The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda Packet 12-03-1996AGENDA REGULAR MEMG - MONTICELLO PLANNING CONtMI BION Tuesday, December 3, 1986 - 7 p m - Members: Dick Frie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Dick Martie 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held November 6, 1996. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. 6. Public Hearing --Consideration of special home occupation permit which would allow gunsmith services in an R-1 sone. Location is Lot 9, Block 1, Klein Farms Addition. Applicant, Daniel Wormers. 6. Public Hearing --Consideration of amendments to the zoning ordinance governing radio/cell phone communication towers. D 7. Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of ordinance amendments governing fence design and location. 8. Updates. A. Review Sherburne County Planning Commission action on the Bridge View Plat/Ron Hoglund development (letter attached -,Jeff report). B. City Council moratorium placed on issuance of building permits in designated redevelopment area (see Council agenda item). C. Amendments to setbacks regulating location of storage buildings/Fruth situation (Steve report). 9. Review Monticello Community Partners/Hoisington Koegler workshop 03 (Jell' report). 10. Consideration of calling for a public hearing on rezoning of the Mum property from R-3 to R-1 or R-2 zoning district designation (Jeff report). lo- 4 11. AdUoumment. C MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, November 6, 1996 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Dick Frie, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten Staff Present: Steve Grittman, Gary Anderson, Rick Wolfsteller, 011ie Koropchak 1. Call to order. Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Chairman Frie made a note that staff members Jeff O'Neill and Wanda Kraemer were attending a seminar and would not be present this evening. COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN, TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 1, 1996, MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED. Motion passed unanimously. Chairman Frie asked about the status of the County's reaction to parking restrictions on Broadway as a follow-up to last meeting's discussion of garage sale events. Steve Grittman, City Planner, responded that no information was available for tonight's meeting. Chairman Frio requested that staff have an update available for the Commission's next meeting. Steve Grittman, City Planner, requested that the Commission consider adding one item to the agenda, the consideration of a resolution finding the modified Redevelopment Plan for the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-21 to be consistent with the development plans of the city. Chairman Frio added this as agenda item li.b. 4. ( ozena QmmentA. There were no citizens comments. Page 1 p%J Planning Commission Minutes - 1 V6196 Steve Grittman; City Planner, introduced the request of Investors Together for a conditional use permit amendment to allow the conversion of a manual, self-service car wash stall to an automated stall. Grittman noted that the proposal consists of a small addition to the rear portion of the existing facility which would lengthen the stall in question. There are no conflicts with zoning performance standards, and the land use will remain the same. The primary issue would be one of intensification of the current use, and whether the Planning Commission believed this to be of concern for the site. Grittman reported that the staff' information presented two alternative actions for Planning Commission consideration. Approval, if granted, should incorporate the 18 conditions that were imposed by the original conditional use permit in 1990. In addition, the Planning Commission should consider a requirement that the curb cut between the subject property and the adjoining Total Mart property be dosed. This latter recommendation is made to deter traffic from cutting through the car wash site from the service road to the Total Mart, and to permit the hill use of the maximum number of stacking spaces for the car wash. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing, and asked for comments from the public. Noting none, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Ken Schwartz, representative of Investors Together, indicated that the reason for the request was to permit the addition of a dryer for the automatic stall. In response to a question from Gary Anderson, Building Official, Schwartz indicated that compliance with the conditions listed on the current permit were no problem for the property owners, including the need to keep rear doors closed which face the residential areae to the north. Chairman Frie asked whether there would be any concern over congestion on the site due to the expansion, and what effect the closing of the curb cut would have on operations. Dean Hoglund of Investors Together responded that the addition of the new automatic wash should have the effect of minimising congestion by allowing more care to be washed in less time than the current manual wash bays allow. Schwartz indicated that the applicants have considered closing the curb cut themselves in order to end the traffic short cut and retain the stacking spaces, Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 11/6/98 Chairman Frie raised a concern over too many cars using the site and potential remedies for congestion. This concern was also raised by Commissioner Dragsten, who suggested that the curb cut closing need not be a condition placed by the City, but rather a step taken by the property owners if they see fit. Commissioner Dragsten stated that he believed the congestion problem to be self-regulating in that as the stacking spaces fill up, potential customers will decide against waiting in line. Schwartz agreed and stated that they had never seen the traffic so bad as to cause problems with the service road. Schwartz indicated that there was room to accommodate approximately seven cars stacked up, with one in the wash. The current automatic bay can cycle through one car wash in an average of four minutes. Building Official Anderson raised the concern that there may be two care leaving the automatic bays at the same time, causing a problem with exiting. Schwartz responded by stating that the two automatic washes were timed differently, and such a condition would immediately change with the next customers due to the staggered wash cycles. In response to a question about drying, Schwartz indicated that there would be room for cars leaving the t facility to park along the west property line, although few automatic customers hand -dry their vehicles in addition to the dryer in the automatic bay. COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOGART, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR INVESTORS TOGETHER FOR THE EXPANSION CONVERSION OF ONE MANUAL CAR WASH STALL TO AN AUTOMATED WASH BAY, BASED UPON A FINDING THAT THE ADDITIONAL CAR WASH STALL AND ASSOCIATED VOLUME OF TRAFFIC WILL NOT RESULT IN A NEGATIVE IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE WHICH IT IS LOCATED, AND IS THEREFOR CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA. THE MOTION WAS MADE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS NOTED IN THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON 4/9/90. Page 3 E) Planning Commission Minutes - 11/6/96 2. CLOSING OF THE CURB CUT BETWEEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT TOTAL MART PROPERTY WOULD BE LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS. Motion passed unanimously. Steve Grittman, City Planner, introduced the request of Monticello Ford to expand their current facility between Sandberg Road and Highway 25. Grittman noted that the facility will eventually need a conditional use permit to actually undertake the project, but that this request is being made to resolve the limits of the building area on the west side of the property. The proposed variance is for a setback encroachment of 5 ft off of the required setback of 30 ft toward Sandberg Road. Grittman noted that the staff report cites a number of circumstances which aro unique to the Ford property and could be used as criteria for approval of the variance. These include the shape of the property, and the placement of the existing building, make it difficult to expand the facility in a way which is functionally feasible for the dealership's internal operations. In addition, Grittman noted that the property is surrounded by roadways on three sides. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Steve Johnson, representing Monticello Ford, addressed the Planning Commission. Johnson stated that the current project was being pursued in order to prepare the facility for business in the future. Johnson indicated that the site plan, with the setback encroachment, was designed by Ford Motor Co. architects and was deemed to be necessary to allow the site to properly function and expand in sire. Johnson exhibited a rendering of the proposed building and stated that construction was scheduled to commence sometime in 1997, Chairman Frie inquired as to the property`s compliance with the recent conditional use permit. Commissioner Dragaten responded that certain conditions of the 1995 proposal were waived in anticipation of the current project. In response to Chairman Frie's question, Johnson indicated that new signage would be proposed and that it would be in conformance with the City's sign regulations. Page 4 O Planning Commission Minutes - 11/8/96 Chairman Frie asked for public comment, and receiving none, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Carlson noted that the property had completed extensive drainage control improvements as a part of the 1995 project. Commissioner Bogart expressed concern over the existence of a hardship upon which the Commission could approve the variance. Bogart asked about the possibility that the Sandberg Road side could be considered a side yard, and thus qualify for a 20 -ft setback instead of requiring the variance. Grittman responded that there may be concern that due to future street improvements related to the Chelsea Road project, the yard in question may not always be a side yard. The clearest answer would be to utilize the variance approach. In response to Commissioner Carlson's question as to circulation around the building in the area of the setback encroachment, Johnson responded that there would continue to be adequate room for circulation in the area. COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY CARLSON, TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE IRREGULAR SHAPE OF THE LOT, COMBINED WITH THE EXISTENCE OF ROADS ON THREE SIDES, THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING ON THE LOT, THE NATURE OF THE USE, THE CONTINUED POSSIBILITY OF CIRCULATION AROUND THE BUILDING WITHOUT ROAD ACCESS FROM SANDBERG ROAD, AND THAT CONTINUED REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS DEPENDENT UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE. The motion passed unanimously. 