Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11-05-1991AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - lfORTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, November 5, 1991 - 7:O0 p.m. Members: Dan McConnon, Cindy Lemm, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Richard Martie 7:00 pm 1. Call to order. 7:02 pm 2. Approval of minutes of the special meeting held September 19, 1991, and the regular meeting held October 1, 1991. 7:05 pm 3. Public Hear ing- -Cons iderat ion of a zoning ordinance amendment modifying the B-1 (neighborhood commercial) zoning district regulations by eliminating convenience store and laundromat useo es a permitted use and instead allowing said uses as conditional uses in the B-1 zone. 7:25 pm 4. Public Hea ring --Consideration of a request to rezone the easterly 9.7 acres of Auditors Subdivision, Lot 17, from B-3 (highway business) to acombination of PZN (performance zone mixed) and B-2 (limited business). Applicant, Evangelical Y Covenant Church. 7:45 pm S. Public Hearing --Consideration of recommending approval of preliminary plat of the East View residential subdivision. Applicant, Dean Hoglund and Ken Schwartz. 8:05 pm 6. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request to rezone a 7 -acre parcel described as part of Lot 2, Section 18, Township 121, Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota, from AO (agricultural) zoning to R-1 (single family) and R-2 (single and two-family) zoning. Applicants, Dean Hoglund and Ken Schwartz. Additional Information Items 8:25 pm 1. Consideration of a request to rezone Lot 1, Block 4, River Terrace, also known as West Side Market, from R-1 (single family residential) zoning designation to B-1 (neighborhood business). Applicants, Tom Holthaus and Matt Holker. Council actions Council requested that a public hearing be held to eliminate convenience stores and laundromats as allowable uses in a B-1 zone and make them conditional uses only in a B-1 zone. Planning Commission Agenda November 5, 1991 Page 2 8:27 pm 2. Consideration of a request to rezone a 9 -acre portion of Auditor's Subdivision, Lot 17, from B-3 (highway business) zoning designation to PZM (performance zone mixed), which would allow development of a church. Applicant, Evangelical Covenant Church/Jim Haglund. Council action: No action required, as the request did not come before them. 8:29 pm 3. Consideration of a request to amend Section 3-2 B 5 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance by replacing the phrase "in the R-1 (single family residential) and R-2 (single and two-family) districts" with the phrase "in all residential zoning districts." Council action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation. 8:31 pm 4. Consideration of a preliminary plat of a 7 -acre parcel described as part of Lot 2, Section 18, Township 121, Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota. Applicants, Dean Hoglund and Ken Schwartz. Council action: No action required, as the request did not come before them. 8:33 pm 5. Consideration of a request to rezone a 7 -acre parcel described as part of Lot 2, Section 18, Township 121, Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota, from AO (agricultural) zoning to R-1 (single family residential) and R-2 (single and two-family residential) zoning. Applicants, Dean Hoglund and Ken Schwartz. Council action: No action required, as the request did not come before them. 8:35 pm 6. Consideration of calling a public hearing regarding amendments to the zoning ordinance map and establishment of a B -C (business campus) district. Council action: No action required, as the request did not come before them. 8:37 pm 7. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, December 3, 1991, 7:00 p.m. 8:39 pm 8. Adjournment. MINUTES l REGULAR MEETING - lBONTICE= PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 1, 1991 - 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Dan McConnon, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, and Cindy I.emm Members Absent: Richard Carlson Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Dan McConnon at 7:01 p.m. A motion was made by Cindy Lemur and seconded by Richard Martie to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held September 3, 1991. Notion carried unanimously with Richard Carlson absent and Jon Bogart abstaining. 3. Public Heari nq- -Consideration of a reauest to rezone Lot 1 Block 4, River Terrace, also known as est Side Market, from W R-1 (single familvl zonina designation to B-1 (neighborhood business). Applicants, Tom Holthaus and Hatt Holker. Chairperson Ilan McConnon opened the public hearing. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the rezoning request made by Tom Holthaus and Matt Holker. O' Neill gave background information on how the property was developed from the original Charlie's Wayside Inn to the current Nest Side Market, and he reviewed the criteria that would be used for analyzing the rezoning request. In reviewing a zoning ordinance amendment, the following items are considered: 1. relationship to the municipal comprehensive plan= 2. the geographic area and the character of the surrounding area; 3. demonstrated need for such use. Members of the public were concerned with the explanation of how Charlie's Wayside Inn was changed to the existing use, West Side Market. Rezoning the property to B-1 would more than likely precipitate an enlargement of this facility. The neighborhood would like to see the current zoning remain intact with no expansion of the existing facility. Page 1 9 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/1/91 Residents were also concerned about the fact that this property seems to be brought back year after year for review of another rezoning request or another proposal for further development. O'Neill noted that the applicant has the right to request rezonings once per year. Tom Holthaus was questioned as to the intent of the rezoning request. Why did he wish to have the property rezoned? Holthaus answered that the intent was to operate the facility as a convenience store; but the most recent urgency is that it is time to order Christmas trees for sale in the same manner as other convenience stores in Monticello, and this practice is not allowed in the current R-1 zoning. Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and asked for input from the Planning Commission members. The concern addressed by the Planning Commission members was that rezoning this property from R-1 to B-1 would constitute spot zoning, and they were against that type of rezoning. A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Cindy Lemm to deny the rezoning request to rezone Lot 1, Block 4, River Terrace Addition, from R-1 (single family) zoning to B-1 (neighborhood business) zoning. Reason for denial: it was the finding of the Planning Commission that the proposed zoning would be inconsistent with the current city zoning map, and there did not appear to be a mistake made when the original zoning district designation was established. Furthermore, the proposed rezoning would constitute spot zoning. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Public Hearinq--Cons ideratLon of a request to rezone a 9 -acre goortion of Auditor's Subdivision, Lot 17, from B-3 (hiahwav usinesel.zonin9 desiggnation to P2M (performance zone mixed), which would allow devefopment of a church. Applicant, Evangelical Covenant Church, Jim Haqlund. Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the public hearing. