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