7. Puhhe Hearing .. Conaideratinn of n naogaat for a 7 -ft variance to Le In -ft b +;l ing ay+n ra> un reQnirement between - acro 1 nam accessory b +;1 inner i�+eotion is n 4. Bl I+ 4. The Me down. AlW ; An . Rv n Fruth Steve Grittman, City Planner, introduced the proposal to allow the placement of an accessory budding 3 ft from a single family residence at 222 Crocus Lane. Grittman explained that the accessory building has already been constructed and violates the Zoning Ordinance's required 10 -ft building separation requirements. The applicant's variance request must be judged based upon the hardship and uniqueness requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Page 5 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 11/6/98 Grittman described the three alternative actions which were presented to the Planning Commission by the staff. These included approval based upon a finding of hardship, denial based upon a finding of no hardship, and modification of the ordinance language to allow the types of proposals requested by the applicant. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Applicant Ryan Fruth described the structure and his intent to use it to store his snowmobile near his house. Fruth stated that he intentionally designed the building to look like his existing home. There being no other public in attendance on this matter, Chairman Frie dosed the public hearing. Discussion ensued regarding the possibility that the building could be moved to another conforming location on the lot, including to the rear or to the side. Building Official Gary Anderson suggested that adequate room existed on the side to move the building away from the house to meet both the 10 -ft building separation and 10 -ft side yard setbacks. Applicant Fruth suggested that this would not be satisfactory aesthetically. Commissioner Dragsten asked if the building could be attached. Anderson stated that it was built on "skids" and would need to be built on full frost footings to be attached to the main house. Commissioner Bogart asked about the rationale behind the 10 -ft separation. Anderson explained that the fire code was set up to require 10 -ft building separation, whether on the same lot or across lot lines. Fruth noted that the 3 -ft separation was adequate to allow him to paint the building and to make better utilization of the lot. Further discussion by the Commission suggested that it was more important to allow for the indoor storage of materials and equipment, and in cases of single car garages (as with this property) it may be appropriate. However, there was concern over the lack of apparent hardship to justify the variance. Eric Bondhus, a member of the audience, suggested that such small buildings should be exempt from zoning restrictions. COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN, TO TABLE ACTION ON THE FRUTH VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE NEXT REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, PENDING STAFF'S PREPARATION OF A DRAFT AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE REQUIRED SEPARATION OF Page 6 O Planning Commission Minutes - 11/6/96 PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON SUCH AN AMENDMENT AT THE NEXT REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. The motion passed unanimously. Steve Grittman, City Planner, introduced the request of Robert Rolf for a variance which would allow the paving of the space between driveways which serve the two halves of a twinhome structure in the River Mill area. Grittman explained that the River Mill subdivision was developed with this issue in mind, and a significant level of discussion with the developer resulted in adherence to the City's standard on driveway separation for green space and other functional reasons. It was noted that the driveway had already been installed in the manner violating the ordinance. Grittman described the alternatives in the staff report, including approval, denial, and combination of the lots into a single parcel, thereby eliminating the setback violation. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Robert Rolf, the applicant, stated that he could not combine the two lots due to separate mortgagee. Rolf noted that due to the plan of the building, only a 4 -ft separation was practicable, and it was his belief that no grass would grow in the space between driveways. There being no public comment, Chairman Frie closed the hearing. Commissioner Carlson noted the level of discussion on this issue at the time of development and the general agreement that the green space in this area was considered an essential part of the plan. Rolf stated that it was he, and not the developer, who supervised the installation of the blacktop driveways. Commissioner Bogart stated that a prior development had resulted in the City's interest in maintaining the driveway separation, including the need to separate neighbors vehicles, snow storage, and other reasons. Chairman Frie suggested that not just grass need be placed in the 'green' space. Grittman reported that it was common for trees and shrubs and rock mulch to be used in addition to, or instead of, grass. Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes - 11/6196 COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN, TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ELIMINATION OF THE DRIVEWAY SETBACK ON THE ROLF TWINHOME BASED UPON THE FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO IDENTIFIABLE HARDSHIP TO JUSTIFY THE PROPOSAL. Motion passed unanimously. 11 A ,1 T 1 t1111 11 1 ",I 1 I ' ,1 J11 111 1 ',I I V% 11 1 Vlmm, Inur-M.m, ... T. Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported on the proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance to limit fences and plantings over 3 ft in height in the "visibility area" at the intersection of public streets. Grittman noted that the current ordinance applies only to the intersection of a street and a railroad. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Steve Johnson, a member of the audience, raised a concern over the lack of distinguishing between types of roadways and widths of rights-of-way. He identified areas along Highway 76 which, although heavily platted in the 26- ft visibility area, created no hazard due to the wide right of --way available for cars to see oncoming traffic. Grittman responded that the ordinance was typically applied when visibility was obstructed and would not likely create a concern in other situations, even if they were in technical violation of the ordinance. Commissioner Bogart suggested that strict adherence to the proposed ordinance would cause a big impact in several areas, and he could not support an ordinance which created a number of non•oonfonning situations as did this one. Bogart suggested that a different draft should be developed which includes attention to visibility in hazardous areas, perhaps using opacity of the obstruction as one criterion. CHAIRMAN FRIE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CARLSON. TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ANDTABLE ACTION ON THE FENCE ORDINANCE TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN ORDER FOR STAFF TO DEVELOP A MORE TAILORED ORDINANCE. Motion passed unanimously. Pago 8 G Planning Commission Minutes - 11/6!96 -IrrC7.-TZT-T3P-M7—r. IR -11 RVI w \ Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported to the Commission that a 200 -acre development of approximately 80 rural lots had been proposed for the Sherburne County side of the Mississippi River across from the city of Monticello. Grittman noted that such a development could have numerous impacts for the City and the larger community and encouraged the City to become involved in the processing of this development. Grittman laid out three options for the City in this regard, including annexation and amendment of the City's Comprehensive Plan to include the area, active participation in the plat process, including involvement in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet process, or passive involvement and monitoring of the development's progress in Sherburne County. Michael Schroeder, a consultant to the Monticello Community Partners, discussed the downtown impacts which may occur as a result of the development, including the compromising of the community's desire for a compact downtown area, and a compact development pattern generally. Schroeder noted that the City's objective of a small town environment could be more difficult with rural residential subdivisions developed in such areas. Schroeder also emphasized that there are many more parcels in the area which could have just as significant an impact and encouraged the annexation approach to manage growth in these areas. Commissioner Bogart noted that his firm was involved in the planning for this subdivision, and that the developer was following a `two -track' approach, hoping to get positive feedback from the City on inclusion in the City's utility service area. Concerns about the cost of such develupment, and possible changes in Sherburne County's development processing, led them to pursue this plat arrangement in this way. Commissioner Dragsten questioned the feasibility of the development due to City sewer and water issues. Grittman noted that the City's intent would be to extend services for a more urban type of development, but that at this time, reliable cost estimates were not available. Commissioner Carlson noted that there are several parcels between this parcel and the bridge, suggesting that the Municipal Board would not likely approve an annexation which included only the more remote parcel. Carlson suggested that it would be important to know the scope of the entire development area, not just this specific parcel. Page 9 0 Planning Commission Minutes - 1 L6/96 The Commission discussed the options, feeling that aggressive annexation may not appropriate at this time, but stating that the issues raised by the development suggested that active involvement would be important for the City. Steve Johnson, a member of the audience, suggested that the City consider a dual track approach including both an annexation approach and a participatory approach. COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOGART, TO DIRECT THE STAFF TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER ON THE SUBDIVISION DESIGN AND OTHER CITY ISSUES, AND ENCOURAGING ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE PLATTING PROCESS WITH SHERBURNE COUNTY. THE MOTION FURTHER DIRECTS STAFF TO MONITOR THE NEED FOR ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS AND AMENDMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS APPROPRIATE. Motion passed unanimously. 