Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 01-07-1996AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMM KION Tuesday, January 7, 1897 - 7 p.m. Members: Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Jon Bogart, Dick Martie, Rod Dragsten 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held December 3, 1996. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 4. Citizens comments. > b. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance request to rear yard setback to-) Otter Creek. Applicant, Daniel Lynch. i 6. Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of ordinance amendments governing fence design and location. , 7. Continued Public Hearing --Consideration of amendments to the zoning ordinance governing radio/cell phone communication towers. y S. Review multi -family district locations and consider directing staff to prepare amendments consolidating multi -family districts. y 8. Consideration of calling for a public hearing on modifications to the variance process. 10. Updates: A. Wastewater treatment plant project. B. Highway 26/Chelsea realignment project. w7 -bb �K C. Parking on Broadway at Pinewood. D. MCP Workshop p4 - January 8, 1987 Minutes Regular Meeting Planning Commission Tuesday, December 3, ION - 7 p.m. Members Present: Dirk Frie, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragaten Staff Present: Jeff O'Neill, Steve Grittman, Wanda Kraemer 1. Call to order. Chairman Frie called the meeting to order and noted the presence of Bill Fair, mayor elect. 2. Annmv 1 of minutes of reffulgr rnppfing held Novemhor 6. 19N - COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARTIE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 6, 1996. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Co aid ration of adding items to wr n n. Commissioner Bogart added discussion on the potential multi -family on the vacant lot across from the public works buildings. Chairman Frie added discussion on the parking along Broadway. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Adbuinistrator, reported he had been in contact with Virgil Hawkins, Wright County Highway Dept. and also suggested the school be informed. Chairman Frie requested staff to send a letter to Ms. Douglas, Principal Pinewood Elementary School, and Mr. Johnson, Superintendent of Monticello Schools, for their input. 4. Ci izona comments. There were no citizens comments. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported that Daniel Wermere requests permission to operate a special home occupation in his home at Lot 9, Block 1, Klein Fars Addition. Tho home occupation consists of repairing and refinishing firearms. In his description of the activity. Wermers reported that there will be Page 1 CX) Planning Commission Minutes - 12/03/96 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 home occupation. On his application, he noted he was planning on utilizing the garage but has since changed his mind. According to Steve Grittman, City Planner, it is quite common for gunsmith services to be found operating out of residences. Many other communities do allow this type of operation to occur as long as the operation abides by the rules of every other home occupation allowed in residential districts. Gunsmith services are also licensed and monitored by the federal government. O'Neill stated he had been contacted already regarding the status of this particular home permit. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Dan Wermers, applicant, stated he has been in the business for many years and has been licensed for 14 years. He had just built a new home in the IUein Farm Addition and had a complete security system installed. Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. The Commissioners discussed the requirement of a security system and agreed it should be a requirement for the permit even though Mr. Wermers already had one installed. Also, staff was directed to take immediate action, according to the City Code, if a violations is noted. COMMISSION BOGART MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CARLSON TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT ALLOWING GUN SMITHING SERVICES IN AN R-1 ZONE. THIS IS BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE GUNSMITH SERVICE AS PROPOSED OPERATING UNDER CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED BY ORDINANCE WILL BE VIRTUALLY TRANSPARENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND, THEREFORE, WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA; THEREFORE, THE OPERATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED: 1. A SECURITY SYSTEM MUST BE INSTALLED. 2. THE SITE CANNOT BE USED FOR RETAIL SALES. 3. INVENTORY OF FIREARMS FOR SALE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. Motion passed unanimously. Page 2 COO Planning Commission Minutes • 12/03/96 Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported the City is anticipating an increase in requests for wireless communication 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 towers around the community, Grittman put together a draft ordinance and a discussion of ways in which this issue has been addressed by other communities. The proposed ordinance attempts to encourage wireless service towers in designated zone. The City does not have the authority to totally regulate the zones but can require conditional use permits (CUP) and extensive review. The intent is to encourage the applicant to seek permitted sites, and avoid the processing requirements of the CUP Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, inquired if the City could require that companies lease property on the water tower or public land and also can the number of towers be limited? Grittman answered the City is cannot require private companies to lease city sites. At this time, there is not a controlled number of towers that can be built in an area. Most communities are using the approach to encourage construction in designated areas. Wright County has a moratorium on any construction of towers until an ordinance can be adopted. