Planning Commission Minutes 08-02-2011MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING
Tuesday, August 2, 2011- 6:00 PM
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: Rod Dragsten, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Barry Voight
Commissioner Absent: William Spartz
Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart
Shaft: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman -NAC
1. Call to order
Commissioner Dragsten called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes of July 5th, 2011
BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 5TH, 2011.
MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED 2 -0.
(Charlotte Gabler and Barry Voight abstained as they had not attended the previous
meeting.)
3. Citizen Comments None
4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
Rod Dragsten asked to consider items 7 and 9 first in the agenda.
5. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 7, Special Use Overlay District, including
amendments to the official zoning map of the City of Monticello. Applicant: City of
Monticello
In June, the Planning Commission called for a public hearing regarding an amendment of
the Special Use Overlay District relative to the pending bowling alley site rezoning. In
July, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing due to a lack of progress on
the transition of the City from City ownership to ownership by the Quarry Church. At this
time, the City and Quarry Church continue to work through site items related to the
consideration of a purchase agreement and a further continuation is required. The City
will complete an annual review of the special use overlay district, concurrent with the
Comprehensive Plan review, unless otherwise warranted by separate rezoning actions.
BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE AMENDMENT
TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, SPECIAL USE OVERLAY
DISTRICT TO SEPTEMBER 6TH, 2011 MOTION WAS SECONDED BY
CHARLOTTE GABLER. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0.
Planning Commission Minutes — 08/02/11
6. Continued Public Hearing — Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 13 - Telecommunications Towers and Antennas
Chapter 5, Section 1- Use Table, Chapter 5, Section 2 — Use Specific Standards and
Chapter 5, Section 3 - Accessory Uses. Applicant: City of Monticello
The inventory of towers and antennas already in place throughout the City was used as a
reference point for considering amendments to the code.
The Planning Commission had previously come to consensus about developing potential
amendments related to telecommunication towers and antennas.
1. Separate the varying types of towers /antennas within the tables and text and provide
appropriate regulations for each
2. Generally prohibit towers /antennas as principal uses of properties with limited
exceptions
3. Require Conditional Use Permits for towers and some antennas in all zoning districts;
display clearly within tables
4. Define what types of antennas may be allowed without a CUP and under what
conditions
Steve Grittman outlined the proposed changes to current regulations within a revised
Section 4.13 — Telecommunications Towers and Antennae, a revised Table 5 -6
specifying accessory uses, and revised Definitions that would apply to the ordinance.
Section 4.13, Telecommunications Towers and Antennae
This entire section was reorganized with limited revision to the specific standards
applying to these structures. Telecommunications facilities have been made accessory
uses wherever they occur. Antenna and antenna support structures are proposed to be
treated differently depending on location.
The reorganization creates the following subsections:
• Purpose
• (A) Private Amateur Radio (permitted accessory structures in all districts)
• (B) Private Receiving Antenna (permitted accessory structures in all districts)
• (C) Commercial /Industrial Reception and Transmission (accessory Conditional
Use in Business and Industrial Districts, requires screening)
• (D) Wireless Telecommunications Antennae (new freestanding support structures
allowed only by CUP in certain commercial and industrial districts). Co- location
of antennae as permitted accessory uses on existing structures in commercial and
industrial districts, along with the R -3 District.
• (E) General Provisions
• (F) Application process and submittal requirements
• (G) Outside review of applications at applicant's cost
• (H) Removal of abandoned installations
Planning Commission Minutes — 08/02/11
There were questions related to tower and antenna location in the R -1 area. It was
recommended that antenna be located on existing structures in the residential zoning
districts. Co- location is the preferred approach. It was also suggested that screening
standards be cross - referenced. There was discussion of eliminating ground clutter.
Staff will follow up on the question about the exclusive rights of FiberNet in tower and
antenna location.
Accessory Use Table 5 -6
The changes to the table include the deletion of the broader Communications Antennae
category in favor of separate listings for each type of antenna, along with specific
classification of where each is permitted, conditional and permitted.
