Planning Commission Agenda Packet 04-17-1979AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
April 17, 1979 - 7:30 P.M.
Members: Jim Ridgeway, Dave Bauer, Ed Schaffer, Fred Topel, Dick Martie.
Wren Klein (ex -officio) .
1. Approval of Minutes.
Consideration of approving the minutes from the regular meeting of
March 20, 1979 and special meeting of April 3, 1979.
2. Public ticarinq - Rezoninq of Block 10 of Oriqinal Monticello Plat from
R-3 to R-1 or R-2.
At their March 26, 1979 meeting, the City Council of Monticello was
approached by a group of citizens in Block 10 of Monticello and the
surrounding area expressing concern over the possible development of
an apartment house in Block 10.
At the time of the request, the Monticello City Council did inform the
concerned citizens that there was no specific zoning action that the
Council could take that evening relative to rezoning) however, they did
take the following action:
A. Requested that the Planning Commission hold a hearing to consider
rezoning Block 10.
B. Put a moratorium on any building permit approvals for multiple famiy
dwelling units in Block 10 until the recommendation of the Planning
Commission came back to the City Council and the City Council took
final action.
As a result of the action by the City Council, a hearing notice has been
properly publicized and mailed to property owners within 350' of Block 10
to consider rezoning the Block from R-3 (Medium Density Residential) to
either R-1 (Single Family Residential) or R-2 (Single end Two -Family
Residential). Briefly, listed below are the types of re oidential units
that aro allowed in the various dintrietat
R-1 - Bingle Family Residential Only
R-2 - Binglo and Two -Family Rciodential with a Pour -unit family
residential allowed as a conditional use.
R-3 - Multiple Family Residential consisting of 12 units or leoa
on a pormittod use basin, and ovor 12 units on a conditional
U00 haofe.
MINUTES
REGULAR KEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, March 20, 1979 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Fred Topel, Ed Schaffer. Loren Klein (ex -officio).
Members Absents Dave Bauer, Dick Martie.
1. Approval of Minutes.
Motion was made by Fred Topel, seconded by Ed Schaffer and unanimously
carried to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held
February 20, 1979-
2. Public Hearinq for Consideration of Subdivision of Lot by James Refriqeration.
James Refrigeration Company made application to subdivide the lot they own
on south Highway 25 where the Tom Thumb store is being currently built.
Their proposal was to make two lots of approximately 39,465 square feet and
the other lot 32,670 square feet. Both lots, if approved, would exceed
the 100' width requirement.
The subdivision, as proposed, indicates that the driveway access off of
Oakwood Drive onto Parcel A would require an casement from Parcel B.
Without an easement from Parcel B, Parcel A would be landlocked if the
subdivision was approved as presentod. After discussion with the repre-
sentative from Jamoo Refrigeration Company, it was the consensus of the
Planning Commission to change the lot line so that Parcel A, the present
Tom Thumb Stora si to, would have a direct access onto County Road 117.
Motion was made by Fd Schaffer, seconded by Fred Topel and unanimously
carried to approve the subdivision provided a now certificate of survey
was drawn up showing that Parcel A would have direct access onto County
Road 117.
3. Consideration of Variance Request for Pylon Siqn Ordinance Requirements
for Rosowood Corporation.
Ronowood Corporation, owner of the Monticello Mall, requested a variance
to allow the expansion of an existing pylon sign from 100 square feet to
approximately 160 oquaro fast. The variance was necessary in that the
current ordinances only allow one pylon sign per business and the Shopping
Center already hao two pylon eigno. The two pylon signs that are In
existence would be grandfathorod in, but the ordinance provides that any
non -conforming sign cannot be expanded or onlarged without a variance.
Mr. Ken Bureau, representing Rocowood Corporation, indicated that they
would consider taking down the second pylon sign but that it would t'v
more costly than what it would be worth, and asked that the variance
be granted to juat expand the procent sign which would otill be within
the 200 squsro foot limits for the area.
Planning Commission Minutes - 3/20/79
Motion was made by Fred Topel, seconded by Ed Schaffer and unanimously
carried to approve the variance allowing the Monticello Mall to expand
the present pylon sign at their entrance provided it does not exceed the
200 square foot maximum allowed for this area.