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the request of the Monticello Evangelical Covenant Church to rezone a portion of unplatted land from B-3 (highway business) to PSN (performance zone mixed) zoning. O'Neill outlined the location of the rezoning request and how it would relate to the proposed zoning. He also reviewed how the site would relate to the requirements associated with a zoning ordinance amendment. Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/1/91 The criteria used in analyzing a zoning ordinance amendment are 1) relationship to the municipal comprehensive plan; 2) the geographical area and character of the surrounding area; and 3) the demonstrated need for such use. Following are some concerns that were addressed by the public. 1) Economic considerations --this is a buildable lot with utilities readily available. If the church looked at a site without utilities available, there would be additional cost for the development of the site plus the cost for the City to extend services; 2) Location --the church's proximity to the existing core of the city and traffic patterns are very important, as this lot is fronted on two major streets, County Road 118 and Chelsea Road, and it is near a school, which is a very positive image for the church. It is also nearer to existing zoning which would allow commercial/neighborhood business construction near the site. 3) Service to the community --prior to the establishment of regular church services, which are currently conducted in the Monticello Elementary School, the church began providing services for residents of our community. Along with regular church worship services, they are considering providing other services from their own facility such as a) a program called "An evening without kids;" b) preschool programs; c) daycare facilities; d) allowing various children's clubs or youth activities to conduct their meetings in their facility= and e) conducting senior citizen services . 4) Aesthetics --the church members feel that because this site Is located next to I-94 and is on higher ground with a lot of visibility, it would be an excellent location for a church in this community. Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and asked for further input from the Planning Commission members. Concerns addressed by the Planning Commission members were as follows. Commission members understood the need for churches to grow within thie community and that they sometimes start off in rented facilities and eventually grow enough to build churches of their own. Because the location that was chosen Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/1/91 currently exists as B-3 (highway business) zoning, the Commission members felt it would be in the best interest of the City to preserve this land for the existing zoning rather than rezone it to allow a church facility at this site. There are other locations where a church facility could be constructed near the Monticello Middle School and at other locations within the city. Unfortunately, there are no other locations as well suited for commercial uses which would be displaced by the proposed rezoning. A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie to deny the rezoning request to rezone a 9 -acre portion of Auditor's Subdivision, Lot 17, from B-3 (highway business) zoning to PZM (performance zone mixed) zoning. Reason for denial: Motion is based on the finding that the Planning Commission members believe the commercial zone is the beat use for this particular site in its location rather than rezoning the site to allow construction of a church facility. Motion carried unanimously. S. Public Heerino--Consideration of a re guest to amend Section 3-2 B S of the Monticello Zonino Ordinance by replacing the phrase "in the R-1 (single family residential( and R-2 (single and two-familv residential) districts" with the phrase "in all residential zoning districts." Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the public hearing. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed City staff's intent to further update the ordinance amendment that was previously adopted by replacing the phrase "in the R-1 (single family residential) and R-2 (single and two-family residential) districts" with the phrase "in all residential zoning districts." There being no input from the public, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission members felt that further clarifying the intent of this ordinance amendment would be in the best interest of the City. A motion was made by Cindy Lamm and seconded by Richard Martie to approve the request to amend Section 3-2 B S of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance by replacing the phrase "in the R-1 (single family residential) and R-2 (single and two-family residential) districts" with the phrase "in all residential zoning districts." Reason for approvals The original amendment as approved in July 1991 requiring development of Page 4 �� 1 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/1/91 two car garages was intended to apply to all residential zoning districts; therefore, the ordinance should be amended as proposed. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Public Hearinq--Consideration of a preliminary plat of a 7 - acre parcel described as part of Lot 2 of Section 18, Township 121, Range 24, Wright Countv, Minnesota. ADolicants. Dean Hoglund and Ken Schwarz. AND 7. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request to rezone a 7 -acre parcel described as part of Lot 2 of Section 18, Township 121, Range 24, Wriqht Countv., Minnesota,, from AO (aQriculturalj zoning to R-1 (single family) and R-2 (einQle and two-family) zonino. ADolicants. Dean Hoolund and Ren Schwarz. Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the public hearing. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the requests for the preliminary plat and the rezoning by Dean Hoglund and Ren Schwarz. He highlighted that the information was received late Friday afternoon and was reviewed by City staff on Monday, noting several Items that need to be completed in regard to the plat design. O'Neill noted in a memo presented to the Planning Commission members the items that need to be completed prior to being presented to the City Council at their next regular meeting on October 15, 1991. O'Neill indicated that the developers' intent was to have all of the Items as noted on the memo completed by the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Clint Herbst questioned the square footage of the East View Iota In relationship to the lot size and square footage of the Sandberg East lots. They also asked what the proposed R-2 zoning would consist of and the maximum amount of development that could occur on Outlot A, which would be zoned R-2. Because the land outlined on the plat as Outlot B for park dedication Is a small, lees de elreable piece for development of park land, the City should consider accopting cash in lieu of land for park dedication. The developers responded with their intent is to meet all of the Items addressed In O'Neill's memo by the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Their intent is to have restrictive covenants regulating development on these late, possibly including a minimum square footage requirement for the houses. The developers lndicatod their intent was to Page 5 C Planning Commission Minutes - 10/1/91 develop family residential on the R-1 portion of the property but have no plans at this time for the development on Outlot A with the R-2 zoning designation. The developers indicated that they live, work, and sell real estate in this community, and they are quite concerned with the development of the proposed East View addition to be representative of a good project within the community. They