There was considerable discussion of whether new towers should be allowed in
residential districts. There seemed to be consensus on not allowing new towers in the R
Districts and B -1 District and as Conditional Uses in other Business and Industrial
Districts. Staff was directed to delete the R -3 District and the MH for wireless
telecommunications support structure from eligible sites for new structures. The table
would be amended as indicated.
Chapter 8, Definitions
The changes include separate definitions which provide would distinction between the
antennae classifications. This amendment uses language that is consistent with industry
language.
The public hearing was opened. Hearing no public comment, the public hearing was
closed.
ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO TABLE THE HEARING ON THE AMENDMENT TO
THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS
AND ANTENNAS TO THE SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 MEETING TO CLARIFY THE
QUESTION OF EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF FIBERNET IN TOWER AND ANTENNA
LOCATION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BRAD FYLE. MOTION CARRIED 4-
0.
Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Rezoning from I -1 (Light
Industrial) to B -4 (Regional Business) for Lot 1 and 2, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial
Park (102 Thomas Park Drive). Applicant: WHL Enterprises, LLC
The applicant requested a rezoning from I -1 (Light Industrial) to B -4 (Regional Business)
to accommodate their current and proposed expansion of uses at 102 Thomas Park Drive.
These uses include the operation of a sports training /athletic training facility and
indoor entertainment facility.
The rezoning of the 2.44 acre site from an industrial designation to a commercial
Planning Commission Minutes — 08/02/11
designation is consistent with the 2008 Monticello Comprehensive Plan, which guides
the property, as "Places to Shop ". Rezoning the property brings it into conformance with
the new code.
The public hearing was opened. One of the property owners, Holly Klein, briefly
described the facility use. The public hearing was closed.
BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2011 -69, RECOMMENDING
REZONING OF OAKWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK, NORTH HALF OF LOT 1, BLOCK
1 FROM 1 -1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) TO B -4 (REGIONAL BUSINESS).MOTION WAS
SECONDED BY CHARLOTTE GABLER. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0.
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of amendments to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance
The Monticello Zoning Code is in its code tracking period, which is intended to identify
needed language adjustments or minor corrections as a result of the new code's daily use
and application. The majority of the proposed amendments are "housekeeping" in nature,
but some represent new policy direction for the City.
Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section 4(C), as
related to Variances
The amendment proposed is consistent with Minnesota Statute change related to
variance review and approval. The changes in the statute relate to the standards by
which a zoning authority may issue a variance. The changes are very subtle, but
essentially create a more flexible variance standard for cities.
2. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section 4(P) as related to
Planned Unit Developments
Provision 2.4(P)(4), Permitted Locations for PUD Rezoning allows PUDs only within
residential or commercial zoning districts and prohibits PUDs within industrial districts.
There may be circumstances in which the City desires the flexibility of allowing PUDs
for industrial uses. Any industrial PUD would be held to the same process and
approval criteria. This flexibility may be especially useful as the City seeks to develop
and/or attract high -end business /industrial users.
Further clarification within the PUD ordinance is also needed relative to the structure of
the collaborative process. A formalization of the make -up of the Collative Team and
the public values statement should be required steps within the PUD process. One of
the main concerns expressed regarding the PUD process was the potential for delay or
additional steps. The better defined the process, the better information staff can provide
to applicants.
18
Planning Commission Minutes — 08/02/11
The Planning Commission will be holding a September workshop to review in detail
the PUD ordinance. The Commission will walk through the current ordinance process
and provide recommendation for additional amendments as needed for a future
Planning Commission meeting.
3. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 4(D) and
(E) as related to Attached Accessory Structure standards
This amendment is needed to provide better usability and clarity as related to setbacks
for attached accessory structures in the R -A and R -1 districts.
Standards for the R -A and R -1 residential districts require a setback of 10' for all
attached accessory structures based on a reading of Tables 3 -4 and 3 -5 alone. With
the provision listed in section 5.5(B)(2), the setback allowance is relaxed to 6' for
interior lots.
