Planning Commission Minutes 02-21-2012MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 21, 2012 - 6:00 PM
Mississippi Room, Monticello Conununity Center
Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Barry Voight, and
William Spartz
Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart
Staff: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman-NAC
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Call to order
Rod Dragsten called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes of January 3, 2012
BILL SPARTZ MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 3, 2012.
MOTION WAS SECONDED BY CHARLOTTE GABLER. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0.
Citizen Comments None
Consideration of adding items to the agenda None
Continued Public Hearing - Consideration to adopt the City of Monticello Official
Zoning Map
The Planning Commission tabled action on this item in January to allow staff the
opportunity to research the fmal zoning action and zoning designation for the old
bowling alley property (101 Chelsea Road). Staff confirmed that City Council acted
to rezone Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 of Oakwood Industrial Park, the bowling alley
parcels, via Ordinance #521 in June 2011. This action was taken outside of the
pending sale transaction, due to rezoning action's consistency with the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
The map reflects the three rezoning actions taken in 2011. These include:
• Rezoning from I -1 (Light Industrial) to B -2 (Neighborhood Business) for 101
Chelsea Road — Ordinance #531
• Rezoning from I -1 (Light Industrial) to B -4 (Regional Business) for 102 Thomas
Park Drive — Ordinance #534
• Rezoning from I -1 (Light Industrial) to B -4 (Regional Business) for 9766 Fallon
Avenue — Resolution 2011 -092, completed with Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
The Bondhus Tool property, located at 1400 East Broadway, was incorrectly zoned R -2
Planning Commission Minutes — 02/21/12
with the 2011 Zoning Ordinance update and map revision. The property is guided
industrial and was zoned I -1 on the pre -2011 zoning maps. The public hearing for the
rezoning of the Bondhus property is scheduled next on this agenda. The map illustrates
the proper zoning as I -1.
The public hearing was opened. Hearing no public comments, the public hearing was
closed.
BILL SPARTZ MOVED TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THE 2012 CITY OF
MONTICELLO OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, SUBJECT TO FINAL ZONING
ACTION AS TAKEN BY THE MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL RELATED TO
THE BONDHUS TOOL PARCELS (1400 E. BROADWAY). MOTION WAS
SECONDED BY BRAD FYLE. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0.
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of request for Rezoning from R -1 (Single Family
Residential) to I -1 (Light Industrial) for 1400 East Broadwav Applicant: City of
Monticello
The Bondhus Tool property, located at 1400 East Broadway, was incorrectly zoned R -1
(Single - Family Residential) with the 2011 Zoning Ordinance update and map revision.
The rezoning of the subject property is intended to correct an error related to the adoption
of a new zoning map occurring concurrently with the adoption of the 2011
comprehensive zoning ordinances. The property was zoned I -1 on the pre -2011 zoning
maps and was not intended for rezoning action as part of the ordinance update.
Chapter 2.4 B (5) Approval Criteria
Recommendations and decisions on zoning amendments shall be based on consideration
of the following criteria:
a) Whether the proposed amendment corrects an error in the original text or map; or
b) Whether the proposed amendment addresses needs arising from a changing condition,
trend, or fact affecting the subject property and surrounding area.
c) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with achieving the goals and
objectives outlined in the comprehensive plan.
The rezoning is supported under criteria "a" above. The property is guided as "Places to
Work" in the 2008 Monticello Comprehensive Plan, and therefore also meets review
criteria "c" above.
Bondhus Tool Company is currently in operation on the subject parcels. Bondhus Tool is
a light manufacturing facility and therefore consistent with the I -1 (Light Industrial)
zoning designation. The rezoning represents a return to appropriate zoning based on a
review of all available records. Rezoning would occur concurrently with the adoption of
2012 Zoning Map subject to Council approval.
Planning Commission Minutes — 02/21/12
The public hearing was opened.
Rod Dragsten asked the property owner why the smallest parcel hadn't been combined
with the rest of property.
Property owner Mary K. Bondhus shared her understanding of the history of that smallest
parcel. It had been included in the purchase agreement but either hadn't been signed off
on or transferred in the same way as the other properties prior to Stuart Hoglund's death.
She noted that it has a tax value of $15 and that it would not be cost - effective to pay an
attorney to handle that administrative change. Angela Schumann indicated that it would
be possible to combine properties administratively if the property owner chose to do so.
Hearing no other public comment, the public hearing was closed.