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Gregory Korstad, attorney for American Portable Telecom (APT), explained his firm was hired by APT to encourage cities efforts to address expanding technologies within the framework of the Zoning Code. He presented a letter that explained the general comments relating to the draft ordinance amending Section 3.12 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance by Establishing Antenna Regulation. Korstad requested the opportunity to work with staff to develop specific language to accommodate the concerns and to respond to any questions or comments. In the letter he presented to the Commissioners he outlined four main topics: Functional Engineering • the two main components that should be evaluated are structural issues and performance of transmission and reception equipment. Transmission Line Loss and Ground Equipment • the signal strength is directly related to antenna height and distance from transmitting equipment. The higher the antenna the greater the signal. Compliance with screening requirements will adequately eliminate the need for a building to surround Page 3 O Planning Commission Minutes - 12/03/96 the ground equipment. Tower Locations and Height - APT has designed its towers to be 165 feet in height. This will allow few towers, greater siting flexibility, and improved ability for co -location. Site Availability and Industrial Setbacks - It is important for APT to have flexibility in developing its site. One of the most significant consideration is the placement of a tower. It is required that a provision be made for modifying setback where appropriate based on existing improvements and their locations within a property. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, inquired if the City had to allow towers on City property and also if the number of towers could be limited? Grittman answered the City is not obligated to lease property to private business but are encouraged to use a sensible approach in encouraging towers in certain areas. Bill Fair, newly elected mayor, inquired about the provisions for removal if the tower is abandoned. Grittman replied it would be within 12 months and wiq be stated in the ordinance. Commissioner Frio closed the public hearing. The Commissioners discussed the tower regulations and decided to table the decision until the next meeting. This will allow staff time to discuss the comments in the letter with Mr. Korstad and report to the commissioners for the next meeting. COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARTIE TD CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 3, SECTION 12 BY ESTABLISHING ANTENNA REGULATION. Motion passed unanimously. Sinn in iedPtihlirH ring.-Cmaid mtinnofnrdinwnSo nmnndmnntRgnM=0jngf = deaign and location. Chairman Frie opened the continued public hearing. The Commissioners Questioned if the ordinance was too restrictive and discouraged the planting of trees. It was suggested to go bath to the basics of only addressing Page a O c�- Planning Commission Minutes - 12103/96 fences and/or structures because so many variables could occur it would be impossible to fist everything. If the visibility at the intersection is blocked staff should first inform the landowner. If there seems to be an increase in visibility problems then restrictions can be added to the current ordinance. The Commissioners directed staff to rewrite the ordinance to only include fences and structures not trees and shrubs. COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARTIE TO REWRITE THE ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE FENCES AND/OR STRUCTURES AND ELIMINATE TREES AND SHRUBS. Motion passed unanimously. A. Review Sherburne County Planning Commission action on the Bridge View Plat/Ron Hoglund development. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported he had attended the meeting at Sherburne County regarding Bridge View Plat and had submitted a letter stating the City's concerns with this plat. The developers may be submitting a request for a fee study at the January 13, 1997 City Council meeting. B. City Council moratorium placed on issuance of building permits in designated redevelopment area. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported the City Council placed a moratorium in the area north of 7th Street to the River, and two to three blocks east and west of Highway 25. The moratorium is for the issuance of building permits in the area pending completion of redevelopment studies necessary to determine land use designations in the study area. He noted that normally this item would have been reviewed by Planning Commission beforehand but in this case, time did not allow, C. Amendments to setbacks regulating location of storage buildings/Fruth situation. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported Fruth's storage building is in violation of our current ordinance but added the ordinance does need to be changed. This will be discussed itiarther at the January meeting. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reviewed the workshop with the Page b O oZ Planning Commission Minutes - 17/03/98 presented many detailed ideas and concepts. After the presentation, each group was asked to select three projects they felt were priority. This information will be used 10. Co sideration of nallinty for a gnibb hearing on re:a*+. ig of the iGUCAFt F=m from R-3 to R-1 or R-2 zoning digtrict. &Fdgasifion. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the City may have had more opportunity for multi -family homes than needed and the location of the areas eligible for multi -family may be inconsistent with the goal of revitalization of the downtown area. The PZM areas should be reviewed for rezoning. He stated staff could inventory the present multifamily housing and report back to the Planning Commission. At a future meeting the Commissioners can determine which areas would serve the multi -family homes the best. 11. A"umment. COMMISSIONER DRAGSPEN MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOGART TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Motion passed unanimously. RespectfWly submitted, Wanda Kraemer Development Services Technician C 5. C Planning Commission Agenda - In/97 e.,.ho..kt flttarCreek Aggjemnt D ntAl Ir4umch (B.G.) A REFERENCE AND RAf IMROLTND: Please see the report from Steve Crittman for background, alternatives, and staff recommendation. J, � ' c rt' I N NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMUN I TY PLA N NINA - DESION - MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Monticello Mayor and City Council FROM: Bob Kinnis / Stephen Grittman DATE: 23 December 1996 RE: Monticello - Lynch Setback Variance FILE NO: 191.07 - 96.13 Consideration of a variance from Section 27-2.8.3. of the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance which establishes a minimum 50 foot buildino setback from the ordinary high water mark of Otter Creek, A. BACKGROUND 1. Application Summary. Mr. 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 deteriorating "walk -out" deck (which currently lies 36 feet from the creek's OHWM) with a new "screened -in' deck which would lie 35 feet from the OHtMM. 2. Existing Legal Non -Conformity. 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 may not be placed in its previous 'non -conforming" location without the processing of a variance. $775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK. MINNESOTA 59416 PHONE 6 1 2.595.9636 FAX 01 2.595.9837 004 3. Variance Evaluation Criteria. Chapter 23 of the City Zoning Ordinance establishes a set of criteria from which variance applications are to be evaluated. The ordinance specifically states that when considering requests for variance the Planning Commission must make a finding that the proposed action will not: a. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. b. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. C. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. d. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to the intent of this ordinance. The ordinance further states that a non -economic hardship should be demonstrated to justify approval of variance requests. In consideration of the requested setback variance, it is the opinion of our office such request can be justified for the following reasons: a. Homes in the area were constructed prior to the establishment of the 50 foot Shoreland setback. b. Denial of the request would deny the applicant privileges previously allowed to other area property owners in the area who have recently constructed decks within the required 50 foot setback area. C. Denial of the request may arguably deny the applicant reasonable use of his property as his residence has been specifically designed and constructed to accommodate a deck (i.e., upper level patio doors). d. The fact that the City's recent adoption of the Shoreland Management Ordinance has rendered his property legally non -conforming' is beyond the control of the applicant. e. The construction of the deck as proposed will not adversely impact either the subject property or the area in which it is proposed. f. The proposed setback decrease of 1 foot (from 36 to 35 feet) is consistent with deck setbacks of neighboring properties. MI 4. Deck Construction. As shown on attached Exhibit C, the applicant wishes to enclose the proposed deck. While the deck in and of itself is considered acceptable, it is believed the enclosure of such deck would grant the applicant privileges not provided to surrounding properties and would lie contrary to the intent of the City's Shoreland Management provisions. As such, enclosure of the proposed deck is not recommended. Approve the proposed setback variance subject to the following findings: a. Undue hardship would result if the variance request is denied. b. Denial of the variance request would deny the applicant similar privileges afforded to other residents in the area. Should the City choose to approve the variance request, it is recommended that such approval be contingent upon the fulfillment of the following conditions: a. The deck is not enclosed. b. All deck plans are subject to review and approval by the City Building Official. 2. Deny the variance request based on the following finding: a. Non -economic, undue hardship has not been demonstrated to justify approval of the variance request. Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance subject to the preceding conditions. We believe that denial of the requested variance would deny the applicant privileges granted to surrounding property owners. Because homes in the area were platted prior to the adoption of the City's Shoreland Management Ordinance and that `reasonable' use of the applicant's property would be denied (if the City chooses not to approve the variance), we feel approval of the request is justified. S� Exhibit A -Site Location Exhibit B - Site Photographs Exhibit C - Deck PlaNElevations sD • I�r� r.XMI FMFM� EXHIBIT c - DECK E PLAN /E VATIONS 4F 14 71 ZK6 41 -44 it I IIi 16FIERS 3 6 16 O.C. C 2XIO WOR. r 4'6" 4 -6- EXHIBIT c - DECK E PLAN /E VATIONS 4F 14 71 EXHIBIT c - DECK E PLAN /E VATIONS 4F 14 f I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I' 1 1 1 1 1 -•1 -•1 S,x It.6 POSTS I f I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I' 