Planning Commission Agenda Packet 09-20-1977L1
AGENDA
CITY OF MXMCELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - September 20, 1977 - 7:30 P.H.
Members: H. Gil ham, F. Topel, C.D. Bauer, J. Ridgeway, H. Doerr, J.W. Hiller
✓ 1. Approval of Minutes - September 6, 1977 meeting.
2. Public Hearing - Consideration of Rezoning Parcel Along E. County Road 39
From E%1 and R-3 to R. -B, for a 30 -Unit Apartment.
L ✓3. Public Hearing - Consideration of Allowing Pet Hospital as a Permitted
G or Conditional Use Within a B-3 Zoning District.
C ✓4. Consideration of Building Permit - Pet Hospital.
G ✓5. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment to Allow Amusement Places and
Bowling Alleys as Permitted Uses Within an I-1 Zone.
CC ✓6. Consideration of Building Permit - Fair's Market.
CG- 7. �IConsideration of Building Permit - Wright County State Bank.
4,4 1
8. Variance Request - Setback Requirements - Ron White.
C(, 9. Consideration of Building Permit - 2 -Car Garage and Family Room
Addition - Charles Ritze.
L1L 10. Consideration of Clarification of Pylon Sign Height Requircments -
Perkins Cake 'n Steak.
11. Consideration of Parking Requirements - Trinity Lutheran Church.
C�1 12. Consideration of Ordinance Amendment to Allow all Permitted Uses Within
Q� ,9 R-1 and -R-2 Zoneo so Permitted or Conditional Uses Within an R-3 Zone.
}n 1 0nfinished buoineac. 3
New buoineoo.
AGFNDA ITEM 2 - Public Hearing - Consideration of Rezoninpu Parcel Along E. County
Road 39 from Rrl and R-3 to R -B, for a 30 -Unit Apartment.
In the next agenda item, Dr. Joel Erickson is proposing a pet
hospital to be built on the east side of Highway 25 and approximately
500 - 600 feet south of the I-94 interchange.
I Currently, this property is zoned as B-3 (Regional Business) and
the permitted or conditional uses of a B-3 do not mention a Pet
Hospital. In fact, no zone currently mentions a pet hospital so
1 a conditional or permitted use. As a result, a public hearing
9� is neceosary to allow such a use within a B-3 (Regional Busincoo)
either as o conditional or permitted use.
Ono other alternative to allowing pet hospitalo so permitted or
conditional uses would be to allow ouch u000 in an individual
zone. However, it would then be nec000ary to rezone Dr. Drickaon'o
property or deny the permit on the prop000d site.
It would neem to me that if such a uoo were to be allowed in a
B-3 district, it ahould be allowed no a conditional uao. Some
p000iblo conditiono could be no follows:
River Ralph Smith,
Meadow Apartments, a partnership consisting of
Bob Mosford and Gary Wieber, is proposing to build a 30 -unit
�+
non -subsidized apartment along E. County Road #39 (see enclosed
map).
The area under consideration is approximately 7# acres and is
/
proposed Multiple Family under the revised comprehensive plan, but
is currently zoned as Rrl and Bra. As a result, a rezoning to
R -B (Residential Business) is necessary, since the R -B zone is
``
the only zone that would allow for an apartment house over
12 units.
1
The apartment house planned for this area will be all brick and
\ M-
would meet all applicable zoning ordinances. It should be pointed
U
out that sewer and water does not serve this area, but would be
requested by the developers since it is only 500 feet away.
As required by the ordinance, a hearing is necessary on any
rezoning requests and notices have been mailed to property owners
within 350 feet.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of rezoning request.
REFERENCES: Fhclosed Map. Proposed Building design to be
available at Tuesday's meeting.
AGENDA ITEM 3 -
Public Hearin& - Consideration of Allowing, Pet Hospital as a
Permitted or Conditional Use Within a B-3 Zoning U strict.
In the next agenda item, Dr. Joel Erickson is proposing a pet
hospital to be built on the east side of Highway 25 and approximately
500 - 600 feet south of the I-94 interchange.
I Currently, this property is zoned as B-3 (Regional Business) and
the permitted or conditional uses of a B-3 do not mention a Pet
Hospital. In fact, no zone currently mentions a pet hospital so
1 a conditional or permitted use. As a result, a public hearing
9� is neceosary to allow such a use within a B-3 (Regional Busincoo)
either as o conditional or permitted use.
Ono other alternative to allowing pet hospitalo so permitted or
conditional uses would be to allow ouch u000 in an individual
zone. However, it would then be nec000ary to rezone Dr. Drickaon'o
property or deny the permit on the prop000d site.
It would neem to me that if such a uoo were to be allowed in a
B-3 district, it ahould be allowed no a conditional uao. Some
p000iblo conditiono could be no follows:
1. No outside pens or kennels.
2. Annual inspection by City's health officer at
owner's expense.