11.8. rnnaideration of calling fig a pubho hearing on nrdingnee nMftndmPntS governing radlo/cell phnnp. cojnn2majcatLQntawrrL Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported to the Commission on the increasing demand for cellular antenna tower construction due to increasing cellular usage and new technology which has resulted in the issuance of new FCC licences. Grittman recommended that the Commission call for a public hearing to consider amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance which would permit the City to adequately regulate the construction of such towers. The Commission discussed the issue generally, including the need to assure greater service in the Monticello area. COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY BOGART, TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE NEXT REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO CONSIDER AINENDMENTS TO THE CITYS ORDINANCES REGULATING RADIO/CELL PHONE COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS. Motion passed unanimously. Page 10 (D Planning Commission Minutes - 11/6/98 '\ I Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported to the Commission that the proposed resolution was a statutory requirement for the City to utilize Ta: Increment Financing for the proposed project, the expansion of Lake Tool, a local plastic injection mold company. 011ie Koropchak, Economic Development Director, explained the modification of the TIF and Redevelopment plans, as well as the use of funds in the district. Koropchak noted that the Estimated Minimum Value of the project was actually $270,000 with an annual Estimated Captured Tax Capacity of $10,190, rather than the lower amounts reported in her staff report. She also noted that the assistance to the developer will be $37,900 for land write- down and site improvements. The $110,000 mentioned in the plan is the maximized increment from the district. In response to a question from Chairman Frie, Eric Bondhus, representative of the developer, stated that they hired locally and encouraged new hires to live in the oonuuunity. s COMMISSIONER CARLSON MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN, TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION FINDING THE MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND THE TIF PLAN FOR TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-21 TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANS OF THE CITY. SEE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98.3. Motion passed unanimously. 12. AdinvramenL COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARTIE, TO ADJOURN. There being no other business, Chairman Frie declared the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. RespectUly Submitted, Steve Grittman, City Planner Page 11 Planning Commission Agenda - 12/3/96 Daniel Wermers requests permission to operate a ape" home occupation in his home at Lot 9, Block 1, Mein Farms Addition. The home occupation consists of repairing and refinishing firearms. In his description of the activity, Wermers reported that there will be some retail activity which will consist of assisting clients in ordering goods through catalog services. He does not plan to have inventory for sale at the site. He also indicated that there will be no other individuals working on this property. No mechanical equipment not customarily found in the home will be used, and no more than one room will be devoted to the home occupation. On his form, which outlines his manner of operation, he noted that he was planning on utilizing the garage. He has since changed his mind and indicated that he will no longer be operating out of his garage and that he will be using a room inside his residence. As you will note in the attached sections of the ordinance, the home occupation activity of gunsmithing is not specifically identified as a special home occupation or a home occupation allowed by administrative permit. In my interpretation of the code, it would appear to me that the activity is more akin to home occupations identified in the special home occupation permit category. This category includes such home occupations as saw sharpening and small engine repair and would generally include the types of home occupations that could, if not properly controlled, become a problem for the neighborhood. It is my view that this request is eligible for a special home occupation permit due to the similarity to those that are listed. According to Steve Grittman, it is quite common for gunsmith services to be found operating out of residences, Many other communities do allow this typo of operation to occur as long as the operation abides by the rules of every other home occupation allowed in residential districts. Gunsmithing services are also licensed and monitored by the federal government. In fact, I have been contacted by the federal bureau in charge of monitoring gunsmith services regarding the status of this particular home occupation permit. 1. Motion to approve the special home occupation permit allowing gunamithing services in an R-1 zone. Planning Commission Agenda - 17/3/96 This motion could be based on the finding that the gunsmith service as proposed operating under conditions identified by ordinance will be virtually transparent to the neighborhood and, therefore, will have no effect on the residential character of the area; therefore, the operation is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Planning Commission may wish to consider adding an additional condition to the operation of the gunsmith service as follows: A requirement that a security system be installed. Motion to deny the special home occupation permit allowing gunsmithing services in an R-1 zone. Under this alternative, the Planning Commission would need to make a finding that denial is appropriate because the operation of the gunsmithing service will be a detriment to the neighborhood and will impact the residential character of the area and, thus, the home occupation would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. r_ STAFF F..O F.NDATION: I recommend approval of the special home occupation permit as requested with the additional condition that a security system be installed. It would appear from reviewing the application and in talking to the applicant, the operation of the gunsmith service will be no more intrusive to the neighborhood than a saw sharpening or a small engine repair home occupation, which are occupations that are allowed through the special home occupation permit. The fact that firearms are sold via catalog and repaired at this location may be a cause for concern due to the nature of the goods being serviced and sold; however, based on my conversations with Steve Grittman and research with other communities, it appears that it is relatively common to have gunsmithing services in residential areas without a problem. As a final note, we should remind the applicant that keeping an inventory of firearms for sale is not allowed and that using the site for a retail outlet is prohibited. The vast majority of the activity at this location should relate to repair and refurbishing and not sales. Copy of application; Excerpts from the zoning ordinance. CITY OF MONTICELLO Planning �. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Case i ? & • � y i PO B�o:1147, 260 E. Broadway Monticello, MN 56362 (612) 295-2711 ADMEKISTRATM PPLMIY - FIQME OCCUPATION APPLICATION/PERMIT Applicant Name: Q)NA„ e1 L wtr m e r % Address: ® CM14 Red Rock Lam -e— Maot�,cello tPA). SS361— Phone: Home: 6ia-A9S- q9 33 Business 4/a -,U -06614 Business Name.- l� Suf 1.c.S Zoned 1. Please describe the proposed home occupation activity in general terms and location within home. (o'u�e�..•�+.„�.� Serim-es WILL THE HOME OCCUPATION INCLLTDE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING? o Circle your response) I 2. Retail activity?Yea No 3. Manufacturing or repair activity?l Yes No 4. Inventory to be kept on the premises Yea No 5. Any person other thm thgwjesiding an the premises employed in the home occupation? Yes 6. Use of mechanical equipment not customarily found in the ho ? Yea No 7. More than one room devoted to the h9m%occupation? Yes n4 8. Outside storage o terWs? Yes k..W 9. Signage? Yes QNo 10. Internal or a alterations involving construction? Yes 11. Will the home occupation be conducted in a garage or accessoryNo 7 s No 12. Will the home occupation result in more than one is car being parked on the premises at any given point in time? Yes No 13. Describe the entrance to the space devoted to the home occupation: HOMEOCC.APP: V=95 Page 1 Ple'a'se provide detail for all YES answers above: • J2P', �►.r..�ld� Shce.s � S�s� O►,dvS ar��. �% Work went I� C�"a9�' I have reviewed the regulations associated with operation of a home occupation, and I have reviewed City staff comments. I do hereby agree to abide by all City of Monticello home occupation regulations. 8-14-96 Date Applicant Signature FEE: $1 $126 Receipt Al o AA -1 -?4 � a o fo.o az- " isJ9,6 tq/t // qNi iq/igiiNi/q/Nq iggiq//ti / qt/gttq// N/iq ttq i tgttq /tgitgit qit it (For City Use Only) [t has been determined by staff that this home occupation permit is: [ ] Approved ) Denied [ ) Special Permit Needed STAFF COMMENTS: Assistant Administrator Date Approved C Public Hearing Date: HOMEOCC.APP. VM5 Zoning Administrator Date Approved 5 Page 2 1 /Y IV 0. PA 1 ` R[ I( Consideration of a request fore Special Rome Occupation' Permit which would alloy 1 : I b f,gPftGER • 1 gunsmith services in an R-1 I — pp. [ io r o tone. -- % POD' Applicant: Daniel Xermers t % 5EC4 + { PosR I I �0 • , t 1 p• 1 pp r D U N�1 S p Y y • s s a : [ S : 3 t• i '�f{ \ tIQ410 Y Q i` IIItI-.peltld� too,, t .604 .�. .. ... .iMtlCiit w . I -.• •- s� a r � b. Magazines. Publications classified or ` qualifying as adult uses shall be covered with a wrapper or other means to prevent display of any material other than the publication title. C. Other Use. Adult use/accessory activities not specifically cited shall comply with the intent of this section subject to the approval of the Zoning Administrator. 4. Adult use/accessory activities shall be prohibited from both internal and external advertising and signing of adult materials and products. 5. Adult use/accessory activities shall be prohibited in establishments where liquor is served. 