Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 09-06-2011MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 6,2011 - 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Rod Dragsten, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison Absent: Lloyd Hilgart Staff: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman-NAC Others: Wayne Elam 1. Call to order Commissioner Dragsten called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes of August 2nd, 2011 BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 2ND, 2011. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. (Bill Spartz abstained.) 3. Citizen Comments None 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None 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 2011, 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. Although progress continues to be made on the transition from City ownership to ownership by the Quarry Church, no actual change in ownership has occurred. It is unnecessary to take any action on this item at this time. BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, SPECIAL USE OVERLAY DISTRICT TO OCTOBER 4TH, 2011. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY WILLIAM SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0. 6. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment Riverwood Bank Planning Commission Minutes — 09/06/11 The applicants are seeking a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning of the property at 9766 Fallon Avenue to match the existing and proposed tenant uses with the zoning designation. The 3.15 acre site is used as an office building with multiple tenants and a common parking lot. Existing tenants are a combination of administrative offices and commercial office- service businesses, many of which deal directly with "retail" clients and customers on -site. A request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment must address specific requirements. This request deals most directly with items (f) & (g) of Chapter 2AA (5) Approval Criteria: (f) Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject property; whether the proposed design and land uses are appropriate for the land; and whether the proposed amendment will maintain or improve compatibility among uses and ensure efficient development within the City; (g) Whether the proposed amendment will result in a logical, orderly and predictable development pattern; The purpose of the amendment is to accommodate the existing uses on the property and the trend toward a more commercial retail focus in the vicinity of the parcel. This amendment will change the future land use designation from "Places to Work" to "Places to Shop ", and rezone the subject parcel - Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Commerce Center 5`h Addition - from I -1, Light Industrial to B -4, Regional Business. A request for a Zoning amendment must also address specific requirements. This request deals most directly with item (b) of Chapter 2.413 (5) Approval Criteria: (b) Whether the proposed amendment addresses needs arising from a changing condition, trend, or fact affecting the subject property and surrounding area. Charlotte Gabler asked Steve Grittman if changing the zoning of this parcel from I -1 to B -4 would affect the number of parcels in inventory designated as appropriate for the Adult Use ordinance. He indicated that such action would impact the inventory however not significantly. Steve Grittman stated that the IEDC informally forwarded a comment indicating that they have no objection to the rezoning of the site. The public hearing was opened. Wayne Elam of Commercial Realty Solutions, representing Riverwood Bank responded to Commission questions. He noted that this request is driven from a marketing and usage standpoint and that B -4 zoning is consistent with adjacent property. To market it for leasing and for sale it was important to bring it forth in the broadest use perspective. The types of tenants and use over time has changed from construction related to more service related businesses. Planning Commission Minutes — 09/06/11 The public hearing was closed. Brad Fyle indicated that the zoning should not be changed at this time based on the assumption that Mills Fleet Farm would someday develop in this area. BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION #2011 -82 RECOMMENDING THE REDESIGNATION OF THE FUTURE LAND USE FOR THE SUBJECT PARCEL FROM "PLACES TO WORK" TO "PLACES TO SHOP ", AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REZONING THE PROPERTY FROM I -1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO B -4, REGIONAL BUSINESS, BASED ON FINDINGS OF FACT IN SAID RESOLUTION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY WILLIAM SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 4 -1 WITH BRAD FYLE OPPOSED. 7. Consideration of a request for extension of Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a multi- tenant commercial development in a B -3 (Hiahway Business) District. Applicant: Cornerstone /DOJO LLC DOJO /Cornerstone Properties requested an extension of the conditional use permit issued for a Planned Unit Development for a multi -tenant commercial development in 2008. Due to non -use, the conditional use permit for the CUP was set to expire on August 5th, 2011. The proposed development included the construction of two retail commercial buildings located on a 1.7 acre site located south of Dundas Road and east of State Highway 25. There was some discussion about consideration of a time -limit for the extension of development projects in general. There were specific questions about how this project fits the code at this time. Staff noted that this application is likely far from the current zoning ordinance standards. There was some discussion as to how to best proceed with the request for extension and whether or not it would be more appropriate to deny or revoke the request and allow the project to be resubmitted with up -to -date conforming standards. BRAD FYLE MOVED TO RECOMMEND A THREE -MONTH EXTENSION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A MULTI - TENANT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR DOJO /CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT, WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE EXTENSION, AND ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE PROJECT BE INCORPORATED. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY CHARLOTTE GABLER. THERE WAS NO VOTE ON THE MOTION. AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE MOTION WAS RESCINDED BY BRAD FYLE. Planning Commission Minutes — 09/06/11 ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING FOR THIRTY DAYS SO THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT AT AN UPCOMING CUP EXTENSION REQUEST HEARING AND TO OBTAIN CITY ATTORNEY INPUT IN CONSIDERING THE REQUEST. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY WILLIAM SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0. 8. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for a Drive - Through Facility, Joint Parking and Joint Access. Applicant: SA Group Properties, Inc. SA Group Properties, Inc. requested a one -year extension of the conditional use permit issued for a commercial development project at Broadway Market. Due to non -use, the CUP for cross parking, cross access and a drive — through for the commercial development proposed at the corner of CSAH 75 and CSAH 39, originally approved by both the Planning Commission and the City Council in 2006, will expire on September 25, 2011. The property owner has taken steps to properly maintain the site in accordance with City Code. Any extension of the CUP is conditioned on continued compliance with City codes relative to public nuisances. The request is consistent with current and proposed objectives for the B -4 District. BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION FOR ONE YEAR OF THE SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2006 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE - THROUGH FACILITY, JOINT PARKING AND JOINT ACCESS FOR THE BROADWAY MARKET DEVELOPMENT, WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE EXTENSION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BRAD FYLE. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0. 9. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Masters 5th Avenue requested an extension of the conditional use permit for the commercial development project known as Landmark Square II, located at the corner of 3rd and Locust Streets. The site is .75 acres in area and is zoned CCD. The Planning Commission and the City Council reviewed and recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit for cross parking, cross access and a drive- through for the commercial development proposed, in addition to the variance from parking lot standards in 2005. Due to non -use, the conditional use permit for the CUP will expire on September 15th, 2011. Staff pointed out that this property is unique in that it is part of the overall concept plan included in the Embracing Downtown Monticello report. In that plan, the site is intended to be utilized as parking for anticipated future retail development. The applicant is actively involved in addressing options for moving forward with development on this property. There was some discussion about the impact of approving the full -year Id Planning Commission Minutes — 09/06/11 extension in that it would enable development to move forward in conflict with the vision of the Embracing Downtown Plan. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION FOR ONE YEAR OF THE SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE - THROUGH FACILITY, JOINT PARKING AND JOINT ACCESS FOR THE LANDMARK SQUARE II DEVELOPMENT, WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE EXTENSION. MOTION WAS NOT SECONDED. MOTION FAILED. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION FOR 6 MONTHS OF THE SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE - THROUGH FACILITY, JOINT PARKING AND JOINT ACCESS FOR THE LANDMARK SQUARE II DEVELOPMENT, WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE EXTENSION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 4 -1 WITH BRAD FYLE OPPOSED. 10. Consideration of a request for amendment to Final Stage PUD for Ouad Development. Applicant: Monticello -Big Lake Pet Hospital The Planning Commission was asked to approve an amendment to the final building elevation plan for the proposed Monticello -Big Lake Pet Hospital. The Planning Commission recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Veterinary Facility and an amendment to Planned Unit Development for Quad Development during its regular May meeting, and subsequently approved a final stage PUD for the detailed elevation plan for the development. The applicant has been working with their architect and contractor to finalize building plans has proposed the removal of the stone wainscot along the west, north and south sides of the building, leaving the wainscot along the front elevation, or east side. The Planning Commission considered and discussed the staff recommendation to retain the wainscot along the highly visible north elevation, which fronts School Boulevard. BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO APPROVE THE AMENDED BUILDING ELEVATIONS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: RETAIN THE WAINSCOT STONE TREAMENT ALONG THE NORTH AND THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING AS WELL AS ON THE PILLARS AND ELIMINATE THE WAINSCOT STONEWORK ON THE WEST AND SOUTH ENDS OF THE BUILDING AS A PART OF A FINAL STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR QUAD DEVELOPMENT. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY WILLIAM SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0. Planning Commission Minutes - 09/06/11 11. Tabled Item - 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 Commissioners had indicated support for the Telecommunication Towers and Antennas ordinance amendments as previously proposed at the August Planning Commission meeting and had opened and closed the public hearing on the amendment itself at that time. They had requested however that staff provide clarification on the need for the ordinance requirement that all switching equipment to be located within the FiberNet head -end building when within 1000' of the building itself. Ordinance section 4.13(E)(2) requires that any new antenna structures be co- located when within 1/2 mile of an existing co- location site. Public Works felt strongly that all switching equipment should be centralized to avoid a cluttering of small utility structures under the water tower, which presents both maintenance and security issues for the City. It was determined that the requirement for co- location of the antenna structures themselves necessitates the co- location of the switching and power equipment. A summary of the proposed changes to current regulations follows below: Section 4.13, Telecommunications Towers and Antennae This section constitutes a revision of the entire section, primarily through reorganization, with some limited revision to the specific standards applying to these structures. Telecommunications facilities have been made accessory uses wherever they occur, and have been specifically broken into antennae and antenna support structures (towers and the like). The purpose of this subdivision is that antennae are proposed to be treated differently from support structures, depending on location. In some cases, one or the other may be permitted or conditional, again depending on location. The reorganization creates the following subsections: • Purpose — largely carried over from current language. • (A) Private Amateur Radio — this section establishes amateur radio (primarily Ham and similar Short-Wave amateur radio operators) as permitted accessory structures in all districts, and creates nominal standards for adherence to the minimal standards that the City can apply. The code provides for antenna to extend up to 20 feet above district height limits, and creates a CUP provision to extend beyond that to 70 feet. • (B) Private Receiving Antenna — this section provides for antennae related to reception only for television and other electronic communications. These antenna are permitted in all zoning districts. • (C) Commercial/Industrial Reception and Transmission —this section establishes 0 Planning Commission Minutes — 09/06/11 requirements for larger communications facilities — usually (but not exclusively) related to a media company or similar use. The equipment for this purpose is listed as an accessory Conditional Use in Business and Industrial Districts, requires screening from adjoining streets, and residential and business property, and is otherwise treated as mechanical equipment, whether ground or roof -top mounted. • (D) Wireless Telecommunications Antennae — this section establishes regulations for wireless technology (commonly cellular telephone and similar equipment). The text provides that new freestanding support structures are allowed only by CUP, and only in certain commercial and industrial districts. Co- location of antennae may occur as permitted accessory uses on existing structures in commercial and industrial districts, along with the R -3 District. Staff has raised a point for discussion as to whether the B 1 District should be included in this list since it would most often be embedded in residential areas. Also for discussion would be whether co- location of antennae (not including new freestanding towers) should be allowed in other districts (the code has been drafted to allow such co- location by CUP in these areas). The presumption would be that such co- location might occur on taller buildings in the R -1 area such as churches, or on utility or public structures. • (E) General Provisions are consolidated in this section that apply to any proposed antenna or support structure. Most of these are translated directly, or adapted slightly, from current ordinance text. • (F) Application process and submittal requirements are found in this section. • (G) Outside review of applications at applicant's cost is authorized in this section. • (H) Removal of abandoned installations is covered in this section. 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. Chapter 8, Definitions The changes include separate definitions which provide distinction between the antennae classifications provided above. After much discussion and clarification related to new structures, collocation and both broadcast and private antennas the commission summarized their recommendations in the following motion. BRAD FYLE MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE #536, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S REGULATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAE AND TOWERS, INCLUDING AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 8.4 (DEFINITIONS), SECTION 4.13 Planning Commission Minutes — 09/06/11 (TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAE AND TOWERS), AND TABLE 5 -6 (ACCESSORY USES BY DISTRICT) WITH THE PROVISIONS THAT NO NEW STRUCTURES ARE TO BE ALLOWED IN THE R3, MH, AND B -1 DISTRICTS; COLOCATION IS TO BE CONDITIONAL IN ALL DISTRICTS; COMMERCIAL TRANSMISSION RECEPTION ANTENNA STRUCTURES (FOR BROADCAST) ARE TO BE CONDITIONAL IN 133 -I2; AND AMATEUR RADIO AND PRIVATE RECEIVING ANTENNAS ARE PERMITTED IN ALL DISTRICTS PROVIDED THEY MEET STANDARDS SET BY CODE. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY WILLIAM SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0. 12. Community Development Director's Report Embracing Downtown Design Guidelines The Steering Committee met to review the progress on the entire Embracing Downtown project to date. They received a draft "zoning/disttict" map for the downtown paired with a preliminary set of design guidelines for the preferred alternative land use plan. Commissioners were encouraged to attend a workshop session on the design guidelines on Friday, September 16t1 at 9:00 a.m., at the community center along with the Embracing Downtown Steering Committee, the Monticello Downtown Business Association, and the Chamber's Downtown Partnership. There will be a follow -up meeting tentatively scheduled for the end of September or the start of October. Special Planning Commission Meeting A public hearing has been scheduled for a Conditional Use Permit amendment for West Metro on Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 6 p.m.. A Planned Unit Development Ordinance Workshop will follow the public hearing at that special meeting of the Planning Commission. 13. Adiourn WILLIAM SPARTZ MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:41 PM. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. (Brad Fyle left the meeting just prior to adjournment.) Recorder: Kerry T. Burri'M Approved: October 4, 2011 Attest: Angela Schu n, C mum y evelopment Director