Amending the code to provide a footnote which allows attached accessory structures
to be setback a distance of 6' from the property line, the table language is then
consistent with language found in the Allowable Yard Encroachments section,
3.3(D)(2) and with current setbacks for many properties throughout the City.
Deleting the reference in Chapter 5 is then also necessary.
This amendment will also include a text amendment to Chapter 5, Section
3(B)(2)((i)(ii).
4. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 4 as related
to R -2 and R -1 zoned properties in the Original Plat and Lower Monticello
From time to time, the City receives inquires and requests by property owners within
the Original Plat and Lower Monticello plat to split their properties. These parcels
are most often 66' x 165' in length are located in R -2 Zoning Districts. In many
cases, their properties actually consist of two legal lots but are legally described as
one parcel. Under the current ordinance, these properties cannot be split due to lot
area and width requirements.
The amendments drafted to the R -2 district standards would allow these properties to
be split for the purposes of development. New development will be required to meet
all other code standards as outlined in the development.
Staff responded to questions and pointed to the discretion of the Commission to
approve any variances.
5. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 4 (G) as related to
Accessory Structure standards
This amendment is a simple text change to eliminate a double - negative phrase within
Planning Commission Minutes — 08/02/11
the T -N district table text for accessory structures.
6. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 1(.l) as related to
landscaping standards in the TN District
The proposed amendment represents a minor language adjustment to correct an error
in the quantity and size of the trees required on each lot and to maintain consistency
with the accessory structure standards within Table 3 -7 above.
The existing ordinance requirements in the text of Chapter 4 for the TN district are
inconsistent with Table 4 -4 for landscaping requirements. The amendments create
consistency with Table 4 -4.
Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 5(Fl) as
related to Changeable Copy Signs
These amendments are intended to provide additional requirements related to the sign
aesthetic.
Changeable copy signs would be subject to the following additional regulations.
• No fluorescent text shall be permitted on such signs.
• Signs must be permanently anchored.
• Signs must be incorporated within the overall sign structure for both monument and
pylon signs.
There was considerable discussion about fluorescent lettering on signage in general. The
Commission recommended: eliminating (16)(a)(i) which reads, "No fluorescent text shall be
permitted on such signs," adding language to (16) (a)(ii) to read: "Signs must be permanently
anchored to the sign," and adding language to (16) (a) (iii) to read "Signs must be
incorporated within the overall sign structure for both monument and pylon signs and must be
consistent with the balance of the sign design and materials."
8. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 5(11)(19) as related
to Dynamic Displays
The City carefully reviewed industry standards for best practices flexibility and
aesthetic.
Staff does not believe that it is the intent of the City to allow dynamic displays as
temporary signs. Amendments add a definitive statement about the permanent nature
of dynamic displays will further support this requirement. The proposed amendment
also cleans up some of the inconsistencies within the language of the text.
Planning Commission Minutes — 08/02/11
The Commission recommended that (a) (iv) be changed to from five (5) seconds to three (3)
seconds.
9. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 5(I) as
related to Temporary Signs
The amendment language allows the City some flexibility to accommodate special
event signage for both community and private events. For example, Farmers Market
and occasional sale entities who have a short-term need for small direction signage.
The provisions are limited to the CCD, where space for such signage is limited due to
zero lot line building setbacks. Other commercial/business areas have available land
area to accommodate signage via other existing code provisions for sandwich boards
and temporary signs. Additionally, many of those areas lie along County or State
ROWS, where the City cannot permit any off - premise signage. The Temporary Sign
provisions are limited to weekends and maximum amount of days per month.
In January of 2012, it is anticipated that additional amendments to the Temporary
Sign provisions may be needed as a result of the interim ordinance currently in place.
10. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 8,
Table 4 -7
The proposed amendment provides needed clarity in the minimum number of parking
spaces required for retail commercial uses where 50% of the floor area is not retail in
nature. The current standards, depending on the size of the building, could create a
shortage of parking on commercial sites.
11. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 2(F) as
related to Entertainment/ Recreation - Indoor Commercial and Specialty Eating
Establishments
The intent of these amendments is to provide specific requirements for both the
permitted and conditional uses of property for both the Entertairtment/Recreation-
Indoor Commercial and the Special Eating Establishment Uses. These two uses have
no specific standards written into the text of Chapter, but are listed within the tables
as conditional uses in some of the districts. Status as a conditional use warrants that
the City develop standards by which the uses should be reviewed.
In the process of developing standards for the two uses above, staff has also found the
need to for a minor amendment in the standards for the Entertainment/Recreation -
Outdoor Commercial provisions. The suggested additions are included in the
amendments below.
7
Planning Commission Minutes - 08/02/11
12. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 2 as related to
Restaurant Uses
The current regulations for restaurant uses require that outdoor portions of restaurants
cease activity after 10:00 PM.
The amendment proposed has arisen out of the need for the Planning Commission
and Council to be able to consider circumstances in which a restaurant may wish to
offer outdoor entertainment opportunities beyond 10:00 PM and allow such use under
a separate permit. Staff is proposing the use of a Special Event Permit to be approved
by the City Council. This allows the permit to be issued in an expedited manner, but
only after review and authorization of the Council.
13. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 3 as related
to Accessory Uses
In comparing Table 5 -4 to the specific regulations for Outdoor Storage listed in section
5.3(D)(22), it is staff s position that there are three issues to be addressed.
There first is related to ease of use and consistency. Outdoor Storage is listed as
Permitted for both I -1 and I -2 properties within the table, but within the specific
standards for Outdoor Storage in section 22, it states that a conditional use permit is
required within industrial districts.
The second issue is the intent of the City as related to when a CUP is required. Staff
believes it was the intention of both the IEDC small group and the Planning
Commission to set up a gradually increasing set of regulations for outdoor storage,
based on the district. For example, outdoor storage is not permitted within the IBC,
but such storage is conditional in commercial districts and permitted in the I -1 and I -2.
In discussions with both the IEDC small group and the Planning Commission, staff s
recollection is that Outdoor Storage was intended to be conditional in both I -1 and I -2
when abutting residential uses or districts, permitted otherwise.
Finally, in considering the location and allowance of truck parking on commercial and
industrial sites, staff would recommend that the City consider truck parking as outdoor
storage. This is consistent with the current defmition in Chapter 8 of the code.
Truck parking as storage would then be permitted in industrial districts (except when
abutting residential districts, where it would require a CUP as noted above) and
conditional in commercial districts. In cases where truck parking is conditional, staff
has added additional requirements related to mitigating potential negative impacts.
Planning Commission Minutes — 08/02/11
14. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 4, as related
to Temporary Uses
Unlike Farmer's Markets and Garage/Yard Sales, Wayside Stands do not list a
maximum allowable time limit per calendar year. Due to the seasonal nature of these
types of uses, such regulation is recommended.
The public hearing was opened. Hearing no comment, the public hearing was closed.
BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE
#535, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING REVISIONS: IN CHAPTER 4, SECTION
5(H) (16) CHANGEABLE COPY SIGNS ELIMINATING (16)(A)(I) WHICH
READS, "NO FLUORESCENT TEXT SHALL BE PERMITTED ON SUCH
SIGNS," ADDING LANGUAGE TO (16) (A)(II) TO READ: "SIGNS MUST BE
PERMANENTLY ANCHORED TO THE SIGN," AND ADDING LANGUAGE TO
(16) (A) (III) TO READ "SIGNS MUST BE INCORPORATED WITHIN THE
OVERALL SIGN STRUCTURE FOR BOTH MONUMENT AND PYLON SIGNS
AND MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE BALANCE OF THE SIGN DESIGN
AND MATERIALS." AS WELL AS A CHANGE TO CHAPTER 4, SECTION
5(H)(19)(B)(IV) REGULATIONS GOVERNING DYNAMIC SIGN DISPLAYS TO
READ, "NO DYNAMIC SIGN DISPLAY SHALL CHANGE MORE THAN ONE
TIME PER THREE (3) SECOND PERIOD..." BASED ON A FINDING THAT
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF
THE PURPOSE STATEMENTS OF MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE.