6. Adult use/accessory activities shall be prohibited at any public show, movie, caravan, circus, carnival, theatrical, or other performance or exhibition presented to the general public where minors are admitted. (01/13/92, #217) 3-11: HOME OCCUPATIONS: (A)--' :=. The purpose of this section is to prevent competition with business districts and to provide a means through the establishment of specific standards and procedures by wchh hme occun�ions cart be conducbpd in r side -=- neighborhnnAn •••+«ti ••« �eovardizina the ha&JLb_ nAFPFy 1, welfare of .ne A In addition, this section is intended to provide a mechanism enabling the distinction between permitted home occupations and special or customarily *more sensitive, home occupations so that--mit-AA home occupations may be allowed through an administrative process rather than a legislative hearing process. (8) Arjnliratinn. Subject to the non -conforming use provision of this section, all occupations conducted in the home shall comply with the provisions of this section. This section whall not be construed, however, to apply to home occupations accessory to farming. (C) PrnrpdurAn ,nnA Pprmirq, 1. Permitted Home Occupation. Any permitted home occupation as defined in this section shall require a *permitted home occupation permit.' Such permits shall be issued subject to the conditions of this ` section, other applicable city code provisions, and state law. This permit may be issued by the Zoning Administrator or his agent based upon proof of compliance with the provisions of this section. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE � 3/58 Application for the permitted home occupation permit shall be accompanied by a fee as adopted by the Council. If the Administrator denies a permitted home occupation permit to an applicant, the applicant may appeal the decision to the City Council acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, which shall make the final decision. The permit shall remain in force and effect until such time as there has been a change in conditions or until such time as the provisions of this section have been reached. At such time as the City has reason to believe that either event has taken place, a public hearing shall be held before the Planning Coamtission. The Council shall make a final decision on whether or not the permit holder is entitled to the permit. 2. Special Home Occupation. Any home occupation which does not meet the specific requirements for a permitted home occupation as defined in this section shall require a •special home occupation permit' which shall be applied for, reviewed, and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 22 of the zoning ordinance. 3. Declaration of Conditions. The Planning Commission and the gouncil may impose such conditions of the granting of a 'special home occupation permit' as may be necessary to carry out the purpose and provisions of this section. Effect of Permit. A 'special home occupation permit* may be issued for a period of one (1) year after which the permit may be reissued for periods of up to three (3) years each. Each application for permit renewal will be reviewed by City staff. City staff will determine whether or not it is necessary to process permit renewal in accordance with the procedural requirements of the initial special home occupation permit. Staff determination will be made based upon the manner of operation observed by staff and based upon the level of complaints made about the home occupation. 5. Transferability. Permits shall not run with the land and shall not be transferable. 6. Lapse of Special Home Occupation Permit by Non -Use. whenever within one (1) year after granting a permit the use as permitted by the permit shall not have been initiated, then such permit shall become null and void unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the work has been granted by the Council. Such extension shall be requested in writing and filed with the Zoning Admit trator MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE .i 3/59 at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the original permit. There shall be no charge for the filing of such petition. The request for extension shall state facts showing a good faith attempt to initiate the use. Such petition shall be presented to the Planning Commission for a recommendation and to the Council for a decision. 7. Reconsideration. Whenever an application for a permit has been considered and denied by the Council, a similar application for a permit affecting substantially the same property shall not be considered again by the Planning Commission or Council for at least six (6) months from the date of its denial unless a decision to reconsider such matter is made by not less than four-fifths (4/5) vote of the full Council. 8. Renewal of Permits. An applicant shall nnt have a vested right to a permit renewal by reason of having obtained a previous permit. In applying for and accepting a permit, the permit holder agrees that his monetary investment in the home occupation will be fully amortized over the life of the permit and that a permit renewal will not be needed to amortize the investment. Each application for the renewal of a permit will be reviewed without taking into consideration that a previous permit has been granted. • The previous granting or renewal of a permit shall not constitute a precedent or basis for the renewal of a permit. ED) Rptni i Zonwr a - (pngrgl Pre,i4iena• All home occupations shall comply with the following general provisions and, according to definition, the applicable requirement provisions. 1. General Provisions. a. No home occupation shall produce light glare, noise, odor, or vibration that will in any way a5 have an objectionable effect upon adjacent or nearby property. b. No equipment shall be used in the home Go MeyeS occupation which will create electrical interference to surrounding properties. C. Any Any home occupation shall be clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises, should not change the �o✓ residential character thereof and shall result in no incompatibility or disturbance to the surrounding residential uses. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 0 3/60 d. No home occupation shall require internal or external alterations or involve construction features not customarily found in dwellings except where required to comply with local and state fire and police recommendations. e. There shall be no exterior storage of equipment or materials used in the home occupation, except personal automobiles used in the home occupation may be parked on the site. f. The home occupation shall meet all applicable fire and building codes. g. There shall be no exterior display or exterior signs or interior display or interior signs which are visible from outside the dwelling with the exception of an identification sign which is limited to identifying the name of the resident only. h. All home occupations shall comply with the provisions of the city code. 1. No home occupation shall be conducted between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. unless said occupation is contained entirely within the priricipal building and will not require any on -street parking facilities. j. No home occupation shall be permitted which results in or generates more traffic than one (1) car for off-street parking at any given point in time. [EJ RP im i Want -C AaTni ��uri {In}AP OCCLpA {��1A, 1. No person other than those who customarily reside Agj4C: an the premises shall be employed. 2. All permitted home occupations shall be conducted entirely within the principal building and may not Ce IS be conducted in an accessory building. 3 . Permitted home occupations 'shall not create a parking demand in excess of that which can be CO %4$ accommodated as defined in Section 3-5 [Fj 6, where no vehicle is parked closer than fifteen (15) feet from the curb line. Q . Permitted home occupations include and are not i ^�S limited to: art studio, dressmaking, secretarial V services, foster care, professional offices and L" A60 MONTICELLO ZONING &DINANCE 3/61 1 5. Inspection. The City hereby reserves the right upon issuing any home occupation permit to inspect the premises in which the occupation is being conducted to ensure compliance with the provisions of this section or any conditions additionally imposed. (8/10/92, 0232) MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE S 3/62 teaching with musical, dancing, and other instructions which consist of no more than one pupil at a time and similar uses. 5. The home occupation shall not involve any of the following: repair service or manufacturing which requires equipment other than found in a dwelling; teaching which customarily consists of more than one pupil at a time; over-the-counter sale of merchandise produced off the premises, except for those brand name products that are not marketed and sold in a wholesale or retail outlet. [F] RPmiirPmenra• Cnarinl Nnme nccunatinns. 1. No person other than a resident shall conduct the home occupation, except where the applicant can satisfactorily prove unusual or unique conditions Por need for non-resident assistance and that this exception would not compromise the intent of this chapter. 2. Examples of special home occupations include: barber and beauty services, photography studio, is^�» L group lessons, saw sharpening, skate sharpening, small appliances and small engine repair and the 5t' like. y 3. The special home occupation may involve any of the following: stock -in -trade inriApnrn1. to the p\��S performance of the service, repair service or �0�\ asp manufacturing which requires equipment other than .% at tQ customarily found in a home, the teaching with musical, dancing, and other instruction of more Si a ^%b than one pupil at a time. 4. Non -Conforming Use. Existing home occupations lawfully existing on the effective date of this section may continue as non -conforming uses. They shall, however, be required to obtain permits for A their continued operation. Any existing home occupation that is discontinued for a period of N more than 180 days, or is in violation of the provisions of this chapter under which it was initially established, shall be brought into conformity with the provisions of this section. 