Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 01-07-1997 . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January, 1997.7 p.m. Members Present: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart, Richard Martie, Rod Dragsten Staff Present: Jeff O'Neill, Steve Grittman, Wanda Kraemer 1. Call to order Chairman Frie called the meeting to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the re~lar meeting held December 3,1996. COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 1996. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Commissioner Bogart requested items 8 and 9 be switched in order. 4. Citizens comments. John Leerssen, developer, requested the Planning Commission to review his sketch plan at the February meeting. He stated his plan is to have the preliminary plat ready for the March meeting but wanted the Planning Commission to review the sketch plan first. Chairman Frie suggested Mr. Leerssen first meet with staff and discuss the sketch plan. After meeting with staff an agenda item for the February meeting could be prepared. Mr. Leerssen was in agreement with this suggestion. 5. Public hearing--Consideration of a variance request to rear yard setback to Otter Creek. Applicant, Daniel Lynch. Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported Daniel Lynch has requested a variance from the minimum 50 foot building setback required from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of Otter Creek. Specifically, the applicant wishes to replace a deteriorating "walk-out" deck (which currently 1 . Planning Commission Minutes - 1/07/97 lies 36 feet from the OHWM) with a new "screened-in" deck which would lie 35 feet from the OHWM. As noted previously, the applicant's existing deck lies 36 feet from the OHWM of Otter Creek. Because such deck (as well as dwellings in the area) were constructed prior to the adoption of the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance and the imposition of the 50 foot building setback, it holds legal grandfather rights. If such non-conformity is completely removed, however, it many not be placed in its previous "non- conforming" location without the processing of a variance. Grittman recommended the deck would be approved but did have concems regarding the enclosure. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. . Daniel Lynch, owner of the house, stated the deck was unsafe and in need of repair. He had decided to screen in the porch instead of just repair the deck to make it more useful. Lynch explained he discovered when the permit was applied for that the law was changed two years after he bought the house requiring a 50 ft. setback. When the building permit was applied for the building official explained that a permit could not be issued without a variance from the planning commission. The creek winds through this area so all of the setbacks vary but his porch would be in sight line with his neighbors. Chairman Frie closed the public meeting. The Commissioners discussed the fact that the creek does wind around in this area and the porch would be in line with the neighbors. There was a concern that the porch would eventually become more of a year round addition than a porch. It is common to keep improving a porch and soon there is no way for the City to protect the shoreline. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, cautioned the Commissioners if they were leaning towards granting the variance to clearly identifY the reasons that the porch is being placed over an existing structure and the site lines are not being interrupted. This will be needed incase there is a similar request in the future. COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARTIE, TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS IN CHARACTER . 2 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 1/07/97 WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT DOES NOT INTERRUPT THE SITE LINE BECAUSE THE CREEK WINDS BACK AND FORTH IN THIS AREA. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Continued Public Hearing--Consideration of ordinance amendments governing fence design and location. COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOGART TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE FEBRUARY MEETING. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Continued Public Hearing--Consideration of amendments to the zoning ordinance governing radio/cell phone communication towers. Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported at the last Planning Commission meeting, a representative of one of the wireless communications licensees was present to suggest possible changes to the City's Ordinance amendment regulating antenna towers. Grittman added that he had conducted additional research and provided the following responses to the letter presented at the meeting. 1. A suggestion was made that the Ordinance's requirement for registered professional engineer supervise construction be dropped, relying on the requirement that such a n engineer would be supervising design. This language came from similar Ordinances which have been adopted both in the Twin Cities and other parts of the country. It is intended to supplement the City's inspection by certifying that the tower was in fact constructed in accordance with design. 2. A change to the Ordinance's requirement for registered engineers to design the system coverage was proposed, substituting "qualified radio frequency engineers" as registration may be irrelevant to this aspect of the industry. This change would appear to be a positive amendment to the proposed ordinance. 3. The letter suggested that the requirement for screening of ground equipment was adequate to hide undesirable aspects of the tower installation, and that the restriction of such equipment to rear yards should be removed. What the language does is allow such equipment to encroach into rear yards, but front and side setback must be 3 . . Planning Commission Minutes - 1/07/97 adhered to, as with any other land use. Since the purpose of this clause is to enhance the effect of any screening, we would not recommend any change. 4. The letter requested that the Ordinance dispense with the requirement be housed in a building, since it is weatherproof If the equipment is adequately screened this would be acceptable. 5. A request to increase height limitations to 165 feet in the industrial areas and 100 feet in the residential areas. A higher tower limit in the industrial area may be appropriate if the Ordinance includes a requirement that upon reconfiguration of the cell area, the unnecessary tower height is removed. In residential areas, the Ordinance is designed to discourage towers and raising the height would make it more feasible to locate towers in those areas. 6. If was suggested that more flexibility be built into the Ordinance, particularly in non-industrial areas. As noted above, such areas have been designed to discourage tower location. 