4. Consideration of a Variance Application - Electro Industries.
Mr. William Seefeldt, of Electro Industries, was proposing to build a new
cold storage warehouse building at their present industrial site, and re-
quested the following variances:
A. A setback of 16' rather than 40' as required in an 1-1 zones and
B. To waive the hardsurfaced parking requirements and only be required
to have portions of the concrete curbing as required.
Mr. Seefeldt asked that he be granted the variance to build his new
building 16' from the property line rather than the 40' since this would
allow his now structure to be in alignment with the existing building.
Mr. Seefeldt felt that as long as this area is rural in nature and that
no services exist to the area and that the road is gravel, he also
requested that the hardsurfaced parking requirements be waived for his
business.
In regards to the setback variance, a motion was made by Ed Schaffer,
seconded try Fred Topel and unanimously carried to approve the 16' setback
variance for the now addition since thin would be in alignment with the
present structure.
In regards to the hardsurfacod parking requirements, a motion was made
by Fred Topol, seconded by Fd Schaffer and unanimously carried to deny
any variances from the concrete curb barriers and hardaurfaced parking
requirements of the ordinances. The reason for the denial was they felt
this would act a precedence for other industries, whether it was Oakwood
Industrial Park or wherever, to ask for a similar type variance.
5. Discussion on Setting a Possible Second Meetinq Date for the Planninq
Commission for Each Month.
It was the recommendation of the Building Inspector, Loren Klein, that
during the buoy season of the summer months the Planning Commission
consider meeting every two weeks if a certain item or the need arises
for discussion.
It wan tho consensus of the Planning Comuaiaoion that if it was determined
by the Building Inspector that a special mooting wan needed for certain
items, that they would be agreeable.
Motion was made by Fred Topel, seconded by Ed Schaffer and unanino.wly rallied
to adjourn.
Rick Volfotol er
Aooiatant niotrator
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/17/79
It should be pointed out that the proposed developer in Block 10 is
Mr. Ron White, who has an option on Lots 8, 9 6 10 of Block 10
(see enclosed map depicting area). Fee owner of this property is
v Mr. James Murray who has a house situated on Lot 10 of Block 10.
Mr. White is considering a proposal for a seven -unit apartment in
this area. This proposal would meet the City ordinance requirements
of lot size of 8,000 square feet for the first unit in an R-3, plus
2,000 for each additional one -bedroom unit, or 2,500 square feet for
each additional two-bedroom unit. Proposed area is 32,670 sq. ft.
It should be noted that the property was LaAAAa'ly zoned Id d ,
fi Jx2 rf *w_ --«l-,- ,..moi, in 1972 as R-3. When initially zoned
as an R-3, the original ordinance would allow multiple family dwelling
units in this block as a permitted use, and the ordinance only called
for 5,000 square feet plus 1,500 square feet per family, and as a result,
an 18 -unit apartment house could have been put up without any variances
or conditional use permits providing that the Murray home was removed.
Apparently, many of the owners of property in Block 10 and the surrounding
blocks were not aware of the fact that this large a multiple family dwelling
unit could go up in Block 10. However, since the block has been zoned from
the inception of zoning ordinances in Monticello as multiple family, there
is some concern to rezone the area now to R-1 or R-2 just because of
a specific proposal could be construed as arbitrary and capricious and could
be subject to scrutiny.
Mr. White has been informed of the hearing and has been requested to bring
any plans and drawings he has relative to the project in order to allow
the Planning Commission to make a better decision.
In talking to one of the property owners that was concerned about the
project, the indication was that possibly the neighborhood would not be so
concerned with the immediate development, but with future and more develop-
ments for apartments in the area. He had expressed concern with there
becoming all multiple family dwelling units. In this respect, it would
appear that there would not be the opportunity for another multiple
family dwelling unit unless another home or homes were removed. Addi-
tionally, it is somewhat by design that multiple family homes are
built within the same area as a result of zoning districts, and it is not
the intent of the City ordinances to have these haphazardly scattered through-
out the City of Monticello.
One additional factor to be taken into consideration on this decision is
that Lots 8, 9 6 10 do abut up against the railroad track on the north
aide, and it would be pretty hard or almost impossible to utilize the
remaining Iota not currently built on, that is Lots 8 s 9, since there
would be no direct access, unless a multiple family dwelling unit were
being planned for the entire three lots.