5. Inspection. The City hereby reserves the right upon issuing any home occupation permit to inspect the premises in which the occupation is being conducted to ensure compliance with the provisions of this section or any conditions additionally imposed. (8/10/92, 0232) MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE S 3/62 Planning Commission Agenda • 1213/96 Please see the attached report from Planner Steve Grittman. NOU-27-19% 10:55 I'Ac 612 5% 9837 P.02i15 N INC NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS COMMUN ITY PLA N NINO - DESION - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Monticello Mayor and City Council Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Madhulika Singh / Stephen Corittman DATE: 27 November 1998 RE: Monticello - Wireless Antenna Tower Regulation FILE NO: 191.06-96.12 Consideration of an ��.. J., —1 to Cho= 3. Section 12 by eatebllshino antenna A. REFERENCE AND BACKGIWUND The City is anticipating an increase at requests for wireless commsdeation antenna towers as this technology continues to advance, and the federal government issues additional licenses for service providers. In order to avoid an unsightly clutter of freestanding antenna taw= around the community, we have put together some information on the Ways In which this issue is being addressed by other communities. The draft amendment is intended to respond to advancing wireless communication technology and the provisions of the 1996 Telecommunication Act. The 1998 Telecommunication Act basically stipulates that wireless communication Is a necessary servioe which must be reasonably : — ....c,.ed by municipalities. Thus, the City cannot prohibit personal wireless service towers, but may 'manage' their locations in a limited way. In addition, the City must have procedures which allow satellite receiving dishes. Only where the regulations allow reasonable access will the regulations be considered valid. Further, ham radio operators have an additional category of. protection from local regulation. The attached ordinance attempts to address each of these issues. In rovlew of the draft ;. text, please make note of tho following: Various antenna types have been specifically defined. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. QUITE 966 6T. LOUIS PARK. MINNESOTA 8541 O PHONE OI 2.506.0636 PAX 612.606.0637 NOV-27-1996 10:55 NRC 612 595 9837 P.e3/15 • The team `personal wireless service antenna' reference is intended to introduce a generic tern which includes various wireless communication types including cellular, personal communication service (PCS) entranced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR) and similar services (see definition). The proposed ordinance creates preferences for towers in certain locations, such as industrial dWridg, or City water towers, or on existing antenna tower structures. Preferred sites are given administrative permits, with certain limitations Including height. t L r . "n. . J sites. or requests for exceptional heights, require conditional use permits, and relatively extensive review. The intent is to encourage the applicant to seek permitted sites, and avoid the processing requirements of the CUP. Moreover, monopoles tower design is given additional height in an effort to avoid the lattice or guy-wtred tower construction styles. Exhibit 6 list the variety of bad%rarttd materials relating to the regulation of antennas. IL et rmcRN THE ACTIONS 1. Approve adopting the zoning ordinance arnwndment by establishing antenna regulation as proposed. This a. should be based upon a finding that the amendment is necessary to manage and reasons* a=rnmodade wireless communication antenna towers and Is Intended to respond to advancing wireless communication technology and the provialons of the 1886 Telecommunication Ad. 2. Deny adoption of the ordinance amendment C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Stag recommatds approval of the Ordinance amendment The 19M Telecommunication Act stipulates that wireless eorarusnication is a necessary, service "ch must be reasonably accommodated by municipalities. The proposed ordinance creates preferences for towers in certain locations, with certain limitations including height. Non - preferred sites, or requests for exceptional heights, require conditional use permits, and relatively extensive review. The intent is to encourage the applicard to seek permitted sites, and avoid the processing requiremonts of the CUP. Exhibit A • Draft Ordinance Exhibit B • Source 2 0 NOU-27-1996 1055 NRC 612 595 9837 P.04/15 DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT 11/27/96 ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-12 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING ANTENNA REGULATIONS. THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ORDAINS section 1. Section 2-2 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance (Definitions) is hereby amended to delete the following definitions - Essential Services Section 2. Section 2-2 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance (Definitions) is hereby amended to add the following definitions: JAI. 11 Antenna, Personal Wireless service. A device consiating of a metal, carbon fiber, or other electromagnetically conducive rods or elements, usually arranged in a circular array on 'a single supporting pole or other structure, and used for the transmission and reception of wireless communication radio waves including cellular, personal c—inication service (PCS), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (BSMR), paging and similar services and including the support structure thereof. [AI. 21 Antenna, Public Utility Kicrawave. A parabolic dish or cornucois shaped electromagnetically reflective or conductive element used for the transmission and/or reception of point to point UHF or VHF radio waves in wireless telephone communications, and including the supporting structure thereof. (Al. 31 Antenna, Radio and Television, Broadcast Transmitting. A wire, set of wires, metal or carbon fiber rod or other electromagnetic element used to transmit public or commercial broadcast radio, or television programming, and including the support structure thereof. [AI. 41 Antenna, Radio and Television Receiving. A wire, set of wires, metal or carbon fiber element(@), other than satellite dish antennas, used to receive radio. television, or electromagnetic waves, and including the supporting structure thereof. EXHIB A POU -r-1996 10:55 NRC 612 595 9837 P. 05/15 [Al. 51 Antenna, Satellite Dish. A device incorporating a reflective surface that is solid, open mesh, or bar configured and is in the shape of a shallow dish, cone, horn, or cornucopia. Such device is used to transmit and/or receive radio or electromagnetic waves between terrestrially and/or orbitally based uses. This definition shall include, but not be limited to, what are commonly referred to as satellite earth stations, TVROs (television, receive only) and satellite microwave antennae and support structure thereof. [AI.61 Antenna, Short -Wave Radio Transmitting and Receiving. A wire, set of wires or a device, consieting of a metal, carbon fiber, or other electromagnetically conductive element used for the transmission and reception of radio waves used for short -rave radio conmumicatione, and Including the supporting structure thereof. IAI.71 Antenna Support Strvoture. Any pole, telescoping mast, tower, tripod, or any other structure which supports a device used in the transmitting or receiving of radio frequency energy. [BC] Essential Sarvimm. The erection, construction, alteration or maintenance by public utilities or municipal departmente of underground or overhead telephone, gas, electrical, communication, water or sewer transmission, distribution, collection, supply or disposal syeteme, including poles, vires, mains, drains, sewers, pipes, conduits, cables, fire alarm boxes, police call boxes, traffic signals, hydrants and other similar equipment and accessories in connection therewith for the furnishing of adequate service by such private or public utilities or municipal departments. Transmission/reception support structures and antennas shall not be considered an essential service. (9A.11 Secondary goes A use of land or of a building or a portion thereof which is subordinate to and does not constitute the primary use of the land or building. [9P.11 Stmeture, "lie. An odifice or building of any kind, or anylees of work artificially built up or composed of parts foined together in some definite manner which is owned or rented, and operated by a fedoral, state, or local government agency. tOU-Z?-1996 10:% NAC 612 5% 9837 P.06i15 Section 3. Section 3-12 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance (c—ication reception/transmission devices) is hereby amended to read as follows: 81=100 3 -12 COMMUNICATION SBCSP'1'IOW/TRAWW88ION DI IC88 [A] PURPOSES The purpose of this section is to establish predicable, balanced regulations for the siting and screening of wireless commlaications equipment in order to accommodate the growth of wireless communicating systems within the City of Monticello while protecting the public against any adverse impacts on the City's aesthetic resources and the public welfare. [8] GMUMAL S aNDAYD8s The following standards shall apply to all personal wireless service, public utility, microwave, radio and television broadcast transmitting, radio and television receiving, satellite dish and short-wave radio transmitting and receiving antenna. 1. All obsolete and unused antenna shall be removed within twelve (12) —the of cessation of operation at the site, unless an exemption is granted by the City Council. 2. All antenna shall be in comopliance with all City building and electrical code requirements and as applicable shall require related permits. 3. Structural design, mounting and installation of the antenna shall be in coapliance with manufacturer's specifications and shall be verified and approved by a registered professional engineer. 4. Unless the antenna/antenna support structure and land is under the same ownership, written authorisation for antenna erection shall be provided by the property owner. S. No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna structure. G. The height of the antenna shall be the minimum necessary to function satisfactorily, as verified by an electrical engineer or other appropriate professional. 7. Antennas shall not be artificially illuminated unless required by law or by a governmental agency to protect tho public s health and safety. 0 FOU -Z7 -1g% 10 56 NRC 612 595 9837 P.07/15 S. When applicable, proposals to erect new antenna shall be accompanied by any required federal, state, or local agency licenses. If a new antenna support structure is to be constructed, it shall be designed so as to accommodate other users including but not limnited to other personal wireless service companies, local police, fire and ambulance companies. 10. Antenna support structures under two hundred (200) feet U height shall be painted silver or have a galvanized finish to reduce visual impact, unless otherwise allowed by federal law. 11. &sept as nay be applicable in cases where a conditional use permit is required, antennae and support structures for federally licensed amateur radio stations and used in the amateur radio service are exempt from subparagraphs C, P, and i above, and must comply with Subd. L. below. 12. Amateur radio support structures (towers) must be installed in accordance with the instructions rurnished by the manufacturer of that tower model. Because of the everimental nature of the amateur radio service, antennae mounted on ouch a towerma be modified or changed at any time so long as the published allowable load on the tower is not exceeded and the structure of the tower remains in accordance with the manufacturers specifications. CC) ACCESSMY An 8800BTW VU ANTEMMS1 The following standards shall apply to all accessory and secondary use antennae including radio and television receiving antennas, satellite dishes, TVROs two (2) maters or lose in diameter, short-wave radio dispatching antennas, or those necessary for the operation of electronic equipment including radio receivers, federally licensed amateur radio stations and television receivers. 