Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 01-05-2010MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING January 5th, 2010 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison Absent: Susie Wojchouski Staff: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman — NAC 1. Call to order. Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and noted a full quorum of the Commission and the absence of Council member Wojchouski. 2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of December 1st. 2009. Schumann stated that the minutes would be provided at the January meeting. 3. Citizen Comments. NONE. 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Chairman Dragsten asked for an update related to meeting minutes and agenda information. 5. Consideration to call for a Public Hearing for the adoption of the 2010 City of Monticello Zoning Map. Schumann indicated that each year, the Planning Commission and City Council are asked to review and adopt the official zoning map. In 2009, the City of Monticello received no applications for rezoning and the Community Development Coordinator, City Administrator, and Consulting City Planner for accuracy. The adoption of the official zoning map does require a public hearing, and as such, Schumann indicated that the Planning Commission is asked to set a date for the public hearing. Commissioner Gabler inquired whether with the revision of the Zoning Ordinance, the map would require adjustment, and if so, would it be better to wait to adopt until that process is complete. Schumann indicated that the revision could absolutely impact the zoning map. If the City adopts substantial changes, it could substantially change the shape of the districts. Planning Commission Minutes — 01/06/10 The other item is that the revision includes a better incorporation of the overlay zones, such as the Mississippi Wild & Scenic. Those areas would then be incorporated right into the map, or as an appendix to the map. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE 2010 CITY OF MONTICELLO ZONING MAP. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5 -0. Chairman Dragsten inquired when the hearing would be held. Schumann indicated that it would come before the Commission at the February meeting. 6. Comprehensive Plan Review Schumann explained that the Comprehensive Plan was approved in 2008. Each year, the plan calls for the Planning Commission to review and reaffirm the document. In its annual review, the Planning Commission can call for additional in -depth review or amendments as necessary. Schumann stated that the Comprehensive Plan is the City's primary guide for growth, redevelopment and improvement for the next 20 years. The plan's primary purpose is to create and sustain the elements that define the character, heritage & identity of Monticello. It is commonly thought of as a land use tool - providing broad definitions for the use of property and patterns of development. The plan also influences the economic health of Monticello by setting forth economic development strategies, identifying locations for growth, and supporting investment in existing development. Finally, the plan provides guidance on the infrastructure and public improvements needed to facilitate and sustain development. Schumann stated that Bruce Westby will be providing more information on this last component. The Plan consists of six chapters as follows: Planning Framework, Community Context, Land Use, Economic Development, Parks and Transportation. Schumann noted that the Commission's 2010 review would focus on the Planning Framework, Land Use and Transportation chapters. From there, the Planning Commission can direct any amendments it would like to pursue. With the 2010 Census occurring, Schumann also noted that in 2011 and 2012, the Planning Commission's review would most likely focus on the Community Context chapter of the plan, as it would require updating based on the new information resulting from the Census. The Commission could then also look at other action resulting from that update. Focusing in on the Planning Framework chapter, Schumann noted that the Comprehensive Plan was completed over a two -year timeline, which allowed the City to develop a plan based on its experience with rapid growth, while establishing a more measured approach to growth due to both the economic slowdown and to the City's land - use goal of providing move -up housing options. Planning Commission Minutes — 01/06/10 Schumann stated that since its adoption, no comprehensive plan amendments have been approved, as such, the document is as Planning Commission adopted it. In reviewing the factors that are affecting the City right now in terms of growth, Schumann cited transportation as one of the most important. The Planning Commission has also discussed how the lack of development can negatively impact the City's desire for move -up housing, as the City could be asked to modify its standards in order to spur residential development. The City will need to keep its focus on how land use controls can help realize the move -up development goals. Schumann noted that the recently approved update of the Zoning Ordinance will be an important tool in that effort. Schumann stated that Chapter One lays out some specific next steps and she noted that in her review, she indicated that much has been accomplished in terms of these steps. Specifically, the park dedication ordinance has been amended and pairs up well with the Comprehensive Plan goals, as it incorporates the funding structure needed to acquire property at Bertram Lakes. The City has also completed a Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment. The City has made much progress on the Transportation Plan. The Comp Plan also identified the need for updated Downtown planning. However, it was felt that things were just starting to coalesce within the downtown, and so the direction to date has been to see where the