1 1 1 1 1 -•1 -•1 S,x t.. I Planning Commission Agenda • 1/7/97 6. Continued Dphlic Hwa_ring .o aid ration of ordimnee stmandmants Qovn=ing fence danivn and location_ (J.OJ Staff requests that this item be continued again to the next meeting. We have not had the opportunity to make the changes as requested 2 Planning Commission Agenda - 1/7/97 •„ • A RRFRRF.NCE AND BACKGROUND Steve Grittman has prepared a response to the comments made on the draft ordinance by the attorney representing the cell phone company. At the meeting we will be discussing the response and consider changes to the ordinance presented at the previous meeting. B_ ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the draft ordinance amendment with modifications regulating radio/cell phone towers based on the findings as outlined in the Planner's report. Under this alternative, the ordinance will be modified as requested and forwarded to the City Council. 2. Motion to deny or table approval of the draft ordinance amendment regulating radio/cell phone towers. C. RTA_FF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 01. D_ SIIPPORTINO DATA: Report from Steve Grittman. Please we previous packet for original draft of the ordinance. s NNORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS IMC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESION - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: December 24, 1996 RE: Monticello - Antenna Towers FILE NO: 191.06.-96.12 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. We have conducted additional research and provide the following responses to the letter presented at the meeting. 1. A suggestion was made that the Ordinance's requirement for a registered professional engineer supervise construction be dropped, relying on the requirement that such an engineer would be supervising design. This language can 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 the 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 setbacks must be 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. 8778 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 968 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 99416 PHONE 612.999.9639 FAX 612-595-9837 74 The letter requested that the Ordinance dispense with the requirement be housed in a building, since it is weatherproof. If the equipment is in fad adequately screened, this would appear to be an acceptable recommendation. A request is made to increase height limitations to 165 feet in the industrial areas, and 100 feet in residential areas. It is our understanding that as more towers are needed to provide adequate capacity, the antenna arrays will necessarily be remounted to a lower position to cover a new, smaller geographic oar 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. Raising the height would be counter to this intent by making it more feasible to locate towers in those areas. There are very few obstructions, including trees, which would interfere with a 75 foot height in Monticello. lt 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. The letter discusses 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. As a result, we believe that the language accounts for setback flexibility under an appropriate standard. pc: Gregory Korstad Ci LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & L.INDGREN, LTD. aua�mn.. m.n. waml aurc a.wM ATTORNEYS AT LAW mA• r1AIp � i �� 0 wra 1600 NORM MFMANC,WCENTER w'b"'ww� waa� �� nwawm, o.ala.Ga1 a'®`bctml TOM ERXES AVENUE SOUTH w w•a naw. o BLOWN GTON, WOREBOTA 65,431-1194 t�1aG APO�b nsraaw'� TEIEP"ONE (012) 635aW moMa¢n0 l wA 1�oi ilwcra FA%(112) ED6riD o.slvG.u�� t.+iw tD,tDl Q 0 WvrY YYa ala• IYmQ Yam 1tbA Oql alA• nPwil..�Paa �� lo�rr uaawv aamal IOMnY o,a!t :aRK wul wuarr M 4lb'r�q,Mlpw �IIbM wra • �tl bldg a0 ala a � r�M a a>•a Awa wm,d P CCa1R bwaLO4 O YiMMt�l�'l�. ab4a alA{1 afN ®\ MlM111 aaQlal. 1O�O0l AO appMY1O � A1T ba,aBW �LD01aRmw,lt0l, Wa1P�Ol,w�11a December 3,1996 The Honorable Brad Fyle Shirley Anderson, City Council Clint Herbst, City Council Tom Perrault, City Council Brien Stumpf, City Council City of Monticello P. 0. Box 1147 Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Re: Wireless Personal Communication Service Regulation Dear Mayor and City Council: 1 write on behalf of American Portable Telecom (APT) which we represent in connection with the development of wireless portable communication services pursuant to one of two licenses for the Greater Twin Cities Metropolitan Region issued by the United States Federal Communications Commission. The purpose of this letter is to present general comments relating to the draft ordinance amending Section 3-12 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance by Establishing Antenna Regulations (the Proposed Ordinance). In general, APT encourages the City's efforts to address expanding technologies within the framework of its Zoning Code. APT recognizes a significant amount of effort has gone into the development of the Proposed Ordinance, both by City staff and consultants. We provide the following comments in order to facilitate development of a set of performance standards for personal wireless communication systems which will, we believe, allow the City to exercise its regulatory authority without acting inconsistent with the 1996 Telecommunications Act requirement that the City must accommodate wireless communication. The following comments address substantive issues only. We have no commented on grwrvnatical, typographical, or similar "proof reading issues." I C+ LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. / The Honorable Brad Fyle Shirley Anderson Clint Herbst Tom Perrault Brian Stumpf December 3, 1996 Page 2 Functional Engineering. Throughout the Proposed Ordinance, reference is made to evaluation