3. All animals mist be leashed. 111.0�L,.
4. Treatment would be limited to heueekeld-pets.
5. Side yard setbacks gbould be 20 feet instead of 10.
G. Ae.OA-ru c..,..,..E ". ivo: Fe P -t — -Sex
Items 2, 3 and 4 are the present conditions of a "Pet Clinic"
within a B-3, and I believe Dr. Erickson would have no problem
with any of the conditions.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of allowing Pet Hospital as
permitted or conditional !!o within a B-3 zone
and the establishment of any conditions if applicable.
✓ AGENDA ITEM 4 - Oonsideration of Building Permit - Pet Hospital.
Enclosed please find a summary by Dr. Joel Erickson explaining
the need and purpose of a Pet Hospital in Monticello and some of
the aspects of his proposed building.
It should be noted that the building proposed by Dr. Erickson will
contain no outside runs and these will be planned to be completely
enclosed within the building.
Dr. Erickson has indicated he will submit working drawings prior
to Tuesday's meeting in order that J.W. Miller will have time to
review.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of building permit and conditional
use permit (if necessary) for Dr. Erickson's
proposed Pet Hospital.
REFERENCES: Dr. Erickson's summary.
Enclosed map.
✓ AGENDA ITEM 5 - Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment to Allow Amusement Places and
Bowling Alleys as Permitted uses within an I-1 Zone.
At our last meeting, Mr. Bill Pemberton indicated he is considering
building a roller -rink on the North Half of Int 1, Block 1, of
Oakwood Industrial Park.
This Lot is zoned as I-1 (light industrial) and a roller rink is
not listed among the permitted or conditional uses of an I-1 area
but is listed no a permitted use within a B-4 (Regional Bucinoso)
zone. Consensus of the Planning Commission woo to hold a hearing
to add Amusement Plano (such as roller rinks or danco halls) and
bowling alloys so permitted ucoo within o I-1 zone. The Planning
Commission felt this was more desirable than rezoning Lot 1 to
B-4. Mention woo made that St. Cloud hon a new industrial park
which has both o bowling alley and a roller rink.
v
AGENDA ITEM 9 - Consideration of Building Permit - 2 -car Garage and Family Room
Addition - Charles Ritze.
Normally permits of this nature do not require planning commission
review but this item is placed on the Planning Commission Agenda
for reasons stated below.
In February of 1976, Charles Ritze requested a conditional use
permit to allow a truck garage be built within an R-1 zone. The
City of Nonticello granted the permit contingent upon a fence being
constructed along the side of the garage to screen any equipment
still stored outside.
The garage was built without a permit and the fence never erected,
and as a result, consideration should be given to granting the
building permit requested now only contingent upon a permit
being paid for on the truck garage and the fence erected as required.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of building permit approval.
AGENDA ITEM 10 - Consideration of Clarification of Pylon Sign Height Requirements -
Perkins Cake 'n Steak.
Monticello City ordinances allow businesses within 800 feet of a
freeway to have one pylon sign not to exceed 200 square feet and
32 feet in height.
Perkins Cake In Steak is requesting an interpretation of the height
requirement. The ordinance reads that "actual sign height 1s
determined by the grade of the road from which the sign gains its
principal exposure". In my estimation, the road in question would
\ be State Highway 25 and therefore the sign should be allowed to
be 32 feet above the grade of this highway.
If you drive by Perkins, you can immediately see the concern since
the sign presently is situated in the southwest corner of the
perking lot which is extremely low.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of recommendation as to allowable
I`\J� sign "height" as to where 32' should be measured
from.
AGENDA ITEM 11 - Conoideration of Parkina Requirements - Trinity Lutheran Church.
The Trinity Lutheran Church la requesting a determination of the
amount of parking that would be required if the Church expanded.
Current city ordinances require one parking apace for every four
canto of the main acoembly hall and additional parking shall be
required for any other function ouch so a school, etc.
Rev. Miller of Trinity Lutheran Church has indicated the current
assembly hall has a seating capacity of 150 people and there are
35 - 40 parking spaces available. However, the expansion of the
Church would not only increase the seating capacity to 300 but would
utilize some of the existing parking spaces.
Rev. Miller would like the City to determine if a variance of any
sort, including complete exemption from parking provisions could
be possible. Additionally, he asked if parking provisions of any
sort were required, would it be possible for the Church to
purchase additional land as it became available. Also, he asked if
variances from the front or side yard setback requirements would
be possible.
The Church would like to get the City's feeling on these matters
prior to coming up with plans that would be costly and never
receive approval.
It would seem that the Planning Commission could consider a variance
from the parking requirements, but would be hard pressed to exempt
the Church completely. One possibility may be to recraire parking
be provided up to 75% or some other percentage of the ordinance
requirements and additional land should be purchased as available
to bring parking up to 100%. However, it should be pointed out
that it would be impossible to grant a variance until actual plans
are received and it would be impossible for the City to require
the Church to purchase additional land later, although it could
recommend it.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of parking requirements.
