Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 11-17-2010Planning Commission Minutes — 11/17/10 MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, November 17th, 2010 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Coimnissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, Barry Voight, and William Spartz Council Liaison: Susie Wojehouski Staff. Angela Schumann, Ron Hackemnueller, Ben Gozola - MFRA Call to order. Commissioner Dragsten called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m, and noted the absence of Commissioner Spartz. 2. Citizen Comments. None. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. None. 4. Public Hearing - Consideration to adopt an amendment to Title 10 of the Monticello City Code, Monticello Zoning Ordinance, (Chapters 1 -3) Angela Schuumann presented an outline of the process involved in preparing the proposed zoning code for formal review and recommendation. She indicated that the amendment would be considered in three separate public hearings and that the upcoming hearings had been scheduled for December 7, 2010 and January 4, 2011. She noted that this first public hearing would include a review of Chapters 1 -3 involving General Provisions, Application Reviews and Procedures, and Zoning Districts. Schuman pointed out that the effort to re -draft the entire zoning code, which began over a year ago, was a direct result of the 2008 Monticello Comprehensive Plan update, which lays the groundwork for land use policy for Monticello for the next twenty years. She noted that, although the zoning code had been amended over time, it had been based on a boilerplate ordinance that was developed in the 1950s and adopted hi the 1970s and was long overdue for an overhaul. She cited that because the city's codes control actual development it had become a priority to bring the ordinance into alignment with updated growth patterns and community needs to make it easier to use and understand. Schumann summarized the code development schedule and methods used to involve the public. She indicated that the proposed code incorporates the suggestions and comments resulting from an intense public input and review process directed by the Monticello Zoning Ordinance Revision Steering Committee. Planning Commission Minutes — 11/17/10 Ben Gozola, the lead consultant from MFRA, highlighted the numerous structural differences in the amended code. He specified that the inclusion of tables and hyperlinks for cross - reference markers would provide a much more graphically -based code geared towards ease -of use. In addition, the most notable structural change has been the consolidation of code information from 33 chapters to just 8 chapters. Gozola summarized the major updates to each of the three chapters. In Chapter 1 he outlined both transitional regulations and severability. In Chapter 2 Gozola highlighted the summmany of decision - making and review bodies and presented a related table. He also briefly specified specific review procedures & requirements. He additionally summarized Chapter 2 updates involving the inclusion of a site plan review to ensure zoning compliance and a new four step Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review process. Gozola noted that Chapter 3 established fifteen zoning districts and specified that there would be seven residential zones, five business zones and three industrial zones. Two districts were eliminated and three were renamed to better reflect changes in use. He provided visual examples of the easy to use summary pages for each district. Gozola noted that another major update to the code is the creation of seven overlay districts to provide for greater opportunity for use and summarized related changes. He discussed the draft zoning map to be adopted. He noted that staff had analyzed every City parcel and determined that 90% of the community would not see a zoning change. He did, however, encourage feedback from those whose zoning would be affected by the changes. Schumann stated that state regulations require that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) review and approve the Shoreland, Floodplain and the Mississippi Wild & Scenic provisions of the zoning ordinance. She noted that staff had begun the formal process for this review but anticipated that approval would occur after the expected January adoption of the new code. She indicated that the City could adopt the new zoning ordinance as proposed, exempting the Shoreland and Floodplain overlay districts, instead adopting current ordinance Chapter 18 ( Floodplain Management) and 27 (Mississippi Wild & Scenic) Lentil such time as the DNR review and approval process is complete. After DNR comments are addressed, the City could adopt the new overlay provisions as provided for within the new code. Schumann summarized the final code adoption steps indicating that it would be on -line and in use by February 1, 2011. She noted that it is of critical importance that the Planning Commission and City council recognize that the code is very much a working document and that there would be follow up revisions to the document. Due to the extent of changes to the PZ and PUD regulations, she recommended that a workshop be held in the conning months to develop a better understanding of the development process, timelines and results both would yield. In addition, Schumann noted that the CCD provisions of the code would require amendment at the conclusion of the Embracing Downtown Monticello effort. She also pointed out that areas in the code marked "Reserved" would require additional research, discussion and code language development. 