of various consideration by a "registered professional engineer." Our understanding of the various issues to be evaluated by engineers suggests there are essentially two components to the evaluation. First, structural issues about the soundness and design of the physical equipment as erected is to be evaluated. Secondly, issues relating to the performance of transmission and reception equipment used to provide wireless communication is to be evaluated. It is good practice to require that any construction be designed pursuant to plans and specifications of a registered professional engineer to assure the structure is designed to withstand natural and artificial forces exerted upon it. This is a very appropriate function of a registered professional engineer. It is not, however, necessary in APT's view that a registered professional engineer supervise the actual construction of the towers. Accordingly, the need for verification of antenna installation by a registered professional engineer should be deleted. With respect to coverage/interference analyses and capacity analysis for antenna location and height issues, specifying analysis prepared by a "registered professional engineer," presents a problem. Thesc are issues for qualified radio frequency engineers. Although there are a limited number of registered professional engineers who are also very competent in issues of radio frequency engineering, the fact of registration has no relation to competence in radio frequency engineering. To obtain the best analysis of the technical issues involved, the City would improve its position by obtaining analysis by a "competent radio frequency engineer" without regard to local registration. Transmission Line Loss and Ground Equipment. In developing reasonable regulation which accommodates personal wireless communication services, it is important to understand physical constraints upon system development. One of those physical constraints is that signal strength is directly related to antenna height and distance from transmitting equipment. Stated another way, the higher the antenna, the greater the signal, provided the antenna height does not result in excessive distance between the antenna and the transmitter. How this affects components of the system is to require the tower and transmitting, receiving, and switching equipment to be located as close as possible to each other. This means that the preferred placement for the tower and antenna must necessarily accommodate the transmitter and switching equipment. Thus, the provisions on location of switching equipment within existing buildings or in the rear yard only, etc., create technical difficulty in establishing tower locations. With respect to ground equipment, it is also important to understand the aesthetics of the ground equipment installations. Compliance with screening requirements will adequately eliminate the need for a building surrounding the ground equipment which is designed for outdoor use. 11 D LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. The Honorable Brad Fyle i Shirley Anderson Clint Herbst Tom Perrault Brian Stumpf December 3, 1996 Page 3 Tower Locations and Height. APT has optimally designed its towers to be 165 feet in height. This will provide the antenna elevation that will optimize coverage distance when balanced against line loss to the ground equipment. The use of this antenna placerneat allows the minimum number of antennae to be used while providing service to a particular area To the extent allowable heights place antenna at lower elevations, more towers will need to be constructed. Lowering tower elevations will also have three secondary effects. First, because the lower elevation provides a smaller coverage area, available alternative locations for the additional towers will be fewer. Secondly, to the extent towers are significantly lower than the optimal height, those shortened towers will have significantly impaired the ability to co -locate multiple antennae on a single tower. Thirdly, if towers become too low, the signal will become screened by obstacles such as tall trees or buildings. Our recommendation for the City is to reconsider its height restriction. This will allow fewer towers, greater siting flexibility, and improved ability for co -location. Most importantly, because tall trees in residential areas can grow to 80 feet in height, the 75 foot limitation can preclude services in certain residential areas. A 100 foot maximum should be substituted. Site Availability and Industrial Setback. The City is, according to its consultant discouraging the use of sites the City docs not prcfer.l??l Although that is a commendable goal, we request the City reconsider the sp.-cific language it has used relating to sites. The Ordinance appears to require proof that placement of the antenna in a less restrictive district is not technically feasible. Based on our past experience in the industry, because the FCC licensees are not public utilities with condemnation authority, locating equipment sites is not, as with NSP's electric production, merely a function of engineering analysis. APT is onl y able to place towers at sites that are available in the absolute discretion of the owner of those sites. Accordingly, it is appropriate to allow consideration of availability of sites in other districts, as well as technical feasibility. Additionally, as we understand the proposed ordinance, it would discourage the use of multistory apartment buildings as well as single family residential buildings. We request this be reconsidered. It is important to APT that it have flexibility in developing its site. One of the most significant considerations is the placement of a tower with respect to other improvements on the property. Accordingly, it is requested that a provision