7. The letter discussed a modification to the tower setback language. As proposed in the draft ordinance, a tower must be setback from adjacent buildings a distance equal to its height. However, this may be reduced upon a certification that the tower is designed in such a way as to avoid collapse which would endanger nearby property. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. There were no comments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. The Commissioners questioned Grittman as to how the ordinance was developed and also to explain what the equipment on the ground looks like. Grittman stated that he has worked with and reviewed many cities ordinances and used a variety of them. The equipment resembles a weatherproof cable or electric box. COMMISSION CARLSON MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOGART TO APPROVE THE DRAFT COMMUNICATION TOWER ORDINANCE AND SEND TO COUNCIL TO BE MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY. Motion passed unanimously. . 4 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 1/07/97 8. Review multi-family district locations and consider directin~ staff to prepare amendments consolidatin~ multi-family districts. Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported an issue which has been discussed by the City over the past several years, and was addressed both in the Comprehensive Plan and the subsequent implementation list, is that of the "appropriate" level of multiple family zoning in the community. How higher density housing fits within the mix of residential uses has been a concern of the City, which it has attempted to control by Zoning District. One of the issues raised is the effectiveness of the current Zoning District to adequately plan for both number and location of higher density housing. The City's zoning ordinance allows multiple family housing in the R-3 District as a permitted use. In addition, such housing is allowed in both the B-2 and PZM Districts as conditional uses. The Monticello Community Partners, MCP, is researching increasing the density of the downtown area. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator and member of the MCP board, added the goal of the MCP is to create a high level of density in the downtown area with a mixture of residential and business uses. There is not an ordinance yet to support this goal but the Planning Commissioners will need to set some guidelines. There are many multiple housing areas on the fringes of the City. The Commissioners discussed the current PZM zoning and agreed that these areas needed more direction. Commissioner Bogart mentioned Elk River had developed a system for underlying zoning to allow more specific direction but also allow some flexibility to areas similar to PZM Dan Goeman, relator, stated he liked what he was hearing, the PZM zones are creating more questions and problems than its worth. If there is more direction from the City on the uses it would be very helpful. Todd Larson, resident, expressed concern regarding the PZM zone across from the public works building and next to his property. He did not want multiple housing in this area and was interested in having this zone defined in more detail. COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CARLSON TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO CONSOLIDATE MULTIPLE F AMIL Y HOUSING DISTRICTS AND TO RESEARCH THE CURRENT PZM ZONING DISTRICTS FOR ADJUSTMENT THAT SHOULD BE MADE. ALSO TO 5 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 1/07/97 INCORPORATE SUGGESTIONS MADE BY THE MCP'S PLAN. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Consideration of calling for a public hearing on modifications to the variance process. Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported that staff has briefly presented this issue in the past, and it was identified as an item for action out of the implementation discussions of the Comprehensive Plan. To recap the current procedure, the Planning Commission sits as the Board of Adjustment to decide variance requests from zoning standards. A person who objects to the Board of Adjustment's decision has five days to file an appeal to the City Council. A notice must be published giving four days notice prior to the Council hearing the appeal. The City has attempted to accommodate appellants by placing them on the next City Council agenda. This required that notices to the newspaper are actually filed prior to the Board of Adjustment's decision, or that adequate notice is dispensed with. Either of these approaches could give the City problems in the event of a contested decision which winds up in court. There are three options to consider to modify the variance process: I-Change Board of Adjustment designation to the City Council; 2 - stick to the regular schedule; or 3-drop the notice and publication requirement for initial appeals. Mayor Fair, who was observing the meeting, stress the fact the Planning Commission is the expert on the ordinance. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the Planning Commission would still send their recommendation to the Council. The variance decision would be added to the consent agenda and the Council would not be required to comment unless a councilmember asked for the item to be removed from the consent agenda or the decision was appealed. The Council is now receiving this information in their agenda packets as an update item. CHAIRMAN FRIE MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW THE VARIANCE PROCESS. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Updates: A. Wastewater treatment plant project - Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported the bids were awarded 6 . B. Planning Commission Minutes - 1/07/97 and the wastewater treatment plan project would be started soon. Highway 25 Project/Chelsea realignment project. - Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported January 15, 1997 the City Council was holding a special meeting to provide information on the selection of a design option for the Highway 25 Project. C. Parking on Broadway at Pinewood - Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Adminstrator, per the Planning Commissions direction sent letter to school requesting a meeting regarding the safety of parking along West Broadway in front of the Pinewood Elementary School. D. MCP Workshop #4- The Commissioners were reminded of the Downtown/Riverfront Development Workshop on January 8, 1997, at 6:00 p.m. At this meeting preliminary financing options will be discussed. Commissioner Frie inquired about the status of City liquor licenses. If there are any available and at what population does this change. . 11. Adjournment. E. COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARTIE TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Respectfully submitted, Waudc fMi4N^-- Wanda Kraemer Development Services Technician . 7