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 11/17/10 Commissioner Dragsten opened the public hearing City Council member Tom Perrault presented a detailed list of corrunents and questions related to the proposed code as noted below: Perrault requested clarification related to some terns and definitions. He specifically cited "morals," "unnecessarily impact," "undue burden," "reasonable use," and "diversity" as being unclear. Schumann suggested that language used might be subjective to allow for interpretation to be based on general standards in the code. She also indicated that some of the language may have been carried over from the previous code and, as such, had not been filly scrutinized. Chapter 2.4.C.4: Perrault questioned the review of variance criteria. Schumann noted that the language in the environmental review was added to be in compliance with MN statute requirements related to environmental impact statements and assessments. Chapter 2.4 Site Plan App F: Perrault asked about the need for sidewalks for safety in traffic circulation. Schumann stated that a determination would defer to the base provisions of the code and subdivision requirements for safety standards. Chapter 2.4 Administrative Adjustments: Perrault asked why this referred to just residential use. Commissioner Dragsten noted that it was limited as a pilot effort. Chapter 2.410 B: Perrault asked where values came from in the PUD adjustments. Gozola stated that identifying a threshold had made it easier to calculate. Chapter 3.4 B: Perrault questioned how to interpret "additional shadow." Gozola stated that it is used in lieu of setting a cap on how tall a building should be. Perrault asked if the housing referred to in the traditional neighborhood residential district was for duplexes, townhouses or single family homes. Gozola stated that the only use allowed would be detached dwellings. Perrault asked if anything zoned B -4 can also have B -2 and B -3 uses. Gozola stated that the revised code establishes specific uses for each zoning district rather than cascading uses. Chapter 3.7.3: Perrault requested an explanation about accessory structures. Gozola stated that the language carne from existing code. Chapter 3.7.C.E: Perrault asked about regulations for fertilizer management. Schumann noted that existing regulations would be applied across the board. Chapter 3.7.C.3: Perrault asked how a dollar value was determined. Schumann noted that it was based on DNR language and amended to meet current state requirement. Planning Commission Minutes — 11/17/10 Perrault asked if the ten day length of time involved in requesting a variance was long enough. Schumann agreed that it may not be but that it is what is required. Chapter 3.7.1) Wetland District: Perrault asked about related costs. Schuumann did not have cost information available. She noted that the key to protecting the wetlands is education. Chapter 3.7.D.3 General Provision: Perrault asked about the expenses. Schumann noted that any expense falls on the applicant because the city should not bear those expenses. Perrault asked about the meaning of the soil absorption setback. Schumann noted that soil absorption refers to the drainfield. She also pointed out that the City does not allow private wells. Chapter 3.7.D.5 Buffer Strips and Setbacks Table 3 -18: Perrault asked who determined values and if only docks would be allowed on the wetland. Schumann stated that standards were taken from model wetland language from the DNR. She noted that she would have to research the dock question. Perrault asked why canary grass is cited in the vegetation performance standards. Schumann noted that it is an invasive species which would detrimental. Perrault asked why channelizing the flow of runoff is a concern. Schumann stated that she would defer to engineer expertise in this issue. Perrault asked why shrubs would need to be in a particular configuration. Schuunann noted that it was likely for aesthetic purposes. Chapter 3.7.D.8 Buffer Yards: Perrault asked what two cell water quality ponding is. Schumann indicated that the hydrologist at WSB would likely be able to provide that information. Perrault asked if the City would have jurisdiction over a man-made lake. Gozola stated that it is currently a discretionary issue. Perrault asked about provisions for green development. Schumann clarified that there are a variety of alternatives to green development which could be considered. Developer Charlie Pfeffer also shared his thoughts during the public hearing. He gave the City credit for undertaking the necessary task of rewriting the zoning code. He requested that staff work to draft a code which, in its effort to be highly structured, doesn't become overly punitive toward the development community. He noted the importance of making it easier and less tine consuming to become involved in the process of development. Conunissioner Dragsten sununarized that the intention in the code revision was to define the process upfront so that there would be no surprises for the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes — 11/17/10 As there were no further public comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hilgart agreed that the purpose of structuring the code in this way was to give developers a heads up about the planning approval process to enable the best development outcome. Commissioner Voight noted that formalizing the PUD process would give direction to development and protect the City. He stated that the ordinance was now very incentivized and that applicants could do what they wanted as long as they followed the rules. Council Liaison Wojchouski requested that the zoning code sample exercise run- through with City Council be scheduled prior to code adoption. Schumann agreed to provide an amended timeline to include this option at the next meeting. She noted that this would delay the January 11 m date by which the full code was to be made available for adoption. She also pointed out that it would be necessary to expand the scope of the MI RA contract to obtain their expertise in the effort. There were some detailed questions about roof pitches and minimum floor area as defined in Chapter 3.4 of the proposed code. After some consideration, Schumann suggested that the Planning Commission further discuss these issues at a continued public hearing. MOTION WAS MADE BY VOIGHT TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO DECEMBER 7,20 10. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. 5. Adjourn. MOTION WAS MADE BY VOIGHT TO ADJOURN. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:49 p.m. Recorder: Kerry T. Burri Approved: December 7/2 Attest: Development Director