BILL SPARTZ MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2012 -017,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE #544 REZONING FROM R -1
(SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO I -1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1400 EAST BROADWAY. MOTION WAS
SECONDED BY BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request to amend Title 10 of the Monticello City
Code, Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chanter 4.5, Signs
In February of 2011, Monticello adopted an interim ordinance allowing for the expansion
in usage of temporary signage. The interim ordinance was adopted to allow an
opportunity to analyze the temporary sign issue over a finite period and determine the
impacts of the interim regulation. The interim ordinance expired on January 1, 2012. The
Commission was asked to review all available data compiled during the interim
ordinance period and make a recommendation for further action. The two primary issues
with temporary signage continue to be how to handle equity among businesses and how
many days is reasonable for temporary signage.
Staff summarized the comparison in flexibility allowed under the interim ordinance.
Code Requirement
Existing Ordinance
Interim Ordinance
Signs Allowed
Per parcel
Per business, sign must be
located on parcel on which
business in located
Number of Signs per
1
1 sign every 75 linear feet
Location
of ROW, 1 sign per
business
Number of Days (Annual)
40
Unlimited
Permit Required
Yes
Yes
Planning Commission Minutes — 02/21/12
Three primary measures were used to evaluate the interim ordinance: permit data,
street corridor images, and survey data.
Permit data- During the period of the interim ordinance, 26 temporary sign permits
were issued. This permit -to- business ratio suggests that a majority of businesses do
not utilize temporary signage.
2. Street corridor images- Based on images taken by building inspectors, the primary
issues are related to the permitting, type, and/or location of signage versus the actual
number of signs.
3. Survey of temporary sign permit holders -Of the 26 business permit holders, the
City received 15 survey responses, a 57% response rate.
• The majority of survey respondents indicated that they were aware of the
interim ordinance.
The majority (79 + %) used under 60 total days of signage.
The majority of respondents also utilized other forms of temporary signage.
The respondents were split fairly evenly between multi -tenant (46 %) and
single pad (54 %) businesses.
Alternative 1: Extend the interim ordinance for one additional year
Staff met with business representatives in January to gather feedback on the outcomes of
the interim ordinance and recommendation for permanent amendments. The group
supported the number, size, spacing, and allowance per business provisions of the interim
ordinance. The group also suggested adding language requiring that sign owners keep
the signs in good repair. The group agreed that a streamlined code which groups both
portable temporary signs and attention getting devices together as "temporary signs" was
best for clarity and ease of regulation. The group recommended that the City add the
provision for maintenance to the existing interim ordinance and extend the interim
ordinance for one additional year. In that time, the City could continue to evaluate the
impact of unlimited says of use, complete additional study on the visual preference of the
entire community, and examine alternatives for a tiered approach.
Alternative 2: Amend the temporary sign ordinance with suggested modifications
Alternative 2 is a set of amendments reflecting a blending of the recommendations of
staff (which are based on the data collected) and the business community which could be
adopted with provisions as follows.
(I) For property in a Business District or an Industrial District (see table 3 -I), the
use of commercial temporary sign devices shall not exceed fero,(40)-ninety (90)
days per calendar year per buRdingbusiness. Not more than one (1) temporary
sign device per building shall be displayed upon a property at any one time. The
area of temporary sign devices shall not exceed thirtAve (32) forty (40) square
feet.
Planning Commission Minutes — 02/21/12
(2) One (1) temporary sign shall be allowed every seventy-five (75) lineal feet of
street frontage, on not more than two (2) public streets, and shall be located on the
parcel far which the permit has been issued Temporary signs must be located on
private property by permission of the owner and may not be located on any public
easement or right -of -way.
(3) Temporary signs must be constructed of materials consistent with temporary
signs (portable) such as aluminum, acrylic, plexiglas, lexan, polycarbonate, or
other comparable materials and may not be constructed ofplywood, chipboard,
unfinished materials, or other similar materials. In the case of banners, weather -
resistant plastic or poly materials shall be required. All temporary signage must be
kept in good repair and may not constitute a nuisance as defined by Title 7,
Chapter 1 of City Code.
(4) In cases where properties forego, in writing, temporary signage allowed by
Section 4.5(1)(1) above, an additional permanent message board sign up to fifty
(50) square feet in area shall be allowed. Such sign may be incorporated into a
property's freestanding sign or the building as additional wall sign area.
Freestanding signs shall be subject to the height limitations of the applicable
zoning district.
