Planning Commission Agenda Packet 09-06-1977AGENDA
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday -September 6, 1977 - 7:30 P. M.
Members; Gillham, Topel, Bauer, Ridgeway, Doerr,
J. W. Miller, ex -officio.
'"1. Approval of August 16, 1977 minutes.
Public Hearing - Consideration of Rezoning Block 6
of Upper Monticello From R-3 (Medium Density Re-
sidential) to B-3 (Highway Business).
,(3. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Request to
Allow Sales of Motorized Vehicles in a B-4 (Regional
Business) Zone.
✓4. Consideration of Building Permit.- Lms.. M CS.
1/5. Consideration of Setback Variance - Halsted Wehmann.
qy� V/6. Variance Request from Mr. Jerome Nelson.
J7. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendments.
ti
8. Unfinished business.
9. New business.
,ej.&-o N N MAILING TO:
Richard Dwinell
t'v`M O Denton Erickson
Y Don Smith
George Phillips
Halsted Wchmann
Frank Daniels
Jerome Nelson
William Eichler
M
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
v
Agenda Item 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 is requesting to have this block
rezoned to B-3 (Highway Business). Present zoning
of the block is R-3 (Medium Density Residential).
Reason for request to change zoning is as follows:
1. Applicant is proposing to build a detached
banking facility on the north half of Block
6 and a commercial zone is necessary for this
use.
2. Applicant feels that south half of block
VI should be rezoned also at this time to make
h zoning of entire block the same.
QUP As can be seen from enclosed map, the blocks to the
111 immediate east and south are zoned B-3. Additionally,
with the opening of Walnut Street it would appear
that a commercial use is more appropriate than multiple
family since an objective of the Walnut Street opening
was to make shopping areas more accessible to local
traffic.
At a later date, the Wright County State Bank will be
applying for a building permit should the rezoning
be approved.
POSSIBLE ACTIONt Consideration of approval of request.
REFERENCESt Enclosed map.
Agenda Item 3. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Request to Allow
Sales of Motorized Vehicles in a B-4 (Regional Business)
Zone.
Denton Erickson, president of Moon Motors, Inc., is
requesting a conditional use permit to allow open or
outdoor sales of motorized vehicles for Lots 19293 of
Block 16 of Upper Monticello (formerly Electro Industries).
See enclosed map.
As you are probably aware, Moon Motors, Inc. sells
and services motor bikes and snowmobiles.As ar of
this business, Moon Motors, Inc. displays'1FR'r8Jucta
in on outside area for sales purposes and therefore
requires a conditional use permit in a B-4 zone, which
Is the current zoning district of the area in question.
Following are the conditions as spelled out in the
ordinances
10-14-4-0): Open or outdoor service, sale and
rental as a principal and accessory
use and including sales in or from motorized
vehicles, trailers or wagons provided that:
1. Outside service, sales and equipment
rental connected with the principal use
is limited to thirty (30) per cent of
the gross floor area of the principal
use. This percentage may be increased
as a condition of the conditional use
permit.
2. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened
from view of neighboring residential uses
or an abutting residential district in
compliance with Section 10-3-2-(G) of
this ordinance.
3. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed
that the light source shall not be visible
from the public right-of-way or from
neighboring residences and shall be in
compliance with Section 10-3-2-(H) of
this ordinance.
4. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to
control dust.
S. The provisions of Section 10-22-1-(E) of
this ordinance are considered and satis-
factorily met.
Section 10-22-1-(E) reads as followat
The planning Commission shall consider possible
adverse effects of the proposed amendment or conditional
use. Its judgement shall be based upon (but not limited
to) the following factorst
1. Relationship to municipal comprehensive plan.
2. The geographical area involved.
3. Whether such use will tend to or actually
depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
4. The character of the surrounding area.
S. The demonstrated need for such use.
-2-
v
In talking with Denton Erickson, he expressed concern
over the following requirements of the Monticello city
ordinances:
1. Requirement that parking area be six inch
class 5 and two inch bituminous topping or
concrete equivalent. The current surfacing
is made of a material that controls dust but
does not meet the requirements of the ordinance.
2. Number of parking spaces required. In ordinance
Section 10-3-5 spelling out the parking re-
quirements, there is no use similar to Moon
Motors, Inc. except for a retail store which
requires one space for every 200 square feet
and the building is about 7200 square feet
requiring 36 spaces. This requirement would
`5 a ppearunreasonable especially since many of
5 the customers during the summer ride motor-
bikes and do not require the same amount of
room as an automobile.
tv It• should be pointed out that the subject of
concern is an existing building and it would
seem some reasonable discretion would have
to be applied as to the ordinance requirements.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of recommendation of
conditional use permit and determining parking lot
requirements.
REFERENCES: Enclosed map of area.
Agenda Item 4. Consideration of Building Permit.
A
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. (See enclosed map).
In talking to Mr. Frank Daniels of Larson Mfg., he
has indicated the firm will initially employ six people
with ultimate expansion expected to employ a labor
force of approximately 15-20 people.
I have reviewed all applicable ordinances with Mr.
Daniels and he has indicated the firm intends to comply
with all ordinances but would like to request a variance
from the provision that requires a curb barrier around
the perimeter of the parking lot. Reason for the re-
quest is that if the parking lot were to be expanded
some day in the future it would be necessary to take
out at least a portion of the curb barrier.
Q
-3-
Plans have been received from Larson Mfg. Co. and J.
