Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 07-03-2012MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING Tuesday, July 3, 2012 - 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: William Spartz, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Barry Voight Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart Staff: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman -NAC 1. Call to order Bill Spartz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes of May 29, 2012 and June 5, 2012 BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 29, 2012. BARRY VOIGHT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3 -0. (Bill Spartz abstained.) BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 5, 2012. CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. 3. Citizen Comments None 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda a) Update on Broadway Market 5. Consideration of a reauest for amendment to the Official Monticello Zoning Ma and amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapters 3.5(G) — Central Community District, Chapter 4, Section 1— Landscaping, Section 4 — Exterior Lighting, Section 5 — Signs, Section 7 — Transitional Features, Section 8 — Off - Street Parking, Section 11— Building Materials; Chapter 5, Section 1— Use Table; and Chapter 8, Section 4 — Definitions, as related to regulations pertaining to the Central Community District (CCD). Planning Case Number: 2012-005 The proposed zoning amendments are intended to implement the recommendations of the Embracing Downtown Monticello plan which was adopted as amendment to the Comprehensive Plan in 2011. The changes made will facilitate new development consistent with the plan, and provide flexibility in application to allow the City to work with property owners to achieve the goals for Monticello's downtown area as adopted. Planning Commission Minutes — 07/03/12 City Planner Steve Grittman summarized that this request involves a series of proposed changes to the zoning ordinance encompassing various sections in Chapter 3, 4, 5, 8, and related map changes designed to incorporate the outcomes of the Embracing Downtown Monticello project, and its recommendations for physical changes to the downtown area. The proposed CCD regulations were developed by an ad hoc committee who met with staff to discuss impacts of the Embracing Downtown recommendations, as well as how those recommendations would translate into zoning code. The draft CCD changes were presented at a public open house and ordinance amendments were prepared for formal consideration at the Planning Commission public hearing. Comments from the public to date have consisted primarily of clarifications as to how the proposed ordinance would impact individual property, particularly when the property owner has no foreseeable wish to change. The vast majority of property owners will be unaffected by new zoning regulations until they wish to create new or redeveloped buildings, uses, or improvements on their property. To the extent that new regulations create non - conformities out of existing developed conditions, those non - conformities are "grandfathered" into place. Zoning Map Changes The Embracing Downtown Plan included a "Design Guidelines Use Areas" map, upon which specific uses and standards for various uses throughout the balance of the CCD ordinance are based. To effectively administer the proposed zoning changes, the City must adopt the Design Guideline Use Areas into its Zoning Ordinance. Rather than attempt to incorporate the various sub - districts into the CCD on the Official Zoning Map, the proposed ordinance amendment instead proposes to include the Design Guidelines Use Areas map into Section 3.5(G). Proposed Ordinance Changes Chapter 3.5 (G). This change includes a revised purpose statement reflecting the adoption of the Embracing Downtown Monticello report, along with its Design Guidelines and associated materials. Also changing is the inclusion of a more comprehensive development standards table (since the CCD is broken into several subdistricts by the "Embracing" project), and a set of more specific definitional changes that relate to specific uses in the downtown, and how those uses are addressed by the Embracing Downtown plan. Chapter 4. Chapter 4 contains the "Finishing Standards" of the zoning ordinance — performance standards that apply generally to any new development activity. Because the Embracing Downtown plan identifies a series of much more specific design guidelines, and further breaks the CCD into a series of sub - districts, a number of special finishing standards are proposed to be added to this chapter, including landscaping, lighting, parking, and building materials. Planning Commission Minutes — 07/03/12 4. 1, Landscaping. Site landscaping must incorporate green space on property that may have limited green space. The clause specifies a minimum of 10 percent coverage, including decorative paved spaces and landscaping, not including required parking lot islands, but including boulevard plantings given that many buildings in the CCD will have minimal setbacks, and may move landscaping into the boulevard spaces to enhance the site. • 4.4, Lighting. Both private and public area lighting is required to match the approved design standards as adopted from the Design Guidelines or other City Council direction. • 4.8, Parking. This section incorporates a few minor changes to coordinate language with the Land Use Tables in Chapter 5, and adds some clarifying insertions as well as two substantive changes. o Specific Planning Commission and City Council approval are required to construct parking areas that are between the building and the street. The City may also approve parking lots adjacent to the street as consistent with the overall downtown plan. o Cross parking access can occur without the need for special permits or approvals since it is encouraged in order to minimize total parking supply necessary to serve to the area. • 4.11, Building Materials. This is a relatively simple change to expressly incorporate the Embracing Downtown Design Guidelines as controlling requirements for buildings and site development in the CCD. Barry Voight suggested that there be a link on the