also indicated that Lot 2 is actually larger than what the plat shows, as there is a 50 - foot road easement for Gillard Avenue on this lot, which would further increase the visual effect of the present land area to be used. Chairperson Dan McConnon then closed the public hearing and asked for input from the Planning Commission members. Due to the amount of items still to be completed and the fact that the Park Board has not yet considered the park land dedication of this new subdivision, Planning Commission members felt it would be best to table this item until their next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting or to set up a special meeting to consider this item prior to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting on October 15, 1991. A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to table the preliminary plat and rezoning request of a 7 -acre parcel described as Part of Lot 2 of Section 18, Township 121, Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota, to a meeting date set by the City staff prior to the October 15, 1991, City Council meeting date. Motion carried unanimously with Richard Carlson absent. Consideration of calling a public hearinq regardina amendments to the zoning ordinance map and establishment of a "BC" (business campus) district. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the development of a "BC" (business campus) district, the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance map, and calling for a public hearing. O'Neill explained that the proposed changes to the zoning map would change the existing B-2 zoning in the Thomas Park Addition to I-1 (light industrial) zoning, which is consistent with the property just south of this addition. The area is bounded by County Road 117 to the southerly boundary line of the John Lundsten property and where the northerly line of the Kent Kjellberg property west to Cedar Street and also the proposed southerly extension of Cedar Street to be rezoned from B-3 (highway business) and I-2 (heavy industrial) to B-4 (regional business). Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/1/91 The new area to be created by the new zoning designation as a business campus district is to be encompassed by the westerly line of the Remmele property and the westerly line of the Tapper project along the southerly line of the Tapper project, thence westerly along the vacant lot directly south of Clow Stamping and the westerly line of the M 6 P Transport property, thence easterly along the northerly property line of the school district to a point on the southeast and the northeast corner of the school property near Chelsea Road, northeasterly to the freeway bounded by the northerly line of the freeway to be encompassed by the business campus district. This is being rezoned from 1-2 ( heavy industrial) , I-1 ( light industrial), B-3 (highway business), and B-2 (limited business) districts to the "BC" (business campus) zoning. Planning Commission members felt that the southwesterly line along the west line of M 6 P Transport and along the westerly line of the vacant lot south of the Clow Stamping project should be moved to run parallel with Fallon Avenue. Also, the zoning designation of R-1 for the triangular piece of land the school district owns in the northeast portion of their land should be left as a B-2 (limited business) zone until such time the school intends to develop It. Other concerns of the Planning Commission members included some of the permitted uses within the new business campus district. Some of them should be eliminated such as electrical power plants under Section "Y" and bus terminals and maintenance garage under Section "F." They also felt that the consulting planner should look at these permitted uses and possibly narrow them down to some type industries that would fit into the proposed new zoning. The consensus of the Planning Commission members was to set a date for a public hearing for a light Planning Commission agenda, if possible, in either November or December. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS 1. A conditional use request to allow development of a hospital parking lot in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone. Applicant, Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital District. Council actions No action required, as the request did not come before them. 2. Review update to concept plane/Chelsea corridor planning study. Council actions No action required, as the request did not come before them. Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes - 10/1/91 3. Review proposal to develop a gas dispenser refurbishing facility. Applicant, G 6 G Oil. Council action: No action required, as the request did not come before them. 4. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members to set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, November S, 1991, 7:00 p.m. S. A motion was made by Cindy Lemm and seconded by Richard Martie to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously with Richard Carlson absent. The meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator A Page 8 Planning Commission Agenda - 11/5/91 3. Public Hearin --Consideration of a sonina ordinance amendment modlfvina the B-1 (nelphborhood commercial) zoning district reanlations by eliminatina convenience store and laundromat uses as a yermitted use and instead allowina said uses as conditional uses in the B-1 sone. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACEGROUND: As you recall, the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the West Side Market owner's request to rezone the West Side Market site from R-1 to B-1 zoning district des ignation. The denial recommendation was based on the finding that the rezoning would constitute spot zoning. The City Council reviewed the matter and developed an interesting alternative which essentially represents a compromise between the owner's desire to more freely use his land for commercial use and the desire of the local residents to limit the site of the operation. The idea which is the basis of the ordinance amendment consists of amending the zoning ordinance by allowing convenience stores and laundromats to operate as a conditional use in the B-1 zone. Conditions would be established that limit these commercial operations. The amendment also provides the City with leverage in helping obtain concessions from the owner that could improve the site configuration. For instance, if the Council had merely rezoned the site to B-1, the owner would have been able to develop the site in a manner consistent with the minimum requirements of the ordinance, and the City would, therefore, have been unable to require that any additional conditions be met that might improve traffic safety or limit Impact on the neighborhood. If convenience stores are allowed as a conditional use, the City can require that the driveway access pointe be changed to improve traffic flow and traffic safety. Please review the zoning ordinance for a description of the conditions under which convenience stores and laundromate must operate. Following is a quick review of the proposed zoning amendment In terms of the criteria that Planning Commission should be reviewing as part of the decision-making process. Compatibility with Comprehensive Plan The proposed zoning amendment and zoning map change appears to be consistent with policies noted in the comprehensive plan. Please review the previous agenda for more detail. GeoaraDhy and Character of the Area The proposal to include convonlence stores and laundromets as conditional uses In the B-1 (neighborhood commercial) zone Planning Commission Agenda - 11/5/91 appears to be consistent with the purpose of this zone, which is to provide for commercial use in a neighborhood. It makes sense to control commercial uses in neighborhoods through the conditional use permit process as proposed versus the existing ordinance, which maybe provides too much freedom to commercial development in neighborhoods. In sum, the conditional use permit requirement for convenience stores and laundromats serves to further protect the character of residential areas adjoining B-1 commercial areas. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONSt 1. Notion to recommend approval of the request to include convenience store and laundromat uses as conditional uses in the B-1 zone and adopt conditions as noted. Under this alternative, Planning Commission is satisfied the conditional use permit process for convenience stores and laundromats in the B-1 zone can serve to protect the character of adjoining residential areas and, therefore, the ordinance amendment should be adopted. Under this alternative, West Side Market would continue to operate as a non -conforming use until such time that a formal request for a conditional use permit is made. Such a request must be made at such time that any enlargement of the site is proposed. Z. Motion to recommend denial of the proposed ordinance amendment. Planning Commission could take the position that convenience stores should be allowed to develop as permitted uses in the B-1 zone. A conditional use permit for such uses should not be required if the 8-1 zoning districts are properly located relative to residential areas. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative •1. The amendment makes sense in that the B-1 zoning district as a neighborhood commercial zone is inherently prone to result in conflicts between business and residential uses. The conditional use permit requirement for convenience store and laundromat uses as proposed serves to provide the City with the ability to manage and control business and residential conflicts. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of proposed ordinance amendment. Pgoposed- Laqua ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS THAT CHAPTER 11, SECTIONS 11-2 AND 11-4, OF TIS MIONTICELL0 ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF CONVENIENCE GROCERY STORES AND LAUNDROMATS AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE B-1 DISTRICT BE AMENDED TO READ AS POLLOYS: 11-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a B-1 district: [A] Barber shops [B] Beauty parlors [C] Essential services I1-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a 8-1 district: ( Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance.) [D] Convenience grocery stores provided that: 1. The site is adequately served by a collector street. 2. Access point to the site shall be limited to a collector street. 3. Curb cute or access pointe shall be at least one hundred (100) feet from the intersection of two (2) streets. 4. Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained and required Setbacks are met. S. Adequate screening and landscaping from neighborhood residential districts is provided in accordance with Chapter 3, Section 2, of this ordinance. S. Traffic generated by the proposed use does not exceed the capacity of surrounding streets and Intersections to accommodate it. 7. The site shall conform to parking requiresents as provided in Chapter 3, Section S, of this ordinance. 8. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 9. Building setback from residential uses must be 30 feet or greater. 10. Parking lot setback from residential uses must be 15 feet or greater. A 3 M Ordinance Amendment No. Page 2 slert has ,411. The combined total or individual gross floor a Rr6" ft, area of convenience store and/or laundromat establishments shall not exceed 3,000 aq ft in f�63 any single B-1 district. (E) Laundromat, self-service washing and drying provided that: 1. The site is adequately served by a collector street. 2. Access point to the site shall be limited to a collector street. 3. Curb cute or access pointe shall be at least one hundred (100) feet from the intersection of two (2) streets. 4. Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained and required setbacks are met. 5. Adequate screening and landscaping from neighborhood residential districts is provided In accordance with Chapter 3, Section 2, of this ordinance. 6. Traffic generated by the proposed use does not exceed the capacity of surrounding streets and intersections to accommodate it. 7. The site shall conform to parking requirements as provided in Chapter 3, Section 5, of this ordinance. B. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 9. Building setback from residential uses must be 30 feet or greater. 10. Parking lot setback from residential uses must be 15 feet or greater. 11. The combined total or individual groes floor area of convenience store and/or laundromat establishments shall not exceed 3,000 eq ft in any single B-1 district. Adopted this 12th day of November, 1991. Mayor City Administrator O 3 CItekENT LAM6UA GE CHAPTER 11 "B-1" NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT SECTION: 11-1: Purpose 11-2: Permitted Use, 11-3: Permitted Accesory Uses 11-4: Conditional Uses 11-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the B-1, neighborhood ]business, district is to provide for the establishment of local centers for convenient, limited office, retail, or service outlets which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or services are furnished. These centers are to provide services and goods only for the surrounding neighborhoods and are not intended to draw customers from the entire community. 11-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in a B-1 district: (A) Barber shops (B] Beauty parlors (C] Essential services Tto (D) Convenience grocery stores (not supermarket type) (E] Laundromat, self-service washing and drying 11-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in a B-1 district: (A) Commercial or business buildings and structures for a use accessory to the principal use, but such use shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of the gross floor space of the principal use. (B] Off-street parking as regulated by Chapter 3, Section 4, of this ordinance but not including semi-trallor trucks. (C) Off-street loading as regulated by Chapter 3, Section 6, of this ordinance. 11-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in a B-1 district: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth In and regulated by Chapter 22 of this ordinance.) (A) Governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety, and general welfare of the community provided that: MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 11/ 1. Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained and required setbacks and side yard requirements are met. 2. Equipment is completely enclosed In a permanent structure with no outside storage. 3. Adequate screening and landscaping from neighboring residential districts is provided in accordance with Chapter 3, Section 2, of this ordinance. 4. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. [B) Professional and commercial (leased) offices provided thats 1. The services which are provided are for the local area rather than the community or region. 2. The traffic generated will not raise traffic volumes beyond the capacity of the surrounding area. 3. The architectural appearance of the building housing the office use shall reflect the building character of the area and shall not be so dissimilar as to cause impairment of property values or constitute a blighting influence within the neighborhood. 4. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. [C) Commercial planned unit development as regulated by Chapter 20 of this ordinance. MONTICBLLO ZONING ORDINANCE Planning Commission Agenda - 1115/91 Public Rearing --Consideration of a request to rezone the easterly 9.7 acres of Auditors Subdivision. Lot 17, from 9—I (hiahway business) to a combination of PSN (performance zone mixed) and 9-2 (limited business). AI»licant, Evangelical Covenant Church. (J.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you recall, the Evangelical Covenant Church, hereinafter referred to as the church, requested that the City rezone a Parcel of land approximately 9.7 acres in size located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of County Road 118 and Chelsea Road. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter and made the recommendation that the rezoning request be denied. The denial was based on the finding that although the proposed site would be an excellent location for a church, the need for the rezoning was not demonstrated, as there are other areas nearby where a church could be developed In accordance with the present zoning map. In addition, the commercial uses displaced by the church use could not be relocated without encroaching on residential areas. This item never went before the City Council. In response to the Planning Commission's decision, the church withdrew the original request and has submitted a now, modified rezoning request. The new proposal calls for development of the church on a 5 -acre parcel to be located approximately 450 feet east of the original site. Under this scenario, a parcel of land approximately 4.7 acres in size would remain zoned for commercial use at the corner of County Road 118 and Chelsea Road. The 5 -acre parcel to the west would be zoned PEN and developed for church use. The land west of the church site would then be rezoned from commercial use to business campus use. The business campus rezoning would occur in the future as part of the mase rezoning done in conjunction with the Chelsea corridor planning study. Please see the attached proposed zoning map for more detalle regarding the proposed zoning configuration. Impact of Proposal Reduction in size of commercial service area. The church proposal calls for splitting a 16.7 -ecce commercial area into a 4.7 -acre area for commercial use, 5 acres for church use, and the remaining 6.7 acres converted to business campus uses. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/5/91 The City Planner has indicated that the original area designated for commercial use (16.7 acres) is proper given the size of the residential and industrial areas that will be served by this commercial district. The proposal calls for extending the business campus zoning district to the 6.7 -acre parcel west of the church. It is proposed that this be rezoned to business campus use because the ability to develop it for commercial use will be limited due to the position of the church. It just does not make sense to have a commercial area split by the church. In summary, although this proposal maintains a 4.7 -acre parcel at the prime commercial location, the total commercial area is reduced by more than two-thirds. According to the planner, this reduction is not proper given the potential need for commercial property in the area. 2. Church site zoned PEN. The proposal to rezone the church site to PEN prior to the actual church development opens the door slightly for unwanted development of residential uses. This is because under the PEN zoning district designation, multi- family residential development is allowed as a conditional use. This potentiality can be eliminated when the concept plan for the area is adopted by making sure that the concept plan notes a church or "institutional" use at this PEN site. This would provide the authority that the City would need to deny residential development at the site. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONSi 1. Notion to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed zoning map amendment based on the finding that the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and compatible with the adjoining land uses. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission is satisfied that the 4.7 -acre parcel of land on the corner is sufficient to serve the long-term need for commercial land in the area or there are other areas available to satisfy commercial land demand, most notably, the PEN district in the area of the intersection of CSAH 75 and 117; therefore, the commercial area displaced by the church and industrial land use is not determined to be a Planning Commission Agenda - 11/5/91 problem. In addition, the Planning Commission could view the church use as being compatible with adjoining school, commercial, and industrial uses. According to the planner, there will be a demand for commercial land in the area that will not be satisfied with the remaining 4.67 acres of commercial land. The area designated for business campus use would not be formally rezoned to this district designation when the mass rezoning occurs in December. If the rezoning to business campus is denied in December, then the land to the west of the church would remain under the existing B-3 zoning designation. 2. Notion to recommend denial of proposed rezoning request based on the finding that need for the rezoning has not been sufficiently demonstrated, as other land is available for this type of use. Furthermore, the rezoning will result in displacement of commercial uses from the only area in which commercial uses can occur. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission takes a position similar to the position taken at the previous meeting. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONt Staff recommends that Planning Commission select alternative •2 for the reasons noted in the discussion above. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Nap showing proposed rezoning Application materials. \ Consideration of a request to rezone the easterly 9.7 acres of Auditors Subdivision, Lot 17, from B-3 (highway business) zoning district to a combination of PZM (performance zone mixed) and B -Z (limited business) zoning districts. Specifically, \ �\ the 9.7 -acre rezone area to be rezoned as follows: The easterly - 4.7 acres of the 9.7 -acre rezone area to be rezoned to the B -Z zoning district, and the remaining westerly 5 -acre portion of the 9.7 -acre rezone area to be rezoned to the PZM district. The proposed rezoning would allow development of a church facility in the PZM zone. APPLICANT: Evangelical Covenant Church s, Ir •. PZM 8 ] y�o R rFR s ��J!! Z0V%IIVAI0� •' Tq r b Gt�Kar��, FuaEuR<, �► • B- C. Ak A.we�e t 1 N � i Y: soYAceas t rr�� Y7e Race i R A t / w PZM a -C pta p ti4� 8' POD za„e rR - ! h�iuQe AMAQ) 7nn;s CeuR-k s Ae • 3 m; Ple Sa1,e� l At SS C�Mp�-s R -t 5CIA661 Uses PU D 9 PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION l r City of Monticello TYPE OF HEARING: (J CONDITIONAL USE - fee $125.00 + expenses (IJ REZONING - fee $250.00 + all necessary consulting expenses(Resubmissic [J VARIANCE - fee $50.00 for setbacks or $125.00 for others + expenses [J OTHER - fee $ Applicant(s): The Northwest Conference of the Evangelical Covenant Church Applicant(s) Address: 4721 East 31st Street.Mols.MN 55406 Applicarnt(s) Phone(s): Home: Haglund 682 6469 Office: 721 4893 Address of Property: I 94, Chelsea Rd and Co.Rd.118 Monticello Legal Description of Property: Lot: Block: Subdivision: Other: See attachment East 9.7 Acres of Parcel A. Bovie orooerty (J See Attached Currently Zoned: a 3 Histhwav Busingps Proposed Zoning: East 4.7 Acres to B-2 Names of Property Owners within 350 feet: [ ] See Atta5.0 Acres to PZM INT thurch use. Monticello Public School FArm Credit of St. Peal ( Others Unknown a Please explain the reason for the public hearing request: to disc.,sa the poeaibility of chaneina the 4.7 Aerea(annrox.S15 ft.en Co _Rd 118 enA hn0 nn C helaeal to B-2 Nei¢hbe rh eed commerical anA 9 of —iln,p�f ���.rty to Pitd Size of Plat to be Subdivided: 9.7 to build church acres Name of Firm Preparing Subdivision Plat: ngnAing 4.4.. 