I have talked to both Howard Dahlgren, the City's Planner, and also Cary
Pringle, the City's Attorney, in regard to the zoning question. Advice
received from both of these gentlemen is that the City could be subject
to a lawsuit and possible damagco if it rezoned an area somewhat after
the fact. That is, rezone a property to a lower density roaidential
after propooal for a multiple family unit was planned. Mr. Dahlgren fur-
thor indicated that one solution to safeguard against future multiple -
family dwelling units in Block 10 would be to rezone the oouth half of
Block 10 to a lower density residential such as R -I or R-2. In this
- 2 -
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/17/79
respect, Mr. White's property would still be allowed to be developed
as multiple family, but the remaining portion of Block 10 and Block P
would be safeguarded against future developments of this sort.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of recommendation to the City Council
either to rezone Block 10, rezone south half of
Block 10, or leave Block 10 as is.
REFERENCES, Enclosed map depicting area.
Copy of Mr. White's plans are available for review at
the City Rall.
( MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSI0:7
Tuesday, April 3, 1979 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Fred Topel, Dave Bauer, Fd Schaffer, Jim Ridgeway.
Loren Klein (ex -officio).
Member Absent: Dick Martie.
1. Consideration of I-94 Tri -Plaza PUD Development - McDonald's.
The McDonald's Corporation submitted their final plans and specifications
for going ahead with their project on Parcel C of Sam Peraro's Monticello
I-94 Tri -Plaza at the intersection of Oakwood Drive and Highway 25. A
number of areas were discussed by the Planning Commission with the
representative of the McDonald's Corporation, and they were as follows:
The Site Plan submitted with the PUD development proposes 67 parking
spaces, while the City ordinances indicate there should be 77 parking
spaces provided on the parcel. It was recommended by the City Planner,
of Howard Dahlgron Associates, that as long as there are extra spaces
available on the next parcel, which is the Standard Service Station,
that if McDonald's could secure an agreement from the owner, Sam
Peraro, to allow McDonald's customers to park on these 10 opacen, it
would be a solution to the required parking needed. Mr. Pe raro
indicated that ouch an agreement would pons no problem as Car as he
is concerned, and could be made into a written agreement.
The Planner also indicated that same minor changes concerning the
curbing in a few areas of the parking lot should be incorporated into
the now site plan. In addition, the Planner suggested that the sign
be moved from its present location in the northwest corner of the lot
to the middle of the parking lot.
The item that received the most discussion by the Planning Commission
was the square footage of the new pylon otgn proposed by Me nonald'o.
It was the staff recommendation that the open area of the -golden arches"
not be considered as part of the square footage allotment for the sign.
If the open area created by the "golden arches" was oliminutod, the
actual ourfaco area of the sign would be 200 square feat or loss which
is what to allowed by the City ordinancon. The McDonald's representative
indicated that the majority of the items would pose no problem in regards
to parking spaces, location of the sign, curb barrier extensions, but
requested that their sign, as proposed, be accepted. They indicated
that thio largo sign is necessary because the City of Montleollo, in
itself, to too small to support the business volume that McDonald's
needs, and that they must rely heavily on freeway traffic for their
buoineos.
Conoidarablo Planning Commission discussion centered on whether the open
space in the sign should be included in the square footago allotment,
or whother it could be reasonably determined that the open space tw,twoon
the arches neod not be counted in determining square footac;o, Wiich In
thio ease would allow the sign to moot the ordinanam. After t he
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/3/79
lengthy discussion, motion was made by Dave Hauer and seconded by
Ed Schaffer to approve a variance recommending that the sign area
of the sign proposed be allowed. Voting in favor: Dave Bauer and
Ed Schaffer. Opposed: Jim Ridgeway and Fred Topel. Since the
vote was tied, motion for approval was denied. It was noted that
the reason for opposition to this sign was that in the past the
Planning Commission was previously looked at the total outside area
of a sign when determining the square footage of a sign, and in this
case, they felt the sign would be approximately 280 square feet by
taking the outside of the "golden arches" as part of the sign.
Motion was made by Fred Topel, seconded by Ed Schaffer and unanimously
carried to approve the balance of the PUD for McDonald's as proposed,
provided all the previous changes are implemented in regards to parking
spaces, curb barrier alignment, etc.
2. Public Hearing on the Preliminary Subdivision Plat of the Meadows by
Jim Haus.
