Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 03-15-1977AGENDA MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION March 15, 1977 - 7:30 P. M. V/1. Approval of minutes of FEb. 15, 1977. 2. Public hearing consideration of rezoning parcel from R-1 to I-1. 3. Unfinished business. Q. New business. AGENDA SUPPLEMENT Agenda Item 2. Public Hearing Consideration of Rezoning Parcel from R-1 to I-1. William Seefeldt is requesting .that a site of 18.88 acres in the northwestern portion of the city (see enclosed map) be rezoned from R-1 (single family residential) to I -I (light industrial). Purpose of the request is to allow Bill's firm, Electro Industries to operate their light manufacturing and engineering business. Additionally, a sub -lease of part of the pro- perty is intended to Production Specialties for metal fabrication, welding and painting. It would appear the rezoning request is a reasonable use of the land based upon the following: 1. Preliminary revised comprehensive plan proposes the area for industrial zoning. 2. Current use of the land is industrial. As a permitted non -conforming use, the site could be used for light industrial purposes, but could not be expanded. For initial purchase, a rezoning request would not be necessary, but Mr. Scefeldt is interested in the issue of whether he may be able to expand in the future. 3. Areas that were annexed in 1974, such as this one, and which were undeveloped, were initially zoned R -I to take a conservative approach and as the property was proposed for development and in conjunction with the revised comprehensive plan, another look at the zoning would be taken. 4. Site is consistent with surrounding property except possibly the farm to the northwest which is that of Richard Brooks. In talk- ing to Mr. Brooks, he apparently would have no objections to such a rezoning. Since this is a public hearing, it will allow Input from concerned residents. Eventually, the property to the east should possibly be zoned because it Is also a non -conforming use. However, since it is a salvage yard, it would dictate a heavy industrial zone which might not be desirable since there is a residential development on the other side of county road 75• (Another issue that will eventually have to be resolved is that salvage yards as this should have some type of visual barrier from surrounding property). 5• The site borders a freeway, which will not make it very conducive to single family residential zoning. POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of recommendation of approval of zoning of parcel from R-1 to I-1. REFERENCES: Map depicting area. March 1, 1977 letter from W. Seefeldt. Hearing notice. -2- March 10, 1977 (I, I PLANNING REPORT APPLICANT: William Seefeldt LOCATION: Township Road between Interstate 94 and Highway 75 (NW Quarter of Section 4,1`221, R25) ACTION REQUESTED: Rezoning from R-1. Single Family Residential. to I-1. Light Industrial PLANNING CONSIDERATION: 1. The subject property is approximately 19 acres. presently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The property is presently developed with three buildings which apparently have been used for a warehouse and light industrial activity. 2. The petitioner is asking for the rezoning to Light Industrial with the intention of reconditioning the existing buildings to be used for light manufacturing activities. 3. Normally, a rezoning from residential to industrial within a pre- dominantly residentially zoned area should be considered "spot zoning". However, the area west of Highway 75 and east of the 'interstate has been given special attention during the Conprehmsive Plan review. The consultant is recowmnending that this area be designated for industrial use due primarily to its exposure to the Interstate Highway and the proposal for a full interchange at the intersection of Highway.75, Orchard Road and Interstate 94. It is felt that the general area would not be appropriate for single family residential development. Presently the area is generally open with scattered non-residential buildings. It is important to realize that the consultant's recoamendations in the Comprehensive Pian review process do not carry official status with regard to rezoning petitions. Likewise, until the City Council and Planning Commission have acted through the Comprehensive Plan public hearing process, the current considerations on the plan do not carry official status. However, the Planning Commission and City Council mqy weigh the consideration of redeslgnating this general area for light industrial purposes in light of the present petition and the existing tyoes of uses in the area. The question then becomes one of timing for considering petitions for rezoning. As was the case with the Howard Gilham property. the City has the option to "withhold' rezoning petitions until a specific development program Is proposed for a parcel of property. Or the City my rezone the property in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, thus Informing private property owners .WPPiov-ir 3-d-1I�f Planning Report March 10, 1977 Page Two of the City's development requirements and intentions. With regards to Mr. Seefeldt's proposal, the subject property appears to be satisfactory for light industrial purposes. Questions exist concerning the site design, off-street parking, and land- scaping. The Ordinance requires eight spaces plus one space for each two employees on each shift based on maximum planned employment or a minimum of eight spaces plus one space for each 500 square feet of floor area. Consideration should be given for off-street loading requirements as per Section 10-3-6 of the Zoning Code. Loading berths