7Ya1 Date: Csctoher 17.1991 Signed: •g����r�a������aaa�ar�e�a�aa��a��e�t�aa�� •i1LWi�JitS4WKiiai►t�nt (For city use only) Date Application Received: Receipt Number: Date of Public Hearing at Planning Commission: Time: Decision of Planning Commission: ( J See Attached If a variance, was there an appeal? (I Yes (I No; If so, attached a copy of the appeal. Date of Council Consideration: Time: Decision of Councils (j See Attached Comments: (j See Attached Data of Publication: (attach copy of public hearing notice ) Date of Mailing: (attached copy of affidavit of mai:in — L t!Uv FOR CHURCH USE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD i COMMERCIAL USE PZM u' e-2 /MICE\ r y A. r 4 O 100 000 1000 IL1L[ M IIII --'BOYL DEVELOPMENT YOM II t\l0, wMM1101A t1 1 If�11W�/ 111/ I.BASIS FOR REQUESTING ACTION TO REZONE SITE FOR CHURCH USE(S.OAcres) ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS: For the church - From our experience, we find that we often do the local church a disfavor by finding land for church use where the costs for a "buildable" site are unknown. This is the only site that meets our acreage needs where these costs are known. For the city - If we are forced to purchase a site where all the needed city improvements are not available, we will, within a few years, ask the city to extend these improvements. This will force the city to extend these services and expend the related costs prematurely. LOCATION: We selected this location for several reasons: I. Close proximity to the city proper - A church needs to be close to the "established city" to identify with the entire city. Any church who begins it'a ministry located in the outskirts of the city or in a neighboring rural area, will find identity with the "established city" to be very difficult. 2. Traffic patterns — We like to be near the freeway, the north - south County Road 118 and especially Chelsea Road which will provide a very positive traffic flow from Highway 25. 3. The Middle School - We find that being near to a public school provides a very positive image for a church. 4. Beinit near to commercial or neighborhood business — Being near to business establishments, especially office or service facilities, is a positive consideration for our church. SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY: We feel that the Monticello Covenant Church is a growing church because of it's positive relationship to the community. We cannot state for sure, but possible services from this site might be: - EWOK - This stands for Evening With Out Rids - Preschool programa - Daycare facilities - Various children's clubs and youth activities - Senior citizen services These activities could beet be done from this site. AESTHETIC S: As we see churches formed, sites selected and first facilities built, we see that the churches image, personality and facility presentation clten has an afact, either positively or negatively, upon the community. This is best expressed in servicaability,location and viaability of the facility. Our view is that this sites serviceability and location are excellent and it's use for building a church is compatible with it's neighbors. Beyond that however, we are most impressed with the potential for excellent viaability for those who travel Interstate 94 from the east and for those who will, in the future, live in the valley to the south. In Matthew, there is a Bible verse that says,"a city set on a hill cannot be bid". The same applies to a church. It. BASIS FOR REQUESTING ACTION TO REZONE SITE FOR NRiGHBORH00D COMM.(4.7ACRE. We ate willing to have the church on the 5.0 acres described above and we are requesting that this corner piece be rezoned to 8-2 Nsighborhool Commercial. We would hold the property until a buyer could be found tov utilise the property for B-2 purposes. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/5/91 5. Public Hearing --Consideration of recommending a4proval of preliminary plat of the East View residential subdivision. ap9licant. Dean Hoalund and Ren Schwartz. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you recall, at the October meeting of the Planning Commission the East View preliminary plat was reviewed by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission tabled consideration of approval pending correction of various plat design details and pending input from the Parks Commission regarding park dedication. Most of the plat design details have now been corrected, and the Parks Commission has reviewed the matter. Following is a review of the plat and various issues. Parcel Con fiquration/Restrictive Covenants The plat shows development of four single family residential lots and an outlot that will likely become the site of a town - home development. The lots created meet requirements noted by ordinance. A set of restrictive covenants has been prepared since the previous meeting. Some of the restrictions exceed requirements noted by City ordinance. For instance, the building size requirement noted in the restrictive covenants (1,060) is slightly larger than the City minimum. In addition, building and construction plana must be approved by "Investors Together Inc." Please review the attached copy of the covenants for more detail. Gradina Plan Typically, when a subdivision is developed, all of the lots and easement areae are graded at the same time to assure that proper drainage is achieved. In this case, however, the density of trees combined with steep grades limits the ability to grade drainage swales at the time of platting or immediately thereafter. It makes more sense, in this case, to establish an overall drainage plan for the area and then require that each lot be graded when a home is constructed on the lot. Attached you will find a copy of the "red -lined" copy of the grading plan that has been approved by the City Engineer. Site Accoss No public right-of-ways will be developed to serve the site. Lots 1 and Z will have direct private driveway access to Gillard Avenue. Lots 3 and 4 will have an access easement Planning Commission Agenda - 11/5/91 allowing a common driveway access to County Road 39. When the common driveway is developed along the boundary between Lots 3 and 4, the existing driveway serving the original home site at Lot 4 will be removed. The proposal calls for multi—family residential development at Outlot A that will be served by a single access point and an internal private driveway system. The location of the access will be determined at a later date. Wright County Highway Department has approved the access plan for the five parcels created. Park Development As you recall, the Planning Commission was concerned about accepting the 2.8 -acre parcel of land between County Road 39 and the Mississippi as park dedication area. Some of the problems noted are as follows: The location of the park requires that neighborhood users cross a busy county road. Development of off-street parking will be difficult due to low/flood plain elevation. The neighborhood park needs may require development of a "standard" park featuring playground equipment, ball