Mr. Jim Maus presented the preliminary plat for his land located north of
Prairie Road on the western edge of Monticello. The Plat consists of
30 acres and would have a total of approximately 64 single family residential
lots.
The plans have been submitted to the City Engineer for study and since no
comments at this time have been received in regards to the plat from the
City Engineer, motion was made by Dave Bauer, seconded by Fred Topel and
unanimously carried to table any discussion on thin preliminary plat
until the engineer has made hie written recommendations in regards to
the plat.
Hearing no other business, motion wao made by Fred Topel, seconded by Ed
Schaffer and unanimously carried to adjourn.
Rick Wolfotol r
Alaoistant Administrator
RW/ns
IN
t �a
$ q,
.A$
_ t • sit •�=_ �
"tom---.... •' • i ,,°• a. y •,t. �,• wz-r�,�-...- _ __,._ /
" �-�.-. ` � r �t o. , ,• 'tet •'�6,i.L..��. ��`! vi' i .
- :,�.`; ., r'•� ,..., 111 F--•..., t^ -}•,. � •�y .•,r..�..• -
u � ' , t�•---•,., ,' �" �,• r�'� `�5 � �� � '� ',.� �.,9 Bir `�..'.'.:..
Vt3 aa3; ;� 1
N TSA
tE
HIGHWAY 63 N8 9•
z
MFMORAHDUN
Howard Dahlgren Correspondence
PPO: -I: City Wieber, City Iulministrator
ISAT E; March 12, 1979
SU?JFZ-,: Ordinance Amendment to Allow Residential Uses in
a B-3 or B-4 Zone
4r: 'latch 7, 1579, John Uban, with Howard Dahlgren Associates, called an.l
we reviewed our past correspondence relative to allowing a combination of
comrnercial and residential uses in a B-3 or B-4 zone.
%
dr. lfban felt that with the proper design, and other criteria, that su -'.
uses could be allowed in such zones. His concern, however, was that in
reviewing a B-3 and B-4 zones, there are various uses that are allow•e.l
either through permitted or conditional uses that might not be compatible
with a commercial/residential use. For example, he stated machinery sales
as a conditional use within a B-4 that might not he compatible with a
comreorcial/res ident ial use.
One possibility I mentioned to him was that the City could adopt n ucl: a
use as a conditional use with various conditions attached to it, and t1:. -y
could include such things as follows:
1. Clone to a park area, within so many feet for example.
2. Adoquato provisions worn allowed to meet the off-strret parking :cqui:�•-
aont a .
3. Ageneral statement as to being compatible with thu surrounding Frcl.,.rt•;.
Although the qeneral statement "compatible with the nurroundinq property" Could
be qulto vague, it might give the City Council some lnveragn on a opecific
request. Additionally, the criteria out forth in tho conditional uno pe mit
section requires certain conditions to be mot in general before a conditional
use pormit can ba approved.
Tho decioion was to review the matter with the Planning Commission and if they
folt that this typo of uocago, combining commercial and residential, should
he allowed in a B-3 and B-4 zone, I could qet back in touch with John 'ban
and hn would dovolop some policy guidollneo and the implementation of a
proponed ordinance.
Circ n� ��/�i,nti••e[fo
250 Ea -,t li+o...lwav
N40111ICELLO AIN 55.162
February 27, 1979
"lr. John Utnn
Iloward Dahlgren Associates
�n,e .roveland Terrace
,innvapolis, 011. 55403
1,E: Combination Residential/Commercial Buildinqs in
Commercial Zones.
Dt•ar John:
Tl,wik you for your letter of February 19, 1979, in rel-lr to ny letter
February 8, 1979, relative to the ahove subject.
In reviewing your recommendations, I understand that you would to in
favor of allowing cotlmiorcial/residential mixtures with a conditional u.,
permit in the P -B, B-1 and B-2 :ones. One concern the City of •;optic.•::
..as is that many of the preaent renidential/commercial complrx,— of t!::
nature are currently located within the downtown area, which it conal a
B-4. Additionally, the City at this point doer not have an; ar,-a- that ir.• zoned as
R-1 or B-2, arxl an a result, it would appear then that titin tyl,.• of mix- in•
•auuld only lx) allowed in an R -B zone. One concern 1 havo ii, .•'.,etl r t.. :ity
-;huuld allow thin type of use within a B-4 Zone, such an the ,lowntowti ai-a.