shall be located so as not to obstruct the public right-of-way and not occupy the front yard. 6. In summary, the proposed rezoning appears to be appropriate in light of the Comprehensive Plan rezoning considerations and the past use of the property. However, more detailed parking, loading, and landscaping plans should be submitted. a.n G�ltutAm Sec�e IP T R e parol i SC.4LE r ° : goo $aPA.e"r 3-16=140 HOWARD DAHLGREN ASSOCIATES CONSULTING PLAN N EACS O N E G Q O V E LANO TC -ACE ,w ANNE-OLIS, MINNESOTA 55403 March 11, 1977 Mr. Gary Wieber, City Administrator City of Monticello 215 South Cedar Street Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Dear Gary: I am writing this letter in response to our telephone conversation concerning a potential application for a single family house within the B-4 Regional Business District at the corner of Linn Street and Fourth Street. As you are aware, the B-4 Zoning District does not permit single family homes in a business area. Upon examin n_g te_ property, the block in which it is located bounded by Linn Street, Fourth Street, Third Street, and Locust Street is currently developed as single family residential. However, the block is zoned B-4. With regard to the policy question of permitting a single family detached residential development in the Business District, we cannot condone such a practice. Just as residential neighborhoods should be protected from the encroachment by non-residential uses such as business and industrial land uses, the business and industrial districts should be protected from encroachment by single family residential development. In some cases, multiple family residential development may be appropriate in or near business districts. In such a case, the multiple family residential proposal should be examined in terms of the official plan and the merits of the proposal. Concerning the individual request, the subject property is located on a block of single family homes and there is a real question as to whether this particular block will be developed to a B-4 Regional Business scale. Normally, single family residential districts which are located adjacent or near a business district may be expected to "redevelop themselves" into a business use over a period of time. There are serious questions as to whether this will occur with the subject property or block within the near future. The options available to the petitioner include a petition for rezoning to a residential zoning classification or develop the property in conformance with the B-4 zoning requirements. A variance is not Mr. Gary Wieber March 10, 1977 Page Two appropriate for allowing a single family residential in a business district. As you are aware, variances should not be granted for differences in land uses. Instead, variances are to be used in cases where the specific standards and requirements of a zoning district create a hardship on a particular piece of property due to the unique characteristics of the individual piece of property. I would advise the potential applicant to discuss the question of rezoning with his neighbors on the particular block. If he can obtain a consensus amongst his neighbors that they (as individual property owners) would desire a residential zoning of the property, they then could petition the City to consider an appropriate zoning amendment. The City then should take the question under advisement during their Comprehensive Plan review process. As you indicated, there are some questions as to the status of the property in question in terms of its being a lot of record eligible for a building permit. Apparently the petitioner owns two lots, one of which has a single family house and the other of which is "vacant". The petitioner has constructed a porch on the single family house, part of which has extended over the property line into the "vacant lot". This creates a situation where the "vacant lot" may be con- sidered no longer a lot of record and, therefore ineligible fora building permit. This question should be researched with the City Attorney. if you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to telephone me. Sincerely, NOM LGREN ASSOCIATES, INCy „ Richard J. Dwi ell 3 -iT-7'► sZ Ic F f s %4 so, it ul ga.to 5,ove 7 60 1,4V 4f . SIV,It Skk Alop— (4) 4- -," -1) 9 February 15. 1977 Planning Commission City of Monticello Monticello. Mn. 55312 The proposed zoning variance from R-1 to R-2 for lot 7. block 1 .,err �statea should not be approved. The rezoning would not be 1n veering with the area or the intention of the ordinance. The entire area is now single family dwellings with the excep- tion of a mobile home park which was grandfathered in. The city planner .. i that the area would be best used for individual houses and zoned R-1. The city council concurred by enacting the present ordinance. To date no variances from this zoning have been granted. To grant one now would set rr����precident for this entire area. Why should the commission vary from pisi�initial sound planning? To do ■o would invite patchwork building not conducive to a com- patable neighborhood. 'Phe present request in to rezone to R-2 which is a two faaily dwelling. In fact a fourplex or four faaily dwelling has been proposed requirinp, a R-3 classification (for up to 1: units). Land is presently available for just such a building. An R-3 classification is even farther from the intentions of the city council. Property values are influenced by the neighborhood environment as wall as the property itself. This variance would cause ad�oininx property owners to suffer. This varlasee should not be granted So order to aaintain the con- trolled and planned growth of the city. :;.,. , , 07 '_