Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 10-03-2017MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 3rd, 2017 - 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: John Alstad, Brad Fyle, Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson, Katie Peterson Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Jacob Thunander, John Rued 1. General Business A. Call to Order Brad Fyle called the Regular Meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6 PM. B. Consideration of approving minutes a. Special Meeting Minutes — September 511, 2017 MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 5TH, 2017. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. b. Regular Meeting Minutes — September 5th, 2017 MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 5TH, 2017. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. C. Citizen Comments None. D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda Charlotte Gabler asked to add window signage to the agenda. Angela Schumann asked to appoint a member from the Planning Commission to a pending workforce group for the revision of the zoning ordinance in conjunction with the recently adopted Small Area Study. Sam Murdoff joined the meeting. 2. P uMc Hearings A. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Preliminary and Finai Plat for Otter Creek Crossing 5th Addition Applicant: John Chadwick Steve Grittman explained that the applicant requested creating three parcels. At a previous meeting, the applicant also requested an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to accommodate vehicle sales and a change to the building size to lot ratio. It is expected that the applicant would apply in the future for a Conditional Use Permit. The two easterly proposed lots were to be five acres each and the third lot would be at nine acres. Grittman stated that each lot would have the minimum requirement of one hundred feet of street frontage. Staff recommended approval of the application, subject to the comments displayed in Exhibit Z. Brad Fyle asked if John Chadwick owned more land near Highway 39. Grittman stated that there is an outlot west of the land, but is owned by a different party. Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. Wayne Elam, Commercial Realty Solutions, represented John Chadwick. He noted that he did not have any additional comments further than what Grittman discussed to the Planning Commission. Fyle asked if the applicant was in accordance with the Exhibit Z comments. Elam confirmed. Charlotte Gabler asked if Elam knew where the proposed buildings would be developed on the lots. Elam declined that he has not seen any site plans. He stated that Ryan Motors was expecting to submit an application for the November meeting. Hearing no further comments, Fyle closed the public hearing. Decision 1: Adopting Resolution No. PC -2017-032 recommending approval of the preliminary and final plat for Otter Creek Crossing 5' Addition MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC -2017-032 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR OTTER CREEK CROSSING 5TH ADDITION, CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Exhibit Z Preliminary and Final Plat of Otter Creek Crossing 511' Addition A portion of Outlot D, Otter Creek Crossing PID 155171000040 1. Plat approval is contingent on review and comments of MnDOT. 2. Development approvals subject to subsequent zoning and site plan review. 3. Applicant shall enter into a development agreement for the plat. 2 4. Compliance with the recommendations of the City Engineer, including those relating to the proposed drainage easement and site stormwater management. B. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Conditionnall Use Permit for Micro-Brewery/Taproom in CCD (Central Community District) and Text Amendment to Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Section 5.2 and 5.3 to allow outdoor seating for Production Breweries and Micro -Distilleries and Conditional Use Permit for outdoor seating for Production Breweries and Micro -Distilleries Applicant: Zach Barthel/Sina Nyland, Nordic Brewery Steve Grittman explained that the site is located in the shopping center on Cedar Street. The facility would occupy the inside corner of the facility. The site that the applicants proposed occupying was previously a restaurant and bar called JP's or Jalapeiios. Grittman showed the Planning Commission the floor plan of the facility, which identified a taproom, area seating, and office space. The plans also indicated a future kitchen and event center. Grittman stated when evaluating the site for parking requirements, staff looked at all of the proposed uses. Grittman stated that the proposed rear of the facility required a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor seating, but that the proposed front seating did not require any additional applications. Grittman reviewed proposed requirements that would apply to restaurants, brewery taproom, or brewpubs. Staff recommended approval of the three land use approvals, subject to the conditions demonstrated in Exhibit Z of the staff report. Brad Fyle asked for other examples of outdoor seating from places serving alcohol. Beef o'Brady's, Chatter's, and Cornerstone Cafe were identified. Fyle asked for clarification of the 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. times. Grittman stated that 9 p.m. was the limit for music and noise and 10 p.m. was the limit for occupancy and outdoor activity. Grittman stated that the 9 p.m. music limit was a staff proposal, but that the 10 p.m. end time was already an ordinance. Grittman noted that with a special event permit, it would allow the applicant to have later