Additionally, I understand that Ordinance Section 10-10-1-M under t).-
1 --B eection doeu allow a combination of retail activity with another i:,.
However, then) are provisions within this soction which indicate that t'•
r„tail activity should not be the principal use, nor oliould the residen-
tial activity. According to your letter, you are indicating the amount
of retail area allowed should bo increased. Would thin increase allow
the retail activity to then became the principal use?
Our next Planning Commission meeting is March 20, 1979, and hol.efull;,
I could got your written reaponno to these questions by March 14th,
in order that I may frit this item on the A,lenda for connidoration.
Should you have any further tfuentiona relative to thio mittot l lea.:,
contact me at your convenience.
!;lnr,. r, 17,
ary MIEtnT
City Adminiutrator
:t/n5
K�*U. Cor rt Filo �•
HOWARD DAHLOREN ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING PLAN" 1-.5
CNE G4 o.cL•c��-�.c
19 FC.br;nry 1',
Mr. Gary wieber, City Administrator
City of Monticello
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
Dear Gary:
The combination of retail/commercial on the first floor
of a building with residential units above is an older
style of urban housing. European cities have had this
combination for centuries and, of course, was copied here
in America. It allowed people to live close to a place
of work and to an area of shopping. It encouraged
pedestrian circulation and produced a city of human
scale.
r As automobiles were introduced into our cultures, the
cities began to sprawl out. Land uses could be separatod
because of the quickness and case of travel by automo!•ile.
This resulted quite naturally, in large separated
residential communities far from work and shopping.
Cities and towns were changed to accommodate the car, not
so much the pedestrian.
Today, many pressures exist that will curtail the amount
of automobile travel. Once again patterns of use that
encourage more economical forms of transportation will
come into stronger play in the process of planning and
developing our communities. Bringing mixed uses
together in single buildings is really a very good idea
providing it is well thought out.
Reston, Virginia is a good example of a new community
built with the main shopping plaza having two stories of
residential units above it. Also, to the extreme is
Water Tower Place in Chicago which is a verticle
community. The first 12 stories are a ahoppina center;
the next 16 are restaurant and hotel; topped off with
ton ntorien of apartment condominiums.
•
Mr. Gary Wieber, City Administrator
19 February 1979 Page Two
We feel that building residential units above certain
commercial uses is very realistic today and this
combination will play an important part in our changing_
communities.
As Monticello's zoning ordinances are presently constructed,
some clarification would be needed to accommodate the
mixed use of commercial on the first floor and residential
on the upper floors.
R -B Residential -Business District
By Conditional Use Permit Only.
10-10-4 (F) The amount of retail allowed would
have to increase and would allow
residential buildings as a planned
development.
(G) Residential and non-residential
uses on separate floors could exist
in a single building without any
conflicts.
B-1 Neighborhood Business District
Should allow the same under Conditional Uses with
an emphasis on eliminating any conflicts the two
uses may have.
B-2 Limited Business District
10-12-4 (A) "No conflicts between uses" in
stressed as a guide to granting the
Conditional Use Permit. This xoninn
provides the most typical array of
expected and allowable first floor
uses. Ilene also an area ratio could
be installed (for example:
Residential - 2X Retail Area).
The main )points to consider when annensino tho rrerit
anymixer! use Proposal would be:
Mr. Gary Wieber, City Administrator
19 February 1979 Fane Three
1. Parking for both uses should be separate.
2. All refuse should be enclosed inside the building
accessible by an overhead door.
3. Access to both uses should be separate and in
character with each use.
4. Compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood
is important.
5. Odors and noise that would be detrimental to the
environment for the residences (restaurant exhaust,
cleaners, garages, late night use, etc.).
6. Proper interface of vehicular and pedestrian
traffic.
7. Open space and landscaping for a pleasing and
livable environment.
1
8. Lighting for security and signs should be shielded
,
from the residences' windows.
t
Our recommendation would be to allow a commercial/resi-
?r dential mix with a Conditional Use Permit in the R -D,
1? B-1, and D-2 Zones but with a review process that would
I�irv1;u look for good design and neighborhood compatibility.
11 Should you have any further questions, please feel free
to contact me.
Sincerely,
IInWARD DAIIIGRBN (ASSOCIATES, INC.
C. .john I I. m