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 '_