1. Accessory or secondary use antennae shall not be erected in any required yard (oxcept a rear yard) or within public or private utility and drainage easemente, and shall be set back a minimum of five (5) toot frog► all lot lines. 2. Guy wires or guy wire anchors shall not be erected within public or private utility and drainage easemente, and shall be set back a minimum of five (5) feet from all lot lines. o NOU-27-1996 10:56 NFC 612 595 9837 P.08i15 3. Accessory or secondary use antennas and necessary support structures, monopoles or towers may extend a maximum of fifteen (15) feet above the normal height restriction for the affected zoning district, except support structures and antennas used in the amateur radio service may extend a --i—im of seventy (70) feet for the affected zoning district. 4. The installation of more than one (1) support structure per property shall require the approval of a conditional use permit. [D] PZRSCMM WIARz.888 SZWXCS A9TMIUMs 1. Residential District Standards. (a) Antenna located Upon public structures: Personal wireless service antenna located upon public structures shall be require the processing of an administrative permit and shall comply with the following standards: I. The applicant shall demonstrate by providing a coverage/ interference analysis and capacity analysis prepared by a registered professional engineer that location of the antenaa(s) as proposed in necessary to meet the frequency reuse and spacing needs of the wireless communication system and to provide adequate coverage And capacity to areas which cannot be adequately served by locating the antennas in a more restrictive toning district. ii. Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within an existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is necessary for transmitting, receiving and switching equipment, it shall be situated in the rear yard of the principal use and shall be screened from view by landscaping where appropriate. iii. An administrative permit is issued in compliance with the procedures established by the City Council. (b) Antennas not located upon a public structures Personal wireless service antenna not located upon a public structure shall require the processing of a conditional use permit and shall comply with the following standards: d NCV -Z? -19% 1057 NAC 612 595 98.37 P.09/15 i. The applicant shall demonstrate by providin a coverage/ interference analysis and capacity analysis prepared by a registered professional engineer that location of the antenna (s) as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency reuse and spacing needs of the wireless communication system and to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areae which cannot be adequately served by locating the antennas in a more restrictive zoning district. ii. The antennas shall be located on an existing, non-residential structure, if possible, and shall not extend more than fifteen (15) feet above the structural height of the structure to which they are attached. iii. If no existing, non-residential structure which meets the height requirements for the antennas is available for mounting puzposee, the antennae may be mounted on a single ground mounted pole provided that: a. The pole not exceed seventy-five (75) feet in height. b. The setback of the pole from the nearest residential structure Is not less than the height of the antenna. Exceptions to such setback may be granted if a qualified structural engineer specifies in writing that any collapse of the pole will occur within a lesser distance under all foreseeable circumstances. iv. Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within an existing Structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is necessary for transmitting, receiving and switching equipment, it shall be situated in the rear yard of the principal use and shall be screened from view by landscaping where appropriate. V. Unless the antenna is mounted on an existing, non-residential structure, a security fence not greater than eight (B) feet in height with a maximum opacity of fifty (SO) percent shall be provided around the support structure. 0 NW -27-1996 10:57 NAC 612 595 9837 P.10i15 vi. The conditional use permit provisions of Section 22-3 of this Ordinance are considered and determined to be satisfied. Business District Standards: (a) Antennas Located Upon A Public Structure. Personal wireless service antenna located upon a public structure shall comply with the following standards. i. Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within an existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is necessary for transmitting, receiving and switching equipment, it shall be situated in the rear yard of the principal use and shall be screened from view by landscaping where appropriate. ii. An administrative permit is issued in compliance with the procedures established by the City Council. (b) Antennas Not Located Upon A Public Structure. Personal wireless service antennas not located upon a public structure shall require the processing of a conditional use permit and shall comply with the following standards: L. The applicant shall demonstrate by providing a coverage/ interference analysis and capacity analysis prepared by a professional engineer that location of the antennae as proposed is necessary to sweet the frequency reuse and spacing needs of the cellular System and to provide adequate portable cellular telephone coverage and capacity to areae which cannot be adequately served by locating the antennas in a less restrictive district. ii. The antennae shall be located on an existing structure, if possible, and shall not extend more than fifteen (15) feet above the structural height of the structure to which they are attached. NOU-27-1996 10:57 NRC 612 5% 9837 P.11/15 iii. If no existing structure which meets the height requirements for the antennae is available for mounting purposes, the antennae may be alcuated on a single ground mounted pole provided that: a. The pole not exceed. seventy-five (75) feet in height. b. The setback of the pole from the nearest residential structure is not less than the height of the antenna. Exceptions to such setback may be granted if a qualified structural engineer specifies in writing that any collapse of the pole will occur within a lesser distance under all foreseeable circumstances. iv. Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within an existing structure whenever possible. If a new equipment building is necessary for transmitting, receiving and switching equipment, it shall be situated in the rear yard of the principal use and shall be screened from view by landscaping where P appropriate. V. Unless the antenna is mounted on an exieting structure, at the discretion of the City, a security fence not greater than eight (e) feet in height with a maxim- opacity of fifty (50) percent shall be provided around the support structure. vi. The conditional use permit provisioae of Section 12.3 of this ordinance are considered and determined to be satisfied. 3. Industrial District Standards. (a) Antennas Located Upon A public Structure. Personal wireless eorvice antennas located upon a public structure shall require the processing of an administrative permit and shall comply with the following standards: I. An administrative permit is issued in compliance with the procedures established by the City Council. 8 0 hW-27-1996 1057 NAC 612 595 9837 P.12i15 (b) Antennae Not Located Upon A Public Structure. i Personal wireless service antennas not located upon a public structure shall require the processing of an administrative permit and shall comply with the following standards: i. The antennas shall be located upon a structure if possible. ii. If no existing structure which meets the height requirements for mounting the antennae, the antennae may be mounted upon a supporting pole or tower not exceeding one hundred fifty (2.50) feet in height. Such pole or tower shall be located on a parcel having a dimension equal to the height of the pole or tower measured between the base of the pole or tower located nearest the property line and said property line, unless a qualified structural engineer specifies in writing that the collapse of the pole or tower will occur within a lesser dietance under all foreseeable circumstances. iii. An administrative permit is issued in compliance with the procedures established by the City Council. [S) SATELLITE DISHSBe 1. Residential District Standards. Single satellite dish TVRO6 greater than one (1) meter in diameter located within the R-1, Single Family Residential coning district of the City shall require the processing of a conditional use permit and shall comply with the following standards: (a) All accessory and secondary use provisions of this Ordinance are satisfactorily met. (b) The lot on which the satellite dish antenna is located shall be of sufficient size to assure that an obstruction -free receive window can be maintained within the limits of the property ownership. (c) Except where the antenna is screened by a structure exceeding the antenna height, landscape buffering and screening shall be maintained on all sides of the satellite dish antenna in a manner in which growth of the landscape elements will not interfere with the receive window. d NOV-Z7-1996 10:58 NRC 612 595 98S7 P.13/15 (d) The satellite dish antenna is not greater than three (3) meters in diameter. (e) The conditional use permit provisions of Section 22.3 of this Ordinance are considered and determined to be satisfied. 2. Business District Standards. Satellite dish antennae within the business zoning districts of the City shall be limited to those listed an permitted accessory and secondary use in the applicable zoning district subject to the provisions of this Ordinance. 3. Iadustrial District Standards. Commercial, private and public satellite dish transmitting or receiving antennae in excess of two (2) meters located within the I-2 and I- 2 Districts of the City shall comply with the following standards: (a) All accessory and secondary use provisions of the zoning districts of this Ordinance are eatisEactorily met. (b) The lot on which the satellite dish antenna is located shall be of sufficient size to assure that an obstruction free transmit -receive window or windows can be maintained within the limits of the property ownership. (c) Except where the antenna to screened by a structure exceeding the antenna height, landscape buffering and screening shall be maintained on all sides of the satellite dish antenna in a manner in which growth of the landscape elements will not interfere with the receive window. (d) The conditional use permit provisions of Section 22.3 of this Ordinance are considered and determined to be satisfied. (F) CMOMCIAL AM VMIC ROZO AND TRL8VIBS08 A7'➢TZMG, AM PUBLIC UTILITY 1QCR0WV9 ANr1))!!