garage is located at least 20' from the north
west corner of the new house being built on the adjacent
lot 5.
7. Discussion on Proposed Roller Rink - Oakwood Industrial
Park.
Mr. Bill Pemberton discussed with the Planning Commission
his intentions of building a roller rink on the north
half of Lot 1, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park.
.
Current zoning ordinances only allow recreational uses such
as roller rinks as permitted uses within a B-4 commercial
district. Committee members discussed whether the property
in question should apply for rezoning to B-4 or whether the
zoning ordinances should be amended to allow such recreational
uses as bowling alleys and roller rinks as permitted uses
in light industrial zones.
Topel made a motion, second by Doerr and unanimously
carried to hold a public hearing on September 20, 1977
to consider amending Ordinance Section 10-15-2 to allow
such recreational uses as bowling alleys and roller rinks
as permitted uses within an 1-1 district.
8. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendments Public Hearings
Were Held on the Following Two Proposed Ordinance Amendments:
1. Amendment to ordinance Section 10-12-2 to allow
professional and commercial offices as a permitted
use within a B-2 limited use business district.
2. Amendment to ordinance Section 10-8-2 allowing all
permitted uses within R-1 (Single Family Residential)
and R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential) as per-
mitted uses within an R-3 (Medium Density Residential).
Both of these amendments are proposed to make our ordinances
more "workable" and are not necessarily aimed at "liberalizing"
the ordinances and the issues they address.
.
-3-
..
.
The first amendment would allow professional and commercial
offices as a permitted use in a B-2 zone. Since B-3 and
B-4 zones allow as permitted uses all permitted uses within
a B-2, professional and commercial offices would also be
permitted uses within these zones. Currently these uses
are only allowed as "conditional uses" in a R-B (Residential
Business) zone and B-1 (Neighborhood Business) and this
would appear reasonable to allow these as "conditional
uses," in these zones since they are quasi residential areas.
However, there is no place that professional and commercial
offices are allowed in a B-2, B-3 or B-4 zone either as
a permitted or conditional use.
The second amendment would allow R-1 (Single Family Re-
sidential) and R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential)
uses as permitted uses within a R-3 (Medium Density Re-
sidential District) zone. Purpose would be to create a
distribution of single and two family homes in a multiple
family zones rather than create "clusters" or segregation
of medium size apartment houses.
.
A motion, was made by Bauer, second by Topel and unanimously
carried to recommend adoption of Ordinance Amendment #1.
The committee discussed the possibility of having no areas
left for medium size apartment buildings if single family
residences were allowed to build in all R-3 zones. In
order to study other possible alternatives for single family
homes in R-3 zones, Bauer made a motion, second by Topel
and unanimously carried to table consideration of Amendment
#2 until the next scheduled meeting.
Motion by Bauer, second by Topel to adjourn.
R~f~i~~
Adm. Asst.
RW /1 g
.
-4-