MOTION WAS SECONDED BY CHARLOTTE GABLER. MOTION CARRIED 4-
0.
9. Consideration of reauest for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for Concept
Stage and Development Stage Planned Unit Development approval for a multi -
tenant shopping center, a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage, a
Conditional Use Permit for a Car Wash, a Conditional Use Permit for a Motor Fuel
Station /Convenience Store, a Conditional Use Permit for minor auto repair, and
Preliminary Plat approval. Applicant: Mills Properties, Inc.
The applicant requested a two year extension of the conditional use permit for PUD and
preliminary plat for the proposed Mills Fleet Farm project approved in 2007 citing
continued weak economic conditions as the foundation for the request. The site is
expected to be developed consistent with the approved plans as soon as it is economically
feasible to do so.
BRAD FYLE MOVED TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION OF THE JUNE 25TH, 2007
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE
PROPOSED MILLS FLEET FARM FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS, WITH THE
CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED
TO THE EXTENSION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY CHARLOTTE GABLER.
MOTION CARRIED 4 -0.
Planning Commission Minutes — 08/02/11
10. Consideration to adopt Resolution 2011 -71 fmding that a modification to the
Redevelopment Plan, TIF Plan for TIF District 1 -39, and conveying EDA owned
land to Suburban Manufacturing conforms with the Monticello Comprehensive
Plan
The Planning Commission was asked to adopt a resolution stating that a modification to
the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1, the TIF
Plan for District No. 1 -39, and conveyance of EDA owned property to Suburban
Manufacturing conforms to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan.
Suburban Manufacturing proposed to construct a 38,000 square foot manufacturing and
office facility at Otter Creek to consolidate their operations. The facility is a permitted
use within the Monticello Business Center, zoned properly (I -1), and will comply with
Otter Creek Covenants.
The creation of TIF District 1 -39 would provide a business subsidy and conveyance of
EDA owned industrial land for the expansion of a Monticello business. The subsidy,
which will consist of writing down land costs, would comply with the Monticello
Comprehensive Plan by creating 11 new full -time jobs, providing high quality
manufacturing development, and increased tax base. Staff provided an explanation of the
"but for TIF" clause related to justifying the financial assistance so that a project can
move forward.
BRAD FYLE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2011 -71 FINDING THAT A
MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CENTRAL
MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, THE TIF PLAN FOR TIF
DISTRICT NO. 1 -39, AND CONVEYANCE OF EDA OWNED LAND TO
SUBURBAN MANUFACTURING CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO.
MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0.
11. Community Development Director's Report
Silver Springs Update
The concept for housing at Silver Springs that Mr. Blumentritt prepared does not include
the Paumen property which would make it contiguous to the City and eligible for
annexation. He plans to discuss the option to annex the Silver Springs property without it
being contiguous with the Township Board.
PUD Ordinance Workshop
Staff will email the Planning Commission to establish a date for the postponed PUT)
workshop.
CUP Extensions
Three remaining CUPs which require extension due to non -use are:
• DOJO /Cornerstone Development
10
Planning Commission Minutes — 08/02/11
Staff will try to contact.
Broadway Market /Steiner Development
This property is now owned by USBank which has asked to extend its CUP for a
year. A nuisance citation is being handled. This issue will be considered at the
September meeting.
• M &IBank
M &I does not intend to build on this site. This property may be for sale, and in
that case, it may be appropriate to bring this matter the CUP expiration before the
Planning Commission.
Minneapolis /St. Paul Business Journal
According to the Minneapolis /St. Paul Business Journal Monticello has been one of the
10 fastest growing cities.
12. Adjourn
BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:24 PM. MOTION
WAS SECONDED BY CHARLOTTE GABLER. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0.
Recorder: Kerry T. Burri -M
Approved: September 6, 2011
Attest:
Angela S um n, munity Development Director
11