hours. Brad Fyle asked if this applicant could apply for a special event permit if desired. Grittman confirmed. Fyle asked if they would need to apply for the City's liquor license. Grittman confirmed and added federal and state licenses would also need to be obtained. Charlotte Gabler asked how close the applicant was to the townhomes and apartment buildings. Grittman stated the site is adjacent to the townhouse complex, which kicks in the Conditional Use Permit requirements, but that they are far enough away from the lower density areas to the north to qualify for the one hundred foot separation. Gabler asked if the previously approved microbrewery, Rustech Brewing, wanted to have outdoor seating, if they would have to come back for an amendment. Grittman declined that they would potentially need to apply for a Conditional Use Permit, but not an amendment. Sam Murdoff asked for the purpose of having an enclosed outdoor seating area. Grittman stated that was to preclude people from carrying in their own alcohol. Katie Peterson asked how many people the outdoor space would accommodate. Grittman stated that the site plan shows four to five tables and estimated about 20 people. Fyle also added that outdoor seating would also be located near their front door. Marc Simpson asked if the proposal was seen by the tenants in the apartment building. Grittman stated that public hearing notices were sent to the property owners and not to the tenants. The notice was published in newspaper and a recording of the meeting would be televised. Simpson asked what happened to the church that was previously located in this spot. Grittman was unclear. John Alstad asked if the outdoor seating in the front of the building would need to be fenced. Grittman declined stating that if the received their liquor license from the City, the applicant would not need to fence or screen because it is not adjacent to residential. Brad Fyle opened the public hearing and invited the applicants to speak first Zach Barthel, Sina Nyland, and Matthew Bells, introduced themselves. Brad Fyle asked the applicants if they were able to review the Exhibit Z comments. Zach Barthel confirmed with no issues. He added on to the conversation about outdoor seating and said that he was hoping to bring life back to the mall and surrounding area. Fyle asked if any intense lighting would be proposed. Barthel declined and added they had no plans of having music outdoors. Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed by Fyle. Angela Schumann clarified Item 4 of Exhibit Z, should replace the word "restaurant" with "microbrewery and taproom". Schumann stated that if the applicant in the future would like to have a restaurant an amendment to their Conditional Use Permit would need to occur. Decision 1. Conditflodnaa Use Pernnflt for Production Brewery with Taproom in the CCD MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2017-29 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED PRODUCTION BREWERY WITH TAPROOM, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z, AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 0 Decision 2. Zoning Text Amendment to accommodate Outdoor Seating as an accessory use to Production Brewery with Taprooms and similar uses SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2017-030 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. SECONDED THE MOTION. MARC SIMPSON MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Decision 3. Conditional Use Permit Outdoor Seating for Production Brewery with Taproom in the CCD SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2017-031 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED ACCESSORY OUTDOOR SEATING FOR A PRODUCTION BREWERY WITH TAPROOM WITHIN 300 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z, AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. EXHIBIT Z NORDIC BREW HOUSE & TAPROOM Conditional Use Permit for Production Brewery with Taproom and Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Use Outdoor Seating 542 Cedar Street 1. The applicant completes all federal, state and local licensing applications necessary as specified in the City Code and Zoning Ordinance for the production brewery and taproom. 2. The applicant sells only the products of the brewery produced on-site. 3. Deliveries are only by passenger vehicle or light truck, and do not utilize the public right-of-way. 4. The outdoor portions of the brewery taproom shall not operate after 10:00 P.M. unless a Special Event Permit for such events has been approved by the City Council. Such a permit supersedes the provisions of City Code 6- 1- 10(B). 5. No noise or music shall be generated in any outdoor seating area adjacent to residential property after 9:00 p.m. 6. The outdoor seating area shall not obstruct the movement of pedestrians along sidewalks or through areas intended for public use. 7. Outdoor seating shall be fenced and enclosed to control access to the area, with service only from the inside of the facility. 5 8. Outdoor seating area shall be subject to all applicable licensing requirements as necessary relating to the brewery and taproom use. 9. No outdoor seating area shall be located within one hundred feet (100') of any property containing single family, two family, or townhouse residential units. 10. Any outdoor seating area adjacent to residential property shall be fenced and fully screened from view of said residential property. 11. All lighting shall be hooded and light glare or reflection shall not be visible from adjoining residential property. 