be made for modifying setback where appropriate based on existing improvements and their locations within a property. Conclusion. With limited modification, the Proposed Ordinance can be made to accommodate both the need of the City to regulate tower development as well as the requirements of the industry in order to assure that the 7E LARKtN, HDFFMAN, DALY & La4mREN, LTD. The Honorable Brad Fyle Shirley Anderson Clint Herbst - Tom Perrault Brian Stumpf December 3, 1996 Page 4 City is served by a seamless personal wireless communication system efficiently and effectively in conformance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. To that end, we would appreciate the opportunity to work with staff to develop specific language to accommodate the foregoing concerns and would welcome the opportunity to respond to any questions or comments. V K for fH FFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. cc: Mr. Jeff Peterson 02"M.o1 �I Planning Commission Agenda - I/7/97 .:l/ : is \ :1'• M.:1 . :.N� i Please see the attached report from Steve Grittman. CI N INNORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS C COMMON ITV PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: December 24, 1996 RE: Monticello - Zoning for Multiple Family Residential Uses FILE NO: 191.06 - 96.15 An issue which has been discussed by the City over the past several years, and which 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 ma of residential uses has been a concern of the City, which it has attempted to control by Zoning District. One of the issues which is raised is the effectiveness of the current Zoning Districts to adequately plan for both number and location of higher density housing. The City's zoning ordinance allows multiple family housing in its R-3 District as a permitted use. In addition, such housing is allowed in both the B-2 and PZM Districts as conditional uses. In at least one respect, the mixed eommerciaUresidential land use approach can be positive, particularly in the Central Business District. This approach is being promoted by the MCP in its study of the downtown area. However, there may be a question as to whether the City's B-2 or PZM zones are truly appropriate areas for multiple family housing, given proximity to non-traditional highway commercial areas, outlying residential lands, and fully developed single family neighborhoods. Moreover, one of the MCP strategies has been to intensify density in and around the downtown core to build in a market for the new commercial development. Since the market for multiple family housing is relatively fixed, any construction of such housing in inappropriate areas tends to defeat the intent of the downtown planning effort. 5778 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 555 3T LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA S5416 PHONE 612.595.9636 FAX 612.998.9837 S� C4 As we have noted in the past, the PZM District provides the City with a highly flexible tool to accommodate mixed use development in certain areas. It may be that it is too flexible, however, in areas where the City will look to a specific land use. It is important for the City to understand what the PIIYI is designed to accomplish, and where other objectives need attention, a different tool is utilized. We would suggest that the PZM model would be an excellent tool for the emerging downtown apt, with some modification. Those modifications would primarily be to performance standard issues, and a better targeting of commercial land uses eligible for the district. There has been some suggestion that the PZM allows the City to entertain an assortment of land use proposals to determine which one may be the best. It is typically preferable for the City to determine its highest and best use for an area, then let a prospective developer suggest a zoning change. The concern would be that a proposal brought under the PZM District could riot be homed down, even if it were a poor one, since the City had not adequately defined its goals for the area in question. At the upcoming Planning Commission meeting, we will be prepared to discuss issues relating to multiple family housing location under the City's current zoning ordinance. We have attached a map illustrating areas of the City currently zoned R-3, and also those areas where multiple family housing may be developed under a conditional use permit. MW �v e lia�>.tp: j tb City of Monticello Map R Rxisting Zoning AO."WAO•C" SPY. PI.Gh(4raw) P�'A P l • 6�(4 � 1 ramlr rruyalr.al P 1 . akd4�M slur IInr�M.ni.1 P 1 •1.{biMiYwiA Hyl P.RT. P4YkAfiaFrilnrA IM4 FMr4+P,rrrru N.P . pninancr rw Pa�tlisr,i 111 •NclrYnbuA Parareaa ill � 1 �+tAMlml P+ • Pey.wn.a4an I I .11� lywn A II •IlrnlM,prgrlA wad Ims, rn1•nU L. Planning Commission Agenda - 1/7/97 d1im (J-0.) Planning Commission is asked to review the variance process and consider directing staff to draft ordinance amendments. Tlbis is one of the items listed by the Planning Commission to accomplish in 1998. Please see Gnttman's report for information and alternatives. NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS NF.NC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: December 24, 1996 RE: Monticello - Variance Processing FILE N0: 191.06 - 96.14 This memorandum is intended to outline the issues regarding variance processing under Monticello's current Zoning Ordinance language. 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 requires 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 a number of ways to address the issue, with pros and cons for each. We have provided here a summary of the City's primary options. We will be prepared to discuss these with the Planning Commission at Its January meeting, and proceed to an amendment of the Ordinance as appropriate thereafter. 