website directly from changes in zoning code to the Embracing Downtown Monticello plan when referenced. Chapter 5. This chapter includes materials related to specific land uses in the City, establishing a table identifying which uses are allowed in which districts (and whether they are permitted, conditional, etc.). The chapter also includes language that sets specific standards for various land uses, some of which may apply across the board to that use, and some of which may apply when a CUP is necessary, or the use is proposed to be located in certain zoning districts. CCD uses have been withdrawn from Table 5 -1 and incorporated into a new table (Table 5 -1 A), and broken down by sub - district. Table 5 -lA includes reference links to the specific standards for the various uses that follow in Section 5.2. Several references relate to existing requirements of the zoning ordinance, while several others incorporate new language. A clerical change to this section occurs in a few areas, intended to synchronize how certain land uses are referred to in various parts of the code. Chapter 8. The definitions included with the proposed amendments will be included within Chapter 8, Section 3, prefaced by the term "CCD" to differentiate them from other similar use classes outside of the CCD. Planning Commission Minutes — 07/03/12 Brad Fyle asked why the CCD couldn't be left as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Steve Grittman stated that many of the uses within the CCD would not require the lengthy level of scrutiny involved in a PUD process. The public hearing was opened. John Erickson, of 201 West Broadway and owner of the dental office, noted his concern that according to the map provided, it appeared that Walnut Street would be opened to River Street and eliminate parking in the area. Steve Grittman pointed out that the map was included for zoning purposes to highlight subdistrict incorporation rather than infrastructure improvements. Erickson noted that there had been a special assessment eight years ago to close Walnut Street between Broadway and the river. He said that the last map he had seen of the Embracing Downtown project showed that the area was to be developed into a park. Angela Schumann pointed out that the Embracing Downtown Plan previously adopted does indicate how parking is to be treated if Walnut Street were to be opened to River Street. The plan shows a plaza area and the potential for a future parking ramp. She indicated that the pace of implementation of the plan though depends on the pace of development and priorities of property owners in the downtown area. Russ Adamski, of 304 Linn Street, asked why residential uses were being discussed in the downtown area if the Embracing Downtown project is all about businesses. He also asked how long the Comprehensive Plan had been in place. Steve Grittman noted that existing code presumed that residential use was limited to the upper level buildings in the CCD. The proposed ordinance acknowledges that there are existing single family residential uses in the CCD zoning district and ensures that the code accommodates those uses. It would be allowable to establish a commercial use if the property were sold to someone who chose to do so. He pointed out, however, that the new requirements provide protection for single - family property owners and enhance transitional areas with landscape buffers for existing residential uses. Street level residential use requires a CUP. Grittman indicated that the Comprehensive Plan had been in place for 10 -12 years within the CCD. Jim Wolf, who owns a couple of buildings in the CCD asked, how an existing business which was not in compliance, might be affected by this ordinance. Steve Grittman indicated that existing conditions are grandfathered in as a legal non - conformity and as such the business would be allowed to continue to use property as it is currently used. State law allows for remodeling, replacing and improving but not expanding. An owner may also sell to a future user who would have the same rights. The public hearing was closed. Charlotte Gabler and Bill Spartz participated in the subdivision committee and worked to shape the ordinance to address the needs of the CCD. They noted that revisions are Planning Commission Minutes — 07/03/12 always a work in progress and asked that further suggestions continue to be directed to staff for consideration. BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2012 -062 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO THE CCD ZONING DISTRICT, BASED ON FINDINGS AS STATED IN THE RESOLUTION. CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. 6. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Rezoning from B -3 (Highway Business) to B -4 (Regional Business) and a Conditional Use Permit for Cross and Joint Parking for a commercial development including a Clinic use. Applicant: Mickle, Bill & Warnert Commercial Realty (NAC) Angela Schumann reported that the City had received a written request from Warnert Commercial and a verbal request from Dr. Mickle to table action both the rezoning and the CUP requests at this time. The applicants are currently working through some site planning issues and expect to bring the request back to the Planning Commission when those issues are resolved. CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE REZONING AND THE CUP REQUESTS. BARRY VOIGHT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. 7. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Chapters and Sections: 3.3(D) — Common Yard & Height Requirements • 3.4(E) — Single -Family Residential District • 3.4(H) —R -3 — Medium Density Residential District 3.7(H) — Performance Overlay District 4.3(C)— Fences and Walls 4.8 - Off - Street Parking 5.1- Use Table 5.2(G) — Regulations for Industrial Uses 5.3 - Accessory Uses 5.4 - Temporary Uses • 8.2 — Rules of Measurement • 8.4 - Definitions Staff identified minor corrections and/or clarifications to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance for the Planning Commission's consideration. The proposed amendments are a result of the new zoning code's daily use and application. Many of the proposed amendments are "housekeeping" in nature, but some represent new policy direction for the City and may require additional discussion. Planning Commission Minutes — 07/03/12 Staff proposed that the Commission plan to consider the proposed amendments and then to table the hearing to the August meeting in order to allow for additional discussion and review. 1. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 3.3(D), as related to Allowable Yard Encroachments Staff recommended changes to better clarify this section of the ordinance. The changes are to allow side yard encroachments; to specify requirements for side yard encroachments on corner lots; to create consistency with accessory structure setbacks at 6' for wide and rear lot lines; and to delete "major and minor" accessory buildings teens. 2. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 4(E) - Mustration This section clarifies existing language for front yard determinations. It allows for the front yard to be determined from the time of platting; creates a more consistent and easily applied standard; and eliminates `tor" subjectivity. The narrowest part of the lot constitutes the front yard. No change in the illustration is needed. 3. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 4(H) as related to Density Standards for Medium - Density Residential There is no current "high- density" district in the code. The Comprehensive Plan refers to the need for "life- cycle" housing options. The City may wish to consider an increase in the allowable density within the R -3 or create a higher density district. The options are to increase density per gross acre for both the Performance & PUD standards in the R -3; to create a new R -4 District with higher density allowances; or to create a graduated scale of densities for the R -3 District. From an economic development standpoint it is important to provide for multi - family housing options for those who move to the community as labor force. Steve Grittman underlined the need to talk about performance standards for higher density properties. The code currently pushes toward very dense townhouse -style development. Charlotte Gabler liked the idea of the tiered single district design. Gritmann stated that it would build in both flexibility and uncertainty for the developer. He recommended establishing a baseline increasing the minimum density in the district and allowing for higher densities. There was some discussion of the differences between a tiered district and a R -4 District. Lloyd Hilgart asked a number of questions about the amount of R -3 land available and the amount of current housing stock. He indicated that he is not in favor of increasing density in the R -3 but prefers creating a new zoning district and deciding where to locate higher density housing. He indicated that he felt that tiering would be the same as making a district conditional. He doesn't want to increase Planning Commission Minutes — 07/03/12 density without sufficient regulation. Angela Schumann agreed to provide developed and undeveloped acreage information for the R -2 and R -3 Districts, a copy of the 2010 housing report, and any applicable Census or survey data at the next meeting. Steve Grittman also agreed to provide comparative housing study data. 4. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 7(H) as related to the Performance Overlay District In considering the practical application of the Performance Zone Overlay District, the use of a CUP may be an appropriate requirement in some cases (as opposed to by- right development) in order to evaluate land use impacts between and among mixed commercial and residential uses. Conditional use permits are not currently required for mixed commercial and residential uses in the Performance Zone Overlay. Current language would allow the introduction of new commercial uses into residential areas on corner lots by right. Staff recommended an amendment which would require a CUP for the development of new commercial uses within residential areas. Conditions have not yet been outlined. Another option might be to strengthen by right performance criteria. 5. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 3(C) as related to Fences and Walls No amendment is necessary at this time. 6. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 8 as related to Off - Street Parking The first proposed amendment to this section is a housekeeping amendment, proposed to require concrete curb barriers as specified by the City Plan Requirements and Design Guidelines. The current ordinance does not specify the concrete material requirement. The second proposed amendment to this section is the addition of an illustration intended to provide additional clarity to the dimensional standards required via section 4.8(E)(2)(b)(ii). The third proposed amendment outlines parking requirements for specific types of restaurants or areas of restaurants. Each area would be calculated independently under the restaurant heading. No changes to the parking space requirements are proposed under this amendment. 7. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 1— Use Table In order to maintain consistency with the proposed changes to the CCD regulations, Planning Commission Minutes — 07/03/12 which includes adoption of a new use table specific to the CCD, staff proposed to amend the names of uses listed within Table 5 -1 consistent with the proposed use titles for the CCD. Corresponding changes would be made to the Definitions section of ordinance, as well. Staff proposed adding single - family as a listing under "attached dwellings" and list as permitted only in the B -1 district. Chapter 3, Section C allows residential dwellings in the B -1 district. 8. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 3(G) as related to Regulations for Industrial Uses Bulk Fuel Sales & Storage is a permitted use in the I -1 and I -2 District. However, the Zoning Ordinance includes no specific regulations pertaining to liquid gases in the Bulk Fuel Sales & Storage use category. Staff will prepare proposed regulations for these uses consulting with area communities, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the existing bulk fuel provider. The City may also consider whether the ordinance should be amended to require a conditional use permit in either or both the I -1 and I -2 Districts. 9. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 3 as related to Accessory Uses and Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 4, as related to Temporary Uses Amendments to the existing Accessory Uses and Temporary Uses & Structures regulations have become necessary in order to avoid obtaining multiple permits through the City. Any vendor operating a temporary, transient business must obtain a Transient Merchant permit. No secondary land use permit for wayside stands or seasonal sales are needed for these vendors. Existing businesses who wish to provide for seasonal outdoor or sidewalk sales at their place of business are allowed to do so under the accessory use regulations for Outdoor Sidewalk Sales, or under the Seasonal Sales provisions of the Temporary Use regulations. Staff proposed amendments to the Accessory Use table and regulations to allow Entertainment/Recreation — Outdoor Commercial as an allowable accessory use in select commercial districts. Additional amendments to Chapter 5, Section 3(B) proposed correspond to provisions for Minor and Major Accessory Structures. Similar to the amendments proposed to Chapter 3, Section 3(D), the proposed amendments clarify requirements for these types of detached uses, placing all location/setback regulations in one code section. 10. Amendment to Chapter 8, Section 2 as related to Rules of Measurement This amendment clarifies existing language for front yard determinations. Planning Commission Minutes — 07/03/12 11. Amendment to Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 8, Section 4, Definitions Staff is proposing an amendment to the definition of "Appurtenances ". Open porches are considered to be part of the principle structure. As such, they are subject to principal building setback regulations and should therefore be removed from the existing definition. Additional amendments to the Definitions section are described with the CCD amendments proposed under Item 8. BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO TABLE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 7TH, 2012. CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. 8. Detached Accessory Structure Update (RH) Staff completed follow -up research related to existing building setbacks for detached accessory structures. Research included a survey of surrounding communities, analysis of building and fire code, and discussion with the State of Minnesota Building Inspections Division. Building Official Ron Hackenmueller outlined his findings and answered questions. Hackemnueller acknowledged that the different codes in place have different requirements. He noted that the more specific code takes precedence over the more general rule and pointed out that the Building Code is the highest authority in terns of determining appropriate guidelines. Lloyd Hilgart asked for clarification as to the requirements for minimum fire separation distance when building a detached accessory structure. The zoning code calls for six feet of separation. Hackenmueller suggested that a 5 foot separation between structures also allows for maintenance of buildings and grass. There was some confusion as to why options exist for both 5 feet of separation and 3 feet of separation between structures. There were questions about options for sheetrocking the inside of a structure in order to pass fire code. There was also some discussion as to when a variance might be acceptable. There was some discussion about how property owners are most often unaware of or ignore guidelines for detached accessory structures in order to use their property in the way they see fit. Those that ask for Planning Commission approval often find the guidelines limiting. Bill Spartz asked how often the code is updated. Hackenrnueller stated that, because MN did not adopt the 2009 international code, the state continues to operate under the 2006 Planning Commission Minutes — 07/03/12 code. The 2012 rules are currently under consideration for adoption in July 2013. Information related to fire sprinkler systems may be amended. 9. Resignation of Commissioner Voight Angela Schumann indicated that the she had received formal notice of the resignation of Planning Commissioner Barry Voight. She expressed the Commission's gratitude for his years of service. Voight noted that he had taken on a new position and needed to give it his full attention at this time. He said that he'd enjoyed his role in shaping the community through his participation on the Commission. His last Commission meeting will be in August. The City is still actively seeking applicants to fill the two vacant seats on the Commission. Neither individual who had expressed interest has yet submitted an application. There is no interest in changing the monthly commission meeting date. Staff acknowledged that it may be time to try some unconventional methods of soliciting interest. The upcoming Block Party would be a good opportunity to publicize the positions. 10. Community Development Director's Report Finance Director - Tom Kelly will be leaving Monticello to serve as the Finance Director for White Bear Township. He will be greatly missed. The City Council is in the process of finding a qualified individual to fill the position. Bertram Grant Update -The City received confirmation from the DNR that the first grant written to support land acquisition for the athletic complex at Bertram was successful. The DNR has awarded the City and Wright County $369,250 in grant funds which will help to kickstart planning for the athletic field space. A match request for City /County funding will be forthcoming. There is a significant need for athletic fields as teams from the baseball and soccer associations are competing for field time between the school district and existing city fields. In addition, lacrosse fields are in demand. Mowing & Noxious Weed Update - Building Inspectors have been completing weekly sweeps within the community, issuing violation notices for properties not in compliance with mowing of boulevards or within 100' of another structure. The Building Inspector is also issuing violation notices for any property that has been inspected and found to contain noxious weeds. Ford