pieces fall, then move forward. At the time a planning effort moves forward, the new Monticello Downtown Business Association will play an active role. Schumann reported that a TIF Management plan had recently been completed. This plan, completed by Comprehensive Plan consultant Rusty Fifield, outlines how each district functions, which needs to be decertified, how their funds can be used, and how they can be used to support downtown planning. In relationship to financial management, Schumann noted that for the first time, the City has approved a Capital Improvement Plan. This critical piece of the financial management plan lays out how City will make capital improvements over the next 5 years. Moving on to Chapter 3, the Land Use Chapter, Schumann explained that the first thing that chapter does is to provide a growth projections for the City. She stated that the Planning Commission could take a very literal view of these projections and say this is the definite growth plan, or take a more relaxed approach, and say that the trend line is really more of a guide. Schumann provided the Planning Commission with information on actual growth statistics, including the number of building permits issued and a lot inventory progression based on the Comp Plan trend line. She indicated that these pieces of information seem to indicate that lot inventory would run out in 2016 based on the actual Comp Plan growth projection. Theoretically, with a much slower growth trend, which is what is occurring right now, the inventory available would take the City through 2019. Schumann stated that it is her opinion that the general policies, strategies and goals for each type of use laid out in the Land Use chapter are still valid. She noted that the Comp Planning Commission Minutes — 01/06/10 Plan further breaks the use types into geographic areas, further refining growth opportunities and challenges for each. Schumann illustrated the current land use map based on the Land Use designations. She then introduced City Engineer Bruce Westby. Westby addressed the Commission regarding the Transportation component of the Plan. Westby commented that he wished he could say that the Transportation Plan had been adopted per Planning Commission's recommendation. He explained that the draft Transportation Plan was brought to the City Council on March 9`h, 2009. At that time, there was much discussion as related to Highway 25 congestion relief efforts and to the concept of a second river crossing. In many cases, overall the Planning Commission's priorities mirrored the concerns of the City Council. Westby stated that the Council elected to table the plan until looking at the River Crossing with neighboring communities and counties and with MN /DoT. Westby reported that a meeting with those groups was held in June of 2009. There was a lot of good input taken at the meeting and the general consensus was that a second crossing should be planned for. There were differing opinions on location and funding. Westby stated that since that meeting, there have been internal discussions at a City level on next steps prior to going back to that group. Also since the March 2009 Council meeting, Westby noted that the City had put to rest the Highway 25 and River Street test project. Council adopted the current improvements until such time as the east side of River St. develops, then that intersection will be reviewed again. Each of the three areas, Highway 25, Fallon Avenue and a river crossing, are still being looked at internally. Until there is a consensus on next steps, the Transportation plan will not be brought back to the City Council, as it is desired that more defined recommendation will be provided on each. Chairman Dragsten inquired whether the crossing would actually need to be designated in order to have the Plan go back to Council Westby answered that a better agreement from City staff and neighboring communities needs to be obtained prior. The idea would be to come away with some preferred locations for study and incorporate those into the Transportation Plan. Dragsten asked if a location has been narrowed to a few select areas of study. Westby indicated that it had not, although the Transportation Plan does lay out some options. During the June meeting, it seemed clear that more thought and consensus was needed. Dragsten inquired whether a subsequent meeting has been set with the other parties. Westby replied that it had not been, but will be relatively soon. Dragsten asked if Monticello was taking the lead. Westby answered that was the case. Dragsten inquired about the status of Fallon Avenue. It has been identified as a top priority, Westby answered, although the final alignment needs to be determined. He explained that there is some thought that it may be better to have it connect with Planning Commission Minutes — 01/06/10 Washington due to a potential bridge crossing location. That study may need to be completed first. Dragsten asked if the timeframe for Fallon planning would be the end of year. Westby noted that there are differing opinions on what the focus of attention should be in terms of transportation. Gabler stated that it seems that the Fallon project is continuously studied without much result. She inquired what it will take to move it forward. Westby explained that the overpass was set up as "T" into 7a' street, but now the question is whether it may be better moved to align with a potential river crossing or perhaps with Washington with or without the river crossing. The second river crossing is causing the additional time. Gabler asked if the necessary studies are being budgeted for. Gabler also inquired if perhaps a placeholder should be included in the plan for these items, just to keep the plan on track for approval. Westby responded that the plan itself seems to have Council support, but river crossing issue required additional research. Voight stated that the plan originally recommended