W. Miller is reviewing them and will have his recommend-
ations ready at Tuesday's meeting.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of building
permit.
REFERENCES: Enclosed map. Plans available at city hall.
Agenda Item S-J/Consideration of Setback Variance - Halsted Wehmann.
Mr. Wehmann is requesting 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
(see enclosed map).
This lot abuts Chestnut Street and the variance re-
quest is for the west property line which abuts the
streets. This particular segment of street is
platted but has never been put in.
You may recall that in May of 1977 the Planning Com-
mission received a request from a prospective buyer of
this lot to be allowed to utilize Chestnut Street for
a driveway and this request was denied. It was in-
dicated, however, that a variance could be possibly
favorably considered since the street was not in use
and a similar request of this nature had been granted
another property owner.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of setback variance
request.
REFERENCES: Enclosed map.
Agenda Item 6. Variance Request from Mr. Jerome Nelson.
Mr. Jerome Nelson is requesting a variance to build a
24' x 24' double garage within 51 of his property
line on Lot 4, Block 3, Riggs Addition, Lower Monticello.
Current zoning ordinances for an R-2 district require
a 101 sideyord setback.
It should probably be noted that the existing house
is located only 5' from the west property line and the
variance request is to build a double garage 5' from
the east property lino.
Both houses on the abutting lots are owned by Mel
Wolters and are set 101 from the property lino. Thus,
if the variance is granted, there would be only 15O
between buildings on both sides of Mr. Nelsons home.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approving or denying
the 5' sidoyard variance.
REFERENCES: Map depicting property location and sketch
showing proposed location of garage.
-4-
Agenda Item 7. Public Hearing Ordinance Amendments.
1► Following are two ordinance amendments that are
subjects of public hearings:
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 allow-
ing all permitted uses within R-1 (Single
Family Residential) anda,_
-2 ( Ingle and two
family Residential) as � � 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.
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. To illustrate
the point, a law office could not locate downtown or
in the shopping center.
The second amendment would allow R-1 (Single Family
Residential) and R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential)
uses as permitted uses within a R-3 (Medium Density
Residential 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. As
an illustration, please note the area around the Monti-
cello Apartments is zoned as R-3. This would allow
single and two family homes as permitted uses in these
areas. (Notes In fact almost the entire use in this
R-3 area is already single and two family homes).
-5-
C
It should be pointed out that if the second amendment
were adopted there would be a danger of having no
areas left for medium siz a apartments. One possible
answer would be to zone some areas within the R-3
to a new category (e.g. R -3A) which would not allow
single and two family homes as permitted uses but
conditional uses. Some possibilities for this type
of zone would be those areas that are zoned R-3 now
but are not platted into single family residential
size lots. This could be: accomplished as a part of
the Comprehensive Plan.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of Ordinance Amendments.
REFERENCES: Areas on Zoning Map designated as R-3.
-6-
(AtC
tll��V.Vh ^N r or,A
�
P`���
t lc t ...._...�` "` r ,w eM► ;:� =!-'•'>' '7'•-ii': `�' S� S� ro-.Q
ILI
17
--�,�% E ;!L 1, t r7 •I �Op, L1+tj, y,.; �l `u •('' � r i . `
l:r rr ,h.y l.-+o1y1"'t r •M ;tea .'• �', /� ''i! ��t „r �r (•� 1 .��,
�. �.ti`.�ry•'.,q,,,;�-:i G:' ~t "iii{f ' „1 ot..'.`:.G '.:i'�•~, `.'f''/•• ��•/./�,l7,1_'�51:•,.,' f,�.
'� �'s � r `�• T
�r 1�•, "• 0 • J ^-,i"�i 1•��_. j/ 1r^� �!-� j �w.,� -1 Z �..od..,•f��~ fir:.' ,'
K \ �„� .,- r r j-; ti ��j” �:'�"t'^-j��� ...,f ! � l�, 1 �'?w•, �F � l'i � !.•r... l",�� iy -•,�. -„� •'i p(•,••
�, ..�"" �•r j//'l7',-+:.�r'1 •. y, "^-I'"'f L. ��•' J `+ .� ±r � r1--•.. �t•,,_�(v �'. � 1•"'�-7 � 1�••� (r `.. ��'`�-• .''iw .
! tf_ ` � r„""",! Lt 7� i r. ! 'S � �"`•!�••.1.'��J � � ' I r /�``'� y: a '• ., �h• ` i • ry •
y � j'��. �J jj� (�TJ�.•- � ! �„ ��_ w•� j�'�""Mn 1�.'•"^4� j f f rf., F'71'. �i� �
r�' ,j j�•�'' r j' i �"7 �-"7 "" t .. l - _ •!n,••� ,� ! • � � r+ ti ,' 1• y "•" i4( W t, O•
f�1�1 �'J ( � ft ty�'✓'''s11- o�; ...� -�+:.1 �_.� j � � (:... �\ t r �, • �j
• i - ' -- �\ `fir ....� �J b�rt;~`f ,.. '�.:� �� �,tiY • .r•.
,fit g3
P%V.- ) I I
tA% %06
J"FP_ornE. NeLSOAJ
,314 8. yTN ST.
Lor �! gtocK E ,x/665 ,94/d.�+iov
� f TN ,S-rE2�sT
tot +4
lat S
FeoAJ r
+ i
i
C � i
a�tj '
foR, �a�sti �
� r
z' '
o
r teroPotio ci
5+ ` 6�[w6E
'Lot-
S,
ot
F13 /j-77
lee y
At
3 