AGENDA ITEM 12 - Consideration of Ordinance Amendment to Allow all Permitted Uses
Within a B-1 and R-2 Zone as Permitted or Conditional Uses Within
a R-3 Zone.
At our last meeting a public hearing was hold concerning an ordinance
amendment to allow all permitted uses within a R-1 (Single Family
Residential) and R-2 (Single h Two Family Residential) as permitted
uses within a R-3 (Medium Density Residential) zone.
It was discussed that although a desirable effect may be reached
of distributing single and two family homes in multiple family
zones rather than creating clusters of multiple family homes, there
also was concern over the possibility of eventually having no areas
left for multiple family houses. As a result, the Planning
Commission requested the item be placed on the next agenda and to
consider the posoibility of allowing R-1 and R-2 uses as conditional
uses within a P-3 zone. In this mannor, there would still be a
control factor to prevent the proliferation of single family
homes in a R-3 area.
Yet another possibility may be to create two zones for medium family
residential, one allowing a mixture of single and multiple family
and one strictly reserved for multiple family. This could be
accomplished as part of the comprehensive plan.
As a practical matter, I feel it would be best to allow
R-1 and Rr2 uses as permitted uses within a Rr3 area since
a good share of the land within R-3 sones is platted into large
lots and would not be economically feasible to build single and
two family homes. The City does have control should developers
desire to subdivide the large platted areas within Rr3 zones into
smaller parcels.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Conaideration of emending ordinance to allow
R-1 and Rr2 uses within a Rr3 zone as
permitted or conditional uses or creating
separate zones as mentioned above.
...,g S Ir
U.0
qo4
It should be noted that bowling alleys are included in the
notice which in effect would make Joyner Lanes a conforming use
within Oakwood Industrial Park also.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of recommending City Council to
amend ordinance to allow amusement plans and
bowling alleys as permitted uses within
an I-1 zone.
REFERENCES: Ehclosed map.
AGENDA ITEM 6 - Consideration of Building Permit - Fair's Market.
Mr. Bud Fair is requesting a building permit for Fair's Market
to allow an open framework structure to be built which allows
adequate amounts of rain, shade and sunlight to his nursery stock.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of recommendation of building
permit.
AGENDA ITEM 7 - Consideration of Building Permit - Fright County State Bank.
The bright County State Bank is proposing to build a 2,400 square
foot detached bank facility on Lots 6c 7, 8 and 9 of Block 6 of
` Upper Monticello. (See enclosed map.J
e facility is intended to house the Wright County State Bank's
�\ main insurance office and to handle deposits and withdrawals. In
y� talking with bank officials, they have indicated that loan
�vJ transactions are not allowed at a detached facility according
to State law.
�.i
There are also seven drive up bays for deposits and withdrawals.
Q \,kThe bank has submitted preliminary plans and hopes to have working
Jti drawings by Tuesday's meeting.
V
V POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of approval of building permit.
REFERENCES: Enclosed Map.
Preliminary Plano (available at City Hall).
AGENDA ITEM 8 - Variance Request - Setback Requirements - Ran White.
Mr. Ron White is requesting a variance to allow a deck to be
built within 6 feet of the east property line for Lot 4, except
W. 25 feet and westerly 10 feet of Lot 3, Block 3, River Terrace
Addition in Monticello.
The lot size is 85 by 200 feet. This house is already under
construction and the dock built. Mr. White indicated that he
miuunderatood the east property line and is requesting the variance
to allow the deck to stay.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of variance.
I
t7
-110.04 e It
r I&e Ca. /.-•4.'44
S✓�0✓✓ o4 to
APPLIC�A%T1.::: /FO\R VARIANCE
W
Same .-r %pplicant: "GN h'
Dare: 9111 (1l Mailing Address: AA-. - c�
Ph, -or \,,nber -- Home: /2 C, S9(•v1I Eirrs1iness\:
Lural rn:oI property: \ It t
Si&niature of Applicant:
I.) he filled in by City of Monticello
D.•r. upi•livalion roveived:
Darr -,i Inrbliv hrarrntg Planning Commieeiont
Hw.mr.•nd.,tions .,i Planning Commission:
D.,r, ,•��nu•rl .un.ldrratiunt
1ppi .,..•,t; Disapprovodt
Signed:
l pe ,.,r
%aviance:
o� r��le i�ItY�lu�+
(� L (-ppY"
Curt .•: t
. /('ncd:
4Sf
/V
\times ;
properly
owners within 350 feet of location:
Plr:r.e .-vplain
r,•asons
fut• requested variance below,
Lndicatin•_
twu lai. 1
is to Ile
tiled, etc.:
Si&niature of Applicant:
I.) he filled in by City of Monticello
D.•r. upi•livalion roveived:
Darr -,i Inrbliv hrarrntg Planning Commieeiont
Hw.mr.•nd.,tions .,i Planning Commission:
D.,r, ,•��nu•rl .un.ldrratiunt
1ppi .,..•,t; Disapprovodt
Signed:
1
1'IA- - -- -
0
t
�O
�'"�� �°v