and approved was similar in style and form to the Comprehensive Plan itself. It presented guiding principles only. He commented that the things that Engineering is struggling with seem not to relate to the plan itself, but rather the implementation. He stated that it seems that it should be possible to get the broad overview incorporated. Westby agreed and stated that he believes the Transportation Plan is serving as the base guide, currently. Gabler noted that the key is that there is no formally approved guide right now for transportation. Voight asked if the City is generally following the draft, why not just adopt it. Schumann commented that staff have discussed the form and function of the plan many times. Staff have asked themselves which comes first: development or transportation? It seems as though you need to understand those transportation components in order to plan for development, but often times development drives the transportation components. She agreed that the Comp Plan is a guide document, and when staff brought forward the Transportation Plan, we also had the same questions as Council seems to be struggling with and that is - is it enough to say we think these major improvements will occur somewhere, but it will take many years and much study to determine final, or do we need more defined planning. Ultimately, she stated that Council decides how detailed the study needs to be and right now they chose to ask for more information. Schumann stated at end of evening, she hoped that the Commission could provide specific recommendations on other next steps for the Comp Plan, including those related to the Transportation plan, downtown planning and amending the subdivision ordinance. She also asked the Commission to comment on a detailed housing study. Dragsten stated that if there's nothing going on, there may not be a need for a study, as the information is likely to change. Referring to the included information, Hilgart inquired whether the 890 lots is only the developments listed or for the whole city. Schumann responded that the lot inventory F Planning Commission Minutes — 01/06/10 includes are only the developments listed. They do not include plats for which approvals have expired. Only those that have received final plat approval post 2000 are included. Hilgart asked if there was a breakdown on zoning for the available lot inventory provided. Schumann stated that she had not gone to that level of detail in the information. Planner Grittman stated that he thinks many are actually townhome lots. He noted that part of the housing study idea came out of talking with developers looking at development, but knowing that the City had no baseline on rental occupancies or the potential for multiple family product. If the developers didn't have local knowledge, they weren't interested in doing it for themselves. Grittman stated that the study clarify what exists beyond lot inventory into what the housing mix is, ownership status, and rental occupancies. It would create a baseline of data. In a healthy environment for development, developers will often do this. Right now, preparing this study would serve the City in trying to analyze requests for amendments or new residential development products. Hilgart agreed, stating that it is just as, if not more, important for the City to have that information as a basis for making decisions than the developer. This information would help the Commission make informed decisions on development requests. Schumann noted that this information could also be particularly important given that the new Comprehensive Plan does not assign densities to Places to Live. This document will help the Commission identify the appropriate mix to accomplish its goals. Spartz agreed, stating that the Commission will need to consider its limits and how they relate to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for step -up housing. Dragsten agreed, but noted that the study should take into account the fluctuations of market. Hilgart noted that it would also be helpful to have some basic comparison information for other communities as well in terms of rental units. Dragsten that expanding the definition of housing styles in the Places to Live portion of the Comp Plan may be something that comes through after the zoning ordinance revision. Schumann reported that a more detailed presentation on a potential housing study would be provided at the February meeting. At that time, Commission can make a determination on moving forward and how to address the Comp Plan growth projections. 7. Community Development Director's Report. Schumann introduced Ron Hackenmueller Chief Building Official. She explained that he was officially appointed by the City Council on December 14th. Ron brings to the department a great amount of experience, knowledge, communication, and leadership skills. Schumann reported that as referenced earlier, the City Council adopted a 2010 -2014 Capital Improvement Plan. This is the first CIP approved by the City. It lays out a plan Planning Commission Minutes — 01/06/10 for capital expenditures for the City over the next five years. This document is an incredibly important tool as the City makes fiscal plans for major expenses including land acquisition, equipment purchases and possible facility development. The full copy of the CIP is available online. Schumann encouraged the Commissioners to attend the joint EDA and City Council workshop on January 13a' at 6:00 PM to review current TIF district fund balances and outline priorities for these funds. Commissioner Dragsten asked that the Planning Commission agenda be placed on the cable access channel so that people know what is coming up. This gives the public a chance to understand what may be coming up on the agenda, as they may want to attend the meeting. 8. Adioum. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5 -0. Recorder: Kerry T. Bum Approved: April 6, 2010 �r ��