=Bs Commercial and public radio and television transmitting and public utility microwavo antennas shall comply with the following standards s 1. Such antanna shall be considered an allowed conditional use within the I-1 and I.2 Districts of the City and shall be subject to the rogulations and requirements of section 22.3 of this Ordinance. 10 NOV-27-1996 10:58 hAC 612 595 9837 P. 14o'15 1. The antennas, transmitting towers, or array of towers shall be located on a continuous parcel having a dimension equal to the height of the antenna, transmitting tower, or array of towers measured between the base of the antenna or tower located nearest a property line and said property line, unless a qualified structural engineer specifies in writing that the collapse of any antenna or tower will occur within a lesser distance under all foreseeable circumstances. 3. Unless the antenna is mounted on an existing structure, a fence not greater than eight (S) feet in height with a --4-- opacity of fifty (50) percent shall be provided around the support structure and other equipment. Sealioa 9. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this _ day of 1996. CITY OF MMITICELLO By: ATTEST: Brad Pyle, mayor By: iuca Nolfateller, Assistant City Adminietrator AYES: NAYS: C 11 0 C NDJ- Z? -1996 10.58 NRC 612 595 9837 P. 1"5 SOURCE: 1. Sprint Spectrum Personal Communication Service Womuftnal Marla (Spring Spectrum 1996). 2. 'APA Article (Ann Higgins). 3. fkdel Antenna Ordirmnoe (Fredrickson & Byron PA). 4. FCC Fact Sheet (April 1996). & CHy of St. Paul Anterum Study (City of St. Paul, September 1893). 6. CRy of Plyrrwuth Antenna Amendment (July 1996). 7. City of Buffalo Anterum Ameridm d (August 1996) W EXHIBIT B tura P.15 Planning Commission Agenda - 12/3/96 Please see attached report from Planner Steve Grittman. NW -27-1996 10:51 NRC 612 595 9837 P. 02/06 N NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS SNC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Monticello Mayor and City CouraA Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grstrnan DATE: November 27, 19% RE: Monticello - Fence Ordinance Amendment FILE NO: 191.08-96.11 or Ip tinting of it to CAMptor 3 Section ign In the vhibilt triangle at Ute intenaetlon of streets. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This memorandum forwards a revised fence ordinance amendment which attempts to address the concerns rued by the planning Commission and members of the public at the November Plannlrtg CommWon meeting. EsswUlaly, the definition of the visibility area is unchanged in this draft, as are the neiWidtarn on lar>dscaping or construction in the area (basically three feet or less, or chairs link fencing). However, the amendment has been revised to include an administrative waiver section which allows an exemptim to the restriction under certain circumstances. The City AdmhMnotor may Ward the waiver if the obpdwm of the visibility area restrictions are not compromised, such as when the visibility area would be a aWdfieant dtstenee from the traveled Intersection, or the project In the vieibW arae would not actually aRect sight lines, or beca, of rho Zm tp Obtrlet Use vlsibtiity area Is not necessary (as would be the case In the downtown area). Wis had considered aftempdrg to prepare an Ordennoe which built In all of the exeeptlone, however, It was oxtremely unwieldy. end ft accepts tertdsd to sweep too broadly. The proposed ordinance as revised abwe more do cess by ease review. but without the need 57715 wAV2ATA BOULEVARD. 8WTI see 5T. LOUIS PARK. MINNESOTA 56416 PHONE eI 2.606.0030 FAX e 1 2.505.0637 7 PW -77-1996 10:52 NAC 612 595 9637 F.03i06 to pursue a formal variance with the public hearing and other corn. If a landowner receives a negative decision from the Administrator, an appeal can be requested, so the landowner would still he" a potential remedy from the governing body. r .: _ X11 _ hr •�,.= 1. Approve the revised Ordinance amending the visibildy, area of the Zoning Ordinance as proposed. This amendment should be based upon a funding that the amendment Is necessary to provide adequate public safety at Intersections of public streets, end that it provides sufficient flexibility for inapplicable aibmtions. B. Deny the Ordinance amendment as proposed. Although a foral finding is not necessary for the denial of a City4nitiatea aanenciment, one possible finding would be that adequate tratflc control is alreedy In place at street intersections, maldng the additional restrictions unnecessary. C. STAFF RECOMMENDAM Staff recommends approval of the Ordinance amendment. AMmugh there are areas In the cornmunky where structures andlor plantings at Inlerseetion may not create hazards, these areas may be permitted an administrative weiver, with an appeal of an adverse decision to the Clty Council. In addition, such area could be granted variances in unique circumstances. If the administrative waiver provisions did not apply. We believe that an Ordinance which attempts to build oil of the potential exceptions Into the text of the Ordinance would be diNflcndt to interpret and possibly allow exceptions where the purpose of the Ordinance was particularly important. Q Dreg Ordinance 0 Nolr27-1996 10:52 NRC 612 595 9837 ?.04/06 City ofd , WWzw to AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3 OF THS MONTICSLLO CITY COMB, MMM AS THE ZaWIM ORDINANCE, BY A3MSMIN THS PROVISIONS VOR VISIBILITY AT INTMRCTIONS OF PUBLIC SWREMS. The City Council of the City of Monticello hereby ordains: Section 1. Chapter 3, Section 2, Subd. (P) 2. is hereby amended to read as follows: /�j 2. No fence, Qtlucture, shall be permitted within. a visibility area defined ats a triangle, two sides of which extend from the 1nteroecticn of the outside line of a public street right of way and either another public street or a railroad right of way to points twenty five (25) feet from the intersection. The third side of the visibility area shall be formed by a straight line connecting the points on the rights of way lines. In PTIONS: 1 (a) a of the visibility area is to tepurpose -rot traffic eigbt lines at intersections. w r� ✓ Therefore, within the visibility area, upon demonetration of compliance with the purpose of this subdivision, a written waiver from the Y provisions of Chapter 3, Section 3 Ip) 2 may /yr,�y° via be granted at the sole discretion of the City H � Administrator or the Administrator s designee. /v ► Factors which the Administrator may take tato account when considering whether or not to grant a waiver may include: (i) Distance of visibility ared-from the traveled sight -of -way. (ii) Likelihood of a project's actual interference with traffic visibility. c �Y (iii) Traffic volumes and speed of t\ �V adjacent roadways. (iv) Zoning Dietrict. (v) Other criteria as considered to be appropriato by the Administrator. �i POU -27-1996 10:52 NAC 612 5% 9837 P.05/06 i (b) Chain link fences with openings of one and five-eighths (1-5/6) inches to two (2) inches and not exceeding a maximum of forty-eight (48) inches in height may be allowed anywhere within the visibility area. (c) Except as provided in Chapter 3, Section 2, (F] 2, fences, plantings, trees, or shrubs not over three (3) feat in height may be permitted if not prohibited by other areas of the ordinances. (d) Except as provided in Chapter 3, Section 2, (F] 2, fences may be erected on any part of a lot when they are to be located behind the front line of the principal building on that lot. (e) Fences over six (6) feet in height shall be treated as structures and will require appropriate permits as required. (f) Except as provided in Chapter 3, Section 2 (F) 2, fences may be erected on the side of rear lot lines of a property subject to a recordable agreement between adjacent property owners. Said agreement shall assign maintenance and cost responsibilities between the adjoining properties, shall become null and void upon removal of the fence, and shall be recorded against the titles of each property. Where no agreement is reached, lances shall be set back a minimum of two (2) feet from any lot line. At the discretion of the Building Official, a boundary survey may be required to ascertain the exact location of the boundary line. Seation 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its Waage and publication. 2 0 IOw27-1996 10:52 NAC 612 S%9837 P. 06/W ATTEST: Rick Walfateller, Ad—in' etrator AYES: MLYS : c Brad Pyle, Mayor 7 TOM P.06 & juxudm ;1, :i.711M. Tor,i Planning Commission Agenda - 12P" Please we attached letter. Jeff will report on this issue at the meeting. JLtl- 250 Hast Broadway P. O. Bux 1147 Monticello, MN 55362.9245 MEMO Phone: (612) 195-2711 Metro: (612) 333-5739 F:ix: (612) 295.4404 TO: Sherburne County Planning Commission FROM: Jeff O Noill, Assistant City Administrator, City of Monticello DATE: November 21, 1996 RE: Bridge View Not Comments ~1'he following represents comments from the Planning Commission and City Council from 1Nunticello regarding the proposed Bridge View plat, which consists of 80 luta on approximately 200 acres on property adjacent to the city of Monticello. The City is concerned about provisions for park land in township plats udjacent to the city. Monticello currently provides pathways, river parks, lighted ballfields, Ice rinks, warming houses, and play areas that aro enjoyed by city and township residents alike. The. increaso in population along the city border created by this development will result in all added'dchmnd un city park and trail facilities but will not result in added tax base necessary to support increases in park development and maintenance expenses. The City welcomes township resident use oftity parks but at the same time requests that the township plat include park and pathway dedication ureas necessary to support the recreational needs of future township residents. Parks developed with this plat would also enable a more reciprocal relationship between the city and towashi p with regard to the provision of park facilities for the entire community. it is also requested that Sherburne County provide police resources to the area necessary to support adequate response times for township residents. Traditionally, the City, through its contract with the Wright County SherifFs Department, has provided response suplwrt for culls in nearby sections of Sherburne County. This tradition is likely to continue; however, please nude that Lhe City ling limited resowrcc3 available to support responses W police calls outside of its jurisdictiun on a timely basis and, therefore, police protection provided by Sherburne County W this area should be planned accordingly. �On behalfof the City of Monticello, thank you for the oppurturtity W express our concerns. Additional comments may be forthcoming from the City incoruunctiun with theonvironmental assessment worksheet process. (94 Offm ofAbUc Works, 9WCoif Gw w Rd., Munticello, NN&U112 • !A .n�: lelY/ 7H.S•,117u • Fui: !!i JJ11H..