fields, etc. It will be impossible to develop thia type of park at the site proposed. In light of the problems above, the Planning Commission referred the matter to the Parks Commission for further study. The Parks Commission reviewed the matter on October 8, 1991. It was the consensus of the Parks Commission that the unique natural characteristic that the site possesses should be preserved, and there is good reason to support placing the land under the public domain. On the other hand, the Parks Commission noted that due to problems noted above, it did not make sense to accept the land for city park purposes . Rather, the land should be under the control of the Department of Natural Resources. After the discussion, the Parke Commission unanimously passed the following motion "Notion to recognize that the subject property serves a valuable purpose to the community and state of Minnesota as a scenic river and fishing site; therefore, the City should accept the site as park dedication associated with the East View plat. Due to the river location and city park development limitations, the property should be Planning Commission Agenda - 11/5/91 under the domain and control of the Department of Natural Resources. It should be the goal of the City to sell the parcel to the DNR with funds obtained from the sale to be used to fund future development of a neighborhood city park." Subsequent to the Parks Commission meeting, I contacted the trails and waterways division of the DNR to determine what interest there might be in the DNR acquiring the subject property from the City. DNR official, Martha Rieger, visited the site and made very positive comments about the site and seemed interested in promoting acquisition of the site by the DNR. However, she was very clear in stating that the DNR has limited funds for purchase of land. She did not know how much the DNR would be willing to pay, if anything. Reiger went on to note that she would contact her supervisor and give me a more detailed response soon. I hope to have better information on the DNR's position by the meeting. I think it is safe to say that at a minimum, the DNR would accept the property for park purposes if the City offered to give it away. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Notion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of the East View residential subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. County surveyor approval of the final plat. T. Prior to City signature on the final plat, the City must be provided a 100 -foot easement area across Outlot A for storm water drainage purposes as described on the preliminary plat. 3. In conjunction with final platting, the developer must prepare and record an access easement document affecting Lots 3 and 4. 4. Restrictive covenants must be recorded at the time of final platting. 5. OPTIONS RELATING TO PARR DEVELOPMENT - CHOOSE ONE Q`y A. Accept the proposed park area without the DNRVI.NB rrJ making a formal commitment to accept the land. even if given to the DNR. %1',05� B. Department of Natural Resources must agree to accept the property at no charge and maintain It in perpitulty for park purposes. Planning Commission Agenda - 11/5/91 Under options A 6 B, the City may wish to recognize that neighborhood park needs will not be met by the river park and, therefore, City funds will be needed to develop future neighborhood park. C. Department of Natural Resources must agree to buy the park property at a sum equal to the park dedication fee associated with this subdivision (=7,000). This amount is to be placed in a fund to finance future neighborhood park development. D. Park dedication fee of $7,000 must be provided to the City in lieu of providing park dedication area. Z. Notion to recommend denial of the preliminary plat of the East View residential subdivision or motion to table the matter. Planning Commission may wish to select this alternative if the developer is unwilling to comply with any of the conditions desired by the Planning Commission under alternative it above. Planning Commission may wish to have a commitment from the DNR prior to making a formal recommendation to Council. If this is the case, then the matter should be tabled. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is staff's recommendation that the preliminary plat be recommended for approval with conditions 1-0 noted above. In terms of the park dedication, it is staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission accept alternative 58, which is essentially the recommendation made by the Parke Commission. It is Important that the property be conveyed to the DNR for park purposes and not remain under the domain of the City. Given the unique characteristics of the site, it is better in the hands of the DNR. As a city park, it is more of a liability; therefore, tho first thing to do is to make euro that the DNR will accept the land once it Is dedicated to the City. As stated earlier, it is very likely that the DNR will accept the property if given away. Under this alternative, the City will attempt to get the DNR to buy the property; but realistically, it is not likely that this will occur. This inability to obtain revenue In exchange for the land should not necessarily mean the land should not be accepted for park purposes, as the land in the control of Planning Commission Agenda - 11/5/91 the DNR will be in the public domain and available for all to enjoy. On the other hand, it should be recognized that the local park dedication resource that would have otherwise gone to support a neighborhood park is lost if the City gives the land away to the DNR; therefore, it should be recognized that the City will need to provide offsetting funds to support development of a future neighborhood park. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of preliminary plat; Grading plan; Restrictive covenants. 10 .4ppEUMINARY-�--"-':- S"Block .-MC SCALE M & x .. " l --- - - �- - - I Ulm - d �. ✓/! `:sem-�,e�s� - �yaV+",."r S1pP . r•�lM155\5 PRL_.MINARY PLAT —OF — EAST VIEW GRADING PLAN pl�Ea ,• j.. N w-+ t OUTLC w N71ra Mr/ L d � a•�• '�7 'a v ac � s A. w+l�Y+ea fvlras � W » La I A. DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS INVESTORS TOGETHER, INC. a Minnesota Corporation, fee owners, of Lots One, Two, Three and Four. East View, City of Monticello, County of Wright, State of Minnesota, do hereby declara and establish the covenants and restrictions hereinafter set forth to which each of said lots within East View, Wright County shall be subject. 1. No lot shall be used except for single family residential purposes. 2. All residences shall conform to the City of Monticello zoning and building codes in effect at the time of the construction thereof. All structures shall be completely finished on the exterior within nine months after comencement of the construction thereof. 3. No structure, planting or other material shall be placed or be permitted to remain on any lot which may damage or interfere with the installation, maintenance and operation of any utility easments created by the plat of East View. 4. No noxious or offensive activity shall becarriedon upon any lot nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. S. No inoperable vehicle or vehicles not currently licensed shall be permitted to let stand upon the streets, roadways or lots in the sub- division formore than a period of 48 hours. 