12. The addition of brewery capacity beyond the current size (600 barrels per year) would require an amendment to the CUP. 13. The addition of packaging facilities for wholesale distribution would require an amendment to the CUP, or the applicant shall provide details showing how the packaging will work within the terms of the proposed CUP as a part of the public hearing. 14. Compliance with the requirements of the City Engineer as relating to the project. 15. Compliance with the comments of other staff and Planning Commission. C. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Amendment to Monticello Zoning Ordinance Chapter 4, Section 13 — Telecommunication Towers and Antennas and related Sections as related to Small Cell and Wireless Telecommunication standards Applicant: City of Monticello Steve Grittman explained that earlier this spring the Legislature passed a statute for telecommunications and antenna support structures, specifically for small cell wireless devices. The Legislature decided these devices could be placed in public rights-of-way. The Legislature stated that cities would have limited ability to regulate these within the ROW, but could limit the height to fifty feet and require a Conditional Use Permit if proposed in residential areas or historic districts when in ROW. Beyond that, there are few areas that cities can restrict. The City Council recently adopted a new right-of-way ordinance which addresses this issue, as well as a broader set of right of way regulations. As a companion approach, some adjustments to the Zoning Ordinance were proposed for Chapter 4, Section 13, which would add language to accommodate small cell wireless facilities. Grittman explained that the statute is very limiting on cities power, especially if a Conditional Use Permit is requested. The proposed language amendment to City G Ordinance would include limiting the height of the towers to fifty feet, however a Conditional Use Permit could be granted if taller than fifty feet in non-residential areas, if the number of towers in one area was reduced. Accommodations for small cell wireless could also permit these devices on private property such as on light poles, as long as the antenna would not exceed the allowable height in the district. A Conditional Use Permit would need to be sought if the structure would exceed the height of the support structure. Grittman stated that staff would encourage these providers to locate on private property, rather than on public rights-of-way where the devices could be fifty feet. Brad Fyle asked how many towers would be expected. Grittman was unclear on an estimation, but added that this technology was designed to cover smaller areas that weren't as strong with the larger cell towers. Fyle asked if there was any way to regulate colocation of antennas. Grittman declined that it could not be required for colocation of small cell facilities. Fyle asked if the towers would be clustered in specific areas of the city. Grittman responded that it was a possibility, but noted that it was unlikeliness. Angela Schumann stated that most of the rights-of-way most visible are not a part of the City, but rather MnDOT and Wright County. The rights-of-way would be regulated by their respective jurisdiction. Schumann stated that staff would follow up with the County on their regulations. John Alstad asked if a sharing of small cell facilities could occur between providers. Grittman confirmed, but stated the City could not require it. Alstad asked for clarification on the fifty foot maximum requirement. Grittman stated that the City is required to allow these facilities up to fifty feet. Fyle asked what the size of the structures would be. Grittman stated that it would likely be similar to a monopole or light pole. Schumann also explained that the right-of-way ordinance per statute sets a maximum cubic space provision for equipment and antenna arrays. Katie Peterson asked if there was a minimum requirement for how far off the ground these facilities would have to be. Grittman declined that a minimum requirement was not proposed. Marc Simpson stated that the small cell wireless was for weak areas. Grittman confirmed and added that it was also made for dense traffic where increased capacity would be necessary. Simpson asked if the fire department or law enforcement could also use this technology. Grittman stated that the facilities being proposed were mostly for private cell providers and that most law enforcement are on a separate system. 7 Schumann asked Grittman if it was advisable to include a clarifier in Section D to include non-residential private property in the proposed amendment. Grittman confirmed that it could be recommended for the Planning Commission's consideration. Fyle asked how large the maintenance/storage box would be. Grittman stated the statute requires cities to allow their equipment, but it also allows cities to limit the size in cubic feet. It was noted that the size would be similar to the utility cabinets currently seen in Monticello's rights-of-way. Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, the public hearing was closed. Fyle asked for clarification regarding the City Council's action. Schumann stated the City Council adopted a right-of-way ordinance that affects permitting in all right-of-way in the city. The Planning Commission is asked to make amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Schumann also clarified the maximum area. The small wireless facility language includes antenna limitations at six cubic feet and all other wireless equipment associated with the facility at no more than twenty-eight cubic feet in volume. Alstad asked for clarity regarding Section B — Support Structures. Grittman stated that provision was for traditional cell phone towers are permitted up to 199 feet. Sam Murdoff asked if (b) and (c) in Section 3 could be combined. Grittman stated that it could if the policy seemed appropriate. SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2017-033 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ZONING AMENDMENT RELATING TO SMALL CELL WIRELESS FACILITIES WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF COMBINING SECTION (B) AND (C) IN SECTION 3, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. D. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for Hi -Way Liquors sign height and area allowances Applicant: City of Monticello Angela Schumann stated that this public hearing was published, however it was cancelled as the property is not owned by the City of Monticello. Schumann stated that the City is working with MnDOT regarding the property owner status. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration to review for discussion commercial/"business" zoning district designations Angela Schumann stated that the item was a discussion item and was looking for feedback and direction. She would explain the status of the commercial zoning districts, regulations in the B-3 and B-4 Zoning Districts and how they related to the Comprehensive Plan objectives. She also wanted the Planning Commission to think about the vacant parcels zoned B-3 and B-4 Districts and whether those zoning designations were in alignment with the comprehensive plan goals. Schumann explained the importance of balancing land supply among the various zoning districts, especially as growth pressure has been occurring again since the recession. She stated that one of the main goals for the City is to encourage step- up development opportunities to increase jobs and tax base. Schumann showed the Planning Commission where the different `B" Zoning Districts are located within the city. Schumann stated that Planning Staff is asking to consider whether they wish to expand the B-4 Zoning District to vacant parcels that are zoned B-3. The reason was to move away a more limited auto -oriented district to a regional commerce. Schumann also explained that a limited supply of available land along major corridors was available and that it was important to consider retention of lands for uses which best support comprehensive plan goals. Staff also proposed reviewing use and performance standards within the B-2, B-3, and B-4 Districts. It was also important to review current uses by district and standards. Schumann reviewed a number of items that could be considered amendments at a future Planning Commission meeting. Schumann explained that staff would like to sit down with property owners to have an open discussion regarding parcel zoning. Schumann asked that the Planning Commission call for a public hearing in November for proposed text amendments that would tighten up the B-3 and B-4 districts - specific to the performance statements - and better move towards the goals of the comprehensive plan. John Alstad asked for the intent of the B-3 District. Schumann summarized that Monticello was in a great location being along I-94 and Highway 25. The intent was to create a district that catered and used the frontages for automobile related uses such as dealerships, fast food restaurants, and hotels. Grittman stated after the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, there is a lot of commercial area for automobile related uses and suggested possibly narrowing it up. Marc Simpson asked why there was a sliver of land designated B-3 near the I- 94/Highway 25 intersection. Schumann stated that as land was re -platted for right- of-way or other public infrastructure projects, a remnant parcel was often leftover. SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO DIRECT A PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 6 Staff would verify the date of the Planning Commission meeting in November, due to elections being held on November 7t", 2017. B. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Director's Report. She added that the City Council is considering as a part of the budgeting process an update to the Land Use portion of the Comprehensive Plan. Schumann also reiterated that the City Council passed a right-of-way ordinance. 4. Added Items Window Sienage: Charlotte Gabler asked if the window clings counted for signage. Angela Schumann stated that the Zoning Ordinance does not regulate window signage. Schumann added that as the Planning Commission looked into proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance for the Small Area Study, it may be something that could be looked into regulating. MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO CHANGE THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO NOVEMBER 14TH, 2017, IF IT INTERFERES WITH ELECTIONS. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Zoning Task Force: Angela Schumann explained that with the newly adopted Small Area Study to the Comprehensive Plan, a series of amendments to City ordinances would need to occur to match plans. Schumann asked the Planning Commission to appoint a representative to participate on a Zoning Task Force for the downtown. Katie Peterson volunteered for the position. Schumann stated that the City Council would formally approve the committee at a future meeting Sam Murdoff asked if an update could be provided regarding the research areas that staff presented in January. Schumann confirmed that an update would be provided at the next Planning Commission meeting. 5. Adjournment MARC SIMPSON ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 7:40 P.M. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Recorder: Jacob Thunander Approved: November 6t", 2017 Attest: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 11