•.1!70, rat. 1 Planning Commission Agenda - 12/3/96 Please see attached Council agenda item. Jeff will report on this issue at the meeting. (11 Copy Council Agenda - 110/96 N' a RFFFRFN F AND BACK ,RO IND: City Council is asked to establish a one-year moratorium on issuance of building permits in a designated redevelopment area pending completion of redevelopment studies necessary to determine land use designations in the study arta. As you know, the Hoisington Koegler team is currently working at the direction of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, through the Monticello Community Partners, to establish a framework for redevelopment of the downtown/river front area. This study was precipitated by problems identified by the City Council/Planning Commission in the comprehensive plan. Major goals of the framework are to identify parcels to be earmarked for redevelopment and to organize residential, commercial and public: land use districts and regulations in a manner that that will promote long term prosperity. The need for the moratorium stems from the possibility of development of property that might not be consistent with the planning framework. Such investments before the framework is cmnpleted, if not consistent with the plan, would increase the cost of plan implementation. For instance, a building permit request has been submitted by Dan Reed for development of a small earth berm home on a parcel near West Bridge Park. This particular area has been identified as a prime location for a variety of uses that could take advantage of the river setting. Ideas include redevelopment for a motel as was done in Chaska, mid density high-end townhomes, public park land, etc. Allowing a new berm hone to be built at this location would decrease the chances of redevelopment because it would aid greatly to the redevelopment expense. The moratorium would therefore allow the city to block investments in real estate that could be at cross-purposes with the plan. The area designated to be included in the one-year moratorium is identified in Exhibit A. As you can see, the redevelopment district encompasses& relatively large arca and will therefore impact a number of properties. Please note that the moratorium dues not necessarily tie the hands of all property owners in the district. Upon resolution by the City Council, the moratorium can be lifted on a case-by-case basis. For instance, if there is a property owner within the designated moratorium district that seeks a building permit for a purpose that Is consistent within the framework or is obviously consistent with future plans, then the moratorium can be lifted for that specific panel by resolution of the City Council. Council Agenda - 11/25/96 ` R_ ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve a resolution establishing a moratorium on issuance of building permits pending a completion of a redevelopment study and associated zoning code amendments within a designated redevelopment area in the city of Monticello. '[itis action will provide the city with some control in the short term over investments in real state that could be at cross-purposes with the emerging long term plans for the city. 2. Motion to deny adopting said resolution. C STAF-FRFCOMMFNDATION: Staff recommends approval of the motion. If the City is serious about implementation of a redevelopment plan, then it would make sense that controls be in place to reduce the possibility of investments in real estate that might be inconsistent with emerging plans. Also, the moratorium is not completely inflexible which allows building permits to be issued on a case-by-case base as circumstances allow. With regard to the Reed situation, the city can legally deny the building permit for the duration of the moratorium even though the application preceeded the adoption of the moratorium Staff is sensitive to the problem that is created for the Reed family and will be working with the HRA to assist the Reeds in finding an alternative location for the home. The home is intended to be constructed by Reed for his niece who is disabled. Due to her disability, it is important for Reed's niece to live near family members somewhere in the core of the city west of Highway 25. Perhaps it will be possible to find a lower value home outside of the redevelopment district that could be purchased and demolished by the HRA or City and given to Reed in exchange for the vacant lot now owned by Reed Under this scenerio, the city would win by obtaining the vacant lot for redevelopment and replace a low value building with a new home. Reeds would win by having family member homes closer together. At this point. an existing vacant lot or home has not been targeted so costs to the city to accomplish the swap arc not yet available. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copies of resolution and ordinance amendment; Copy of map showing nwratorium area. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. AN INTERIM ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON ISSUANCE OF BUILDINGPERMITS PENDING COMPLETION OF A REDEVELOPMENT STUDY AND ASSOCIATED ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS NMtUN A DESIGNATED REDEVELOPMENT AREA IN THE CITY OF MONTICELLO THE CITY COUNCEL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Intent. It is the intent of this interim ordinance to allow the City of Monticello to complete review of the presently -existing ordinance sections related to commercial and residential development in a designated redevelopment area (exhibit A) and make appropriate changes to the same in order to establish proper public and private land uses and to protect the value of residential and commercial properties within the city of Monticello, to ensure proper land use controls, and to facilitate compatibility between public, commercial and residential land uses. Section 2. Authority and Purpose. The City Council is empowered by innecn a Statute s, Section 462.355, Subdivision 4, to pass an interim ordinance, applicable to all or a portion of its jurisdiction, for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. Section 3. Temporary Prohibition. For one year after the effective date of this ordinance, or until such earlier time as the Monticello City Council determines by resolution that the reasons for the moratorium no longer exist in general, or in particular circumstances, the city shall not receive, consider, and/or approve any application of any type of development within the redevelopment study area. Section 4. Misdemeanor. Any person, persons, furs, or corporation violnting any provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished pursuant to Minnesotn Ctatwtes, Section 609.02, Subdivision 3, or as subsequently amended, plus costs of prosecution. Section b. Injunctive Reliet In the event of a violation of this ordinance, the City may institute appropriate actions or proceedings, including requesting injunctive relief to prevent, restrain, correct, or abate such violations. Section 6. Separability. It is hereby declared to be the intention that the several provisions of this ordinance are separable in accordance with the following: If any court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge any provision of this ordinance to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect any other provisions of this ordinance not specifically included in anid judgment. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect from and atter its passage and publication, and shall remain in effect until one year after the effective date, unless a shorter period of time is approved by proper resolution of the Monticello City Council. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Monticello this day of 19_ Mayor City Administrator V 6 RESOLUTION 88 - RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN INTERIM ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS PENDING COMPLETION OF A REDEVELOPMENT STUDY AND ASSOCIATED ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS WITHIN A DESIGNATED REDEVELOPMENT AREA IN THE CITY OF MONTICELLO WHEREAS, the Monticello City Council has determined that in order to protect the planning process and ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Monticello, the presently -existing ordinances and controls regarding commercial, residential and park development in designated redevelopment areas need to be reevaluated; and WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority has authorized completion of a redevelopment study in response to issues identified in the City's comprehensive plan. The study will establish a redevelopment plan which could include amendments to the official zoning map and text amendments to said ordinances; and WHEREAS, a recent application for a building permit for a single family home in an area that may he designated for park, commercial or residential development has brought forth concerns regarding the compatibility of a residential home with other land uses in the area; and WHEREAS, the above-mentioned concerns require the City to study possible changes to existing controls; and WHEREAS, the City needs a period of tinne in which to conduct these studies and to implement any needed changes; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that no new development should be established within the designated redevelopment area until these issues have been studied and proper amendments to the city ordinances have been implemented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO that the attached Interim ordinance establishing a moratorium on issuance of building permits in the designated redevelopment area (exhibit A) is hereby adopted pending completion of redevelopment study and associated zoning coda atnandments. Adopted this of '19—. Mayor p City Administrator M) °v' I `•+ EXHIBIT A OPOSED DESIGNATEU-REDEYFt.ovN= AREA - �''' •. � ..;,•r.� BI1LDIgNGrPERMIT MORATORIUM\\ ....ut[ QQr tet•. \��'� %�'"� .i/L' • '� . •' ?a,..:�'��/ • I��'� V �. Tj�' v ,\ ;,.% :/� •, � ,?'� '('� �� /.. � fir-�.• , 17 F _ _ �— :>.."•.)":� . i•� � ` CCS` � r • . • / /•�� iwa;� l •��i Irk' ��•1°; ML •q ��a 80 �:• 9 { _ale �+ 1 • _` L -a L� �' �__ ' J � � .� _/�Y1 1 _ _ _ -.� •1S� � wad\ � (e • � w .• . raaf+ '• � _:T. t� fit_ r, '_t�� r vv pss. p851GN*TSD RSD Ta-,UM SR ySDAF 8U1LD1NU 7 ' T 11/25196 �optea by city HIGHWAY MICROFILM TITLE PAGE CITY OF MONTICELLO Planning Commission Agenda Books 1997