6. Owners shall install blacktop or concrete driveway within one (1) year of occupancy. More shell seed or sod the front yard of their lots within one (1) year of occupancy. A ono -story dwelling shall have at least 1.040 square feet of floor space, excluding porches and garages. Split-level types of dwelling$ shall have at least 960 square feet of floor space, excluding base- ment area, porches and garages. Two-story dwellings shall have at least 960 square toot of floor space on the fire and second floors. excluding porches and garages. Each residence built thereon shell have an attached garegs having at least 420 square feet of ground area. All detached structures must match the decor of the residence. Pre- fabricated or modular type structures are prohibited. S. All building designs, construction plane and sketches of exterior appearance, for initial construction, mat have prior written approval by INVESTORS TOGETHER, INC.. its successors or assigns. u Page Two Declaration of Restrictive Covenants - East View - Wright County 9. These covenants shall run with the land and shall be binding upon all persons and parties claiming under the declarants for a period of ten (10) years from the date of the recording of this instrument. They will be automatically extended unless amended, modified, ex- tended or terminated by the owners of at least sixty percent (60i) of the lots subject to this Declaration. 10. These covenants may be enforced by the owner of any lot in the plat of East View. Enforcement may be by means of injunction or other legal or equitable remedy. The Court shall grant reasonable attorney fees and costs to the plaintiff should he or she prevail in obtaining Court ordered relief. INVESTORS TOGETHER, INC. By: Kenneth J. Schwartz, President By: Dean R. Hoglund, Secretary STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF WRIGHT The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1991. by Kenneth J. Schwartz, President; and Dean R. Hoglund, Bocretaryg of INVESTORS TOGETHER. INC., a Minnesota Corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the Corporation. Notary Public 0 SHUM mfveeott via aQtesyaece mm AQUZKEta foPt tttfeBQtatrs ?tie prommant datd this _ day CS 1991, by and e�riTrrttat nrrrd too an Partin or the rieat part. being the w wr(e) of tot 3, Esse yaw, Might tbnnty, tlihheaete. AND teueirottar ntacco to u Partin of the aecmo Acct, beteg the pgialer of Lot �, Beat viw. might ootetty, tiimasote. Parties m horepy agree as tollovat flet the Parties of the first Part herein do hoped! =Way to Parties OL the second Put. a right Of way eaaemmtt toc dcivwaY PurPWW over the Post 33 feet of the taotth 33 feet a< tot 7, Beat raw• AND That the Parties of the saWd Pert twyin do hereby comfy to Parties of the first Pert, a right of vary easement for arieovaY Purposes over the Beet 33 fed of the North 33 teat of lot e. Beet VU - I n ocnideration ear the granting of tho ararowid driveway neeaattte, the Pantie or the ricat Pelt and Patties of the 8e00td Part hareln do horsby Tto shore orpaeily in the cont and expwoo of maintenance and uygrod" of the atoraeaid arivway easamnte an may tr® time to ties be raquirad. state of einneeem so• omrAy of TO toeegoing vas sOhroeleW betoee me this 01y of 1991,and , tlotary Won tO ................... I ........ ....................................................... O Planning Commission Agenda - 11/5/91 6. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request to rezone a 7 -acre parcel described as Dart of Lot 2, Section 18, Township 121, Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota, from AO fayriculturall zoning to R-1 (single family) and R-2 (sinale and two-family) zoning. Applicants, Dean Hoqlund and Ren Schwartz. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As with consideration of the preliminary plat of the East View residential subdivision, the rezoning request was tabled pending completion of plat design details and Parks Commission input. If the Planning Commission has recommended that the preliminary plat be approved, then the rezoning request should be considered. If the preliminary plat is denied or tabled, it would make sense then to do the same with the rezoning request. The rezoning request proposes that the four parcels earmarked for single family development be zoned for R-1 purposes. This zoning district designation is very consistent with the type of land use proposed and should, therefore, be approved. The balance of the property, or Outlot A, is proposed to be developed under the R-2 (single and two-family) designation, which allows for development of townhome units with no more than four townhome units per structure. Outlot A is approximately 2.5 acres in size, which provides enough room to allow 18-22 individual housing units to be placed on the site. The total number of housing units developed will depend on the ability to fully utilize the property given the grade changes and other site restrictions. As noted earlier, access to the site will be provided by a single driveway access, and an internal driveway system will need to be developed to serve individual housing units on the site. Maintenance of this driveway system will need to be done privately and will likely be controlled through a townhome association. Development of•townhomes at this site with a relatively high density makes sense in that the townhome traffic will enter directly onto a county road and will not need to pass through lower density residential areae. Single family residential development is not possible because Wright County will not grant individual driveway access permits. A frontage road serving single family homes will work because the coat to develop the road cannot be supported. A review of the comprehensive plan shows no reason why an R-2 development should not be allowed in this area. In terms of geography and character of adjoining properties, the site will create a higher density of development than will be witnessed Planning Commission Agenda- 1115/91 nearby; however, it doesn't appear that this higher density will have a direct impact on the livability of the R-1 zones, as the R-2 development area will not create any additional traffic problems on local roads serving R-1 properties. In summary, it appears that the proposal to place an R-2 zoning district at this location is acceptable in terns of the criteria reviewed when analyzing rezoning amendments. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Notion to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning request based on the finding that the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan, is consistent with the geography and character of the adjoining land uses, and the need has been sufficiently demonstrated. 2. Notion to recommend denial of the proposed rezoning request. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission would make a finding that the proposal is in some way inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, or the proposal will result in a negative impact to the adjoining properties. This alternative may be difficult to support, as it will be difficult to provide evidence that supports the finding. C. STAFF RECONKENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the map showing proposed changes to the zoninq may. 12 REZONING REQUEST APPLICANTS: Dean Hoglund and Kan Schram Proposed R-1 Zona Proposed R-2 Zona 0 s copy ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, HEREBY ORDAINS TEAT THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP BE AMENDED AS POLIOWS s Rezoning of a 7 -acre parcel described as part of Lot 2 of Section 18, Township 121, Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota, from AO (agricultural) to R-1 (single family) and R-2 (single and two-family). parcel is located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Gillard Avenue and County Road 39. Adopted this day of , 1991. Mayor City Administrator 6