6779 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK. MINNESOTA $5416 PHONE 6 1 2.599.963e FAX 61 2.906.9837 �� Change Board of Adjustment designation to the City Council. Many Cities do this. The primary advantage is of consistency of zoning processes, along with zoning amendments and Conditional Use Permits (both of which are decided by the Council, with advisory recommendations by the Planning Commission. The advantage of Monticello's current arrangement is that variance decisions can be somewhat less political. This approach would solve the tim ing issue by restructuring the decision making process altogether. Stick to the required schedule. Essentially, the problem is caused by the City's interest in expediting appeals on behalf of the appellants. Under the current language scheme, an appellant typicaly, would not be able to be heard by the Counxd until two Council meetings later, raUier than the next one after the Planning Commission meets. The disadvantage to this approach is that it is somewhat 'customer service' oriented. However, it is technically correct, and may be fairer to those who would like to participate in the process but have di fiaulty due to late or insufficient notice. Drop the notice and publication requirement for initial appeals. This approach was offered in previous correspondence. b advantage is that it permits the most expedited appeal process, he disadvantage is that it may tend to cut off debate from those who originally supported the Planning Commission's decision. Thus, the only ones showing an interest in arguing the issue are the parties who are appealing the decision. This may lead to an unbalanced presentation of the issue to the City Council. It may also result in undermining the Board of Adjustment's actual decision. In considering this Issue, it is important to remember that expedited appeals may be 'Mandy to the appellant, but are 'unfriendly' to the parties which supported the Board of Adjustment's original decision. If the process serves to lessen debate or input from any particular side, it may be unfair, although quicker. We have attached our previous correspondence to this memorandum for your reference. M FrN Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C COMMUNITY PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Monticello Planning Commission Jeff O'Neill FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: November 3, 1995 RE: Monticello - Zoning Ordinance - Variance Processing FILE NO: 191.06-95. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance designates the Planning Commission as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, a statutory board which hears requests for variances from zoning regulations and appeals of administrative decisions. The Planning Commission's decisions on such requests are final, but may be appealed to the City Council. The current process allows any person aggrieved by a Board of Adjustment decision five days to file an appeal, after which the issue is heard by the City Council, pending a notice in the newspaper at least four days prior to the Council's consideration of the appeal. This timing has become problematic notices must be submitted to the paper prior to the time the Planning Commission meets in order to allow appellants to appear before the Council the week following the Planning Commission's meeting. As a insult, staff has attempted to resolve conflicts by assuming an appeal of a negative decision, or finessing the publication requirement. To date, this has primarily caused only staff concern, however, there is a concern that a controversial issue which was pursued more thoroughly could result in legal entanglements for the City. Technically, there is no problem with the ordinance, in that appellants must wait for the notice and the following Council meeting to have their appeal heard, usually no more than two additional weeks. However, the City is interested in expediting any development request to the extent possible, thus the issue. To eliminate this concern, we would propose the following amendment: 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • SI. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 90 City of Monticello, Minnesota �r Ordinance AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 23 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING THE AVAILABLE TIME IN WHICH TO FILE AN APPEAL TO A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS. The City Council of the City of Monticello hereby ordains: Section 1. Section 23-6, Subd. [G] is hereby amended to read as follows: [G] Decisions of the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall be final unless an appeal is filed with the Zoning Administrator by an aggrieved party no later than the close of business of the next business day following the Board of Adjustment's decision. Section 2. Section 23-6, Subd. [I] is hereby amended to read as follows: [I] Such an appeal shall be placed on the City Council meeting agenda for a public hearing within thirty (30) days after it is received. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and publication. Brad Pyle, Mayor A'I7OT: Rick Wolfsteller, Administrator AYES NAYS ;H The above Ordinance language will permit the City to send appeals to the Council with the least amount of delay by eliminating the publication requirement, and requiring appellants to file within one day of the decision. The possible concern about this change would be over a neighbor's opposition to a project whose variance is approved, however, the neighbor would have notice of the hearing, and could track the process. This amendment would permit the staff to prepare issues for the City Council's information packet following the filing of an appeal, and would avoid the problem with the notice requirement. 9e