(5) Government buildings and structures, public and quasi public buildings, public
parks and recreation areas, public educational institutions limited to accredited
elementary, middle or senior high schools, and religious institutions shall be
allowed temporary signage in accordance with the provisions (1) through (6) of this
ordinance.
(6) Subject to other provisions of Section 4.5(7), one (1) additional temporary sign
device shall be permitted for a business on a one -time basis for a period of up to
forty (40) days to be utilized within six (6) months of the first day of the business
opening to the public. Such signage shall not be limited by the provisions of
Sections 4.5(1)(2).
This issue will move forward for City Council consideration on March 12th. A letter
would be sent to the business community outlining the recommended ordinance and
enforcement policy.
Bill Spartz asked about the penalty for signs placed in inappropriate locations. Staff noted
that the signs would be removed and the business would be contacted. Building
Department will conduct a weekly spring sweep in an effort to hold businesses more
accountable for temporary signage.
Rod Dragsten pointed out that some people doesn't understand where the right of way is
located and suggested that the City indicate road width and road right -of -way on maps to
be distributed to permit holders.
Planning Commission Minutes — 02/21/12
Staff noted that property owners in the CCD who have not been applying for permits
when putting up temporary signage should be subject to enforcement.
Brad Fyle recommended extending the interim ordinance for one more year.
Barry Voight expressed frustration with the number of permits issued during the interim
ordinance as well as the lack of survey results and suggested that the City put the issue to
rest. He said the City was led to believe that temporary sign ordinances made it difficult
to run a business in town but that Monticello's ordinance is in line with how this issue is
handled in surrounding communities. He noted that enforcement is key but stated that
businesses have to be held accountable too.
He specifically asked staff if provision number 6 in Exhibit I, which deals with additional
signage related to grand openings, needed to be amended. Staff indicated that it should be
broadened to include both provisions 1 and 4.
Rod Dragsten said that he thought the business community monitored themselves well
but would prefer to see no limit on the number of days for temporary signage and extend
the ordinance for one more year.
Bill Spartz said that 90 days is sufficient and would like to put the matter to rest.
Charlotte Gabler said a number of days would be needed for enforcement and agrees with
the 90 days.
Ron Hackenmueller clarified that the total number of temporary signs for the year may
have been closer to 40 for both 2011 and 2010 but that 26 is the number of temporary
signs during the interim ordinance.
Lloyd Hilgart asked how many temporary sign users did not have a permit. Staff
estimated there may have been 8 -10 that were then asked to obtain a permit.
Angela Schumann stated that regulating the number of days for temporary signs does
matter in terms of community aesthetics. There was further discussion about having to
track the number of days and the potential consequences of unlimited days.
The public hearing was opened.
Angela Schumann noted that the City had received a letter from River City Signs owner
Pat Sawatzke in support of Alternative 2, Motion 1.
Hearing no further public comment, the public hearing was closed.
BILL SPARTZ MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT #547, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE
MONTICELLO CITY CODE, MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER
Planning Commission Minutes — 02/21/12
4.5, SIGNS, AS RECOMMENDED VIA ALTERNATIVE 2 ABOVE AND BASED ON
THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS STATED BELOW AND BROADENING NUMBER 6
IN EXHIBIT I TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS 1 & 4. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY
BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 3 -2 WITH BRAD FYLE AND ROD
DRAGSTEN VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
FINDINGS OF FACT
• The amendment is consistent with the City's purpose in regulating the number, size, type
and other physical characteristics of signs in order to promote the public health, safety
and welfare.
• The amendment language proposed addresses the primary concerns noted by the interim
ordinance data, including the need for valid permits, the desire for well - maintained and
attractive temporary signage, and the continued prohibition of off - premise signage.
• An amendment providing an allowance for additional days is justified by the permit
holder survey data, and can allow flexibility for business owners in their sign device
choice.
• Regulating temporary signage as described within the proposed amendment preserves and
maintains the scenic and aesthetic environment of the community, and protects and
promotes the quality of life of the City's residents.
• Regulation of temporary signage is necessary for the safety of local and visiting motorists
and pedestrians and to reduce the distracting influence of uncontrolled signage.
8. Public Hearing — Consideration to amend Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Chanter 27
Regulating the Management of the Mississippi Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River
System and the Shoreland Areas of the City of Monticello and Monticello Zoning
Ordinance Chapter 3, Section 7 for the adoption of Overlay Ordinances regulating the
Mississippi Wild, Scenic & Recreational River District and the Shoreland District.
Applicant: City of Monticello
As part of the 2010/2011 comprehensive Zoning Ordinance amendment process, the City
began revising existing Mississippi Wild, Scenic & Recreational regulations and the
drafting of new Shoreland ordinances.
For the past year, staff has been working with the City's regional Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) representative, Roger Stradal, to develop a better understanding of
existing template ordinances and the process for revision and adoption of new
ordinances. State regulations require that the DNR review and certify the Shoreland and
Wild & Scenic provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Stradal has aided the City in
developing the ordinances consistent with statutes.
The City has incorporated all final comments from the DNR on the Mississippi Wild,
Planning Commission Minutes — 02/21/12
Scenic & Recreational ordinance. Staff plan to incorporate the DNB's final comments on
the Shoreland ordinance and bring the revised ordinance forward for Planning
Commission review in March.
The ordinances will become overlay districts to the base zoning districts and act as a
second layer of regulation for properties lying within the boundaries of the overlay
districts. The City is responsible for enforcing these ordinances for any development
within that overlay district and rely on the DNR for secondary assistance when needed.
The City has actually needed to enforce the ordinance within the past year.
As Monticello's portion of the Mississippi River has been defined by the State as
"Recreational ", the City is required to adopt local regulations consistent with standards
for "Recreational" river areas.
Specifically, the draft Mississippi Wild & Scenic ordinance outlines:
Allowable uses via City's use table (Chapter 5), in accordance with MN Rules
Minimum standards for lots, including area and setbacks
• Commission will note that the lot area and setback are generally consistent
with the ranges provided for the R -A and R -I districts, with larger area
requirements for riparian lots and larger setback requirements at the
shoreline.
• Both sewered and unsewered provisions are included, as there may be
cases in which recently annexed properties with private systems require
development require under these regulations.
• Maximum impervious surface requirements
• Additional performance standards for density, structure placement and stormwater
management
• Limitations for clear- cutting and grading within the overlay district
o This City receives assistance in the administration and enforcement of
these regulations from the Wright County Soil & Water District and the
local DNR Conservation Officer.
• Process for development and agency action
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission review the Mississippi Wild, Scenic &
Recreational ordinances and then continue the hearing to March for review of the
proposed Shoreland Ordinances. Once the Planning Commission recommends approval
of these ordinances they would go forward to City Council. Council would take action to
repeal the existing Chapter 27 in the zoning code and adopt these new sections in its
place.
Charlotte Gabler asked if planning for the future bridge crossing would be
affected by these ordinances. Angela Schumann noted that the bridge crossing
project would have its own environmental review process but that any
development that occurs outside the scope of that project in that area would be
affected.
Planning Commission Minutes — 02/21/12
Brad Fyle expressed his concern that the city should not approve anything that is
not required.
Angela Schumann said that the City has tried to adopt a model ordinance that
follows the base State statutes. She noted that any issues related to pathways or
roads would follow a different approval process and that the DNR is consulted
when pathways are proposed. She noted that staff also considers provisions of the
Wild and Scenic requirements as part of an environmental project memo in
applying for grants for paths and trails.
The public hearing was opened.
DNR representative Roger Stradel agreed that roads are typically already in place
in these areas and that the DNR is generally supportive of pathways as long as
they meet requirements.
Rod Dragsten asked for clarification about the requirements for screening a
structure on property on the river. He asked if a property owner who lived on the
river would not be allowed to have a view of the river from the home. Roger
Stradel summarized that there are specific requirements. Property owners are
allowed to remove brush and buckthorn and to trim trees. He described the
importance of trees in maintaining the shoreline and noted that there must be a
constant canopy and that trees larger than 4 inches in diameter must not be
removed.
Angela Schumann stated that provisions are designed to give the City the
flexibility to look at what is vegetation in place, what is being constructed, and
what is appropriate vegetative screening. As an example, a property owner
cleared brush along the shoreline and worked with Wright County to re- establish
native vegetation. The restoration improved the view of the river and kept the
property from eroding.
Hearing no further public comment, the public hearing was closed.
BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO MARCH
6TH, 2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVIEWING THE SHORELAND OVERLAY
DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND CHAPTER 8, DEFINITIONS. MOTIONWAS
SECONDED BY BILL SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0.
9. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Amendment to the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section 4(P) for Specific Review Requirements and Procedures
for Planned Unit Development. Applicant: City of Monticello
Steve Grittman provided documentation related to a series of proposed amendments to
the City's Planned Unit Development ordinance. The amendments proposed are a result
of feedback provided at the joint session Planning Commission and City Council
Planning Commission Minutes — 02/21/12
workshop held in October of 2011 as well as staff recommendations.
Most of the proposed changes are clerical or intended to clarify existing language and the
general form of the ordinance is left intact. The ordinance continues to allow Planned
Unit Development by zoning district only and retains the collaborative process. Another
change includes clarifications to processing and submission requirements, and specifies
that upon final approval of a PUD project, the applicant shall record a plat and the City
shall adopt a rezoning ordinance creating a new zoning district applying to the specific
parcel(s) in question, and changing the zoning map to this new district.
Steve Grittman briefly outlined specific proposed changes to the ordinance:
• Deleted conditional clause from the purpose statement so that the city has authority to
deny a PUD
• Deleted language related to base zoning district
• Recommended addition of a referencing requirement
• Deleted the minimum threshold size for the PUD
• Clarified multiple parry ownership
• Removed planning objectives from ordinance language
• Refocused language relating to development footprint and ecological -based approach
• Broadened applicability of section from unit counts to intensity
• Deleted incentive related to street size as a bonus for developers
• Required developer to submit a calculation for net developable land
• Specified option of submitting Concept Plan and Development Plan concurrently
• Required identification of specific densities as part of Concept Plan submittal
• Specified Planning Commission review and public hearing of application
• Specified timing requirements for Council action on a concept plan
• Clarified the distinction between the process of plat action and zoning action
• Specified effective date clause for ordinance
• Specified three levels of amendment
• Added language about PUD cancellation process
The public hearing was opened. Hearing no public comment, the public hearing was
closed.
Angela Schumann suggested adding back language that had been included in the editorial
comments but inadvertently left out of Section 3, Specific PUD Preliminary Plat
Submittals. Specific documents required to be included are: building design and
materials, landscaping detail screening, fencing, grading, streets utilities, signage, and
lighting.
BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2012 -019
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE #546 FOR THE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AND INCLUDING
LANGUAGE ADDED TO SECTION 3, SPECIFIC PUD PRELIMINARY PLAT
10
Planning Commission Minutes — 02/21/12
SUBMITTALS, REQUIRING DOCUMENTS RELATED TO BUILDING DESIGN
AND MATERIALS, LANDSCAPING DETAIL SCREENING, FENCING, GRADING,
STREETS UTIILTIES, SIGNAGE AND LIGHTING. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY
BRAD FYLE. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0.
This item will go before the City Council at the second meeting in March.
10. Community Development Director's Report
Upcoming Special Meeting -Staff reported that there is a Joint City Council/EDA/Planning
Commission special meeting scheduled for 5:15 PM on February 27s' to provide an
Embracing Downtown Monticello process update. There was some question about a revised
meeting time of 5:30 PM. Staff agreed to confirm that with the Commission.
CCD Ordinance Rewrite -The ad hoc task force assigned to direct the CCD rewrite met
with Planner Grittman February 10`s to determine how to write the ordinance standards.
Charlotte Gabler and Bill Spartz were in attendance. Two workshops were scheduled to
provide for further in in preparing a draft ordinance. The first workshop, scheduled for
4:30 PM on March 6 , will cover permitted and conditional uses to be included within
the CCD. The second workshop, tentatively scheduled for March 200' at 4:30 PM, will
cover other code performance standards. A final draft of the CCD ordinance is expected
to come before the Commission in April or May.
Development Survey -The City received 5 responses out of the 18 development surveys
emailed. Overall the results were favorable, although the clarity of application materials
may need to be reviewed and improved.
Growth Projections -Steve Grittman is preparing a project scope and estimate for
updating the growth projections to be forwarded to the Planning Commission in March.
Ford Project -The City has not received a development stage application.
Housing Statistics -Staff noted that information about current real estate trends was
included in the agenda packets.
Land Use Related Legislation -A summary of recent land -use related legislation making
its way through this year's legislative session was also included in the packet.
11. Adiourn
BILL SPARTZ MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:46 PM. MOTION WAS
SECONDED BY BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0.
Recorder: Kerry T. Bum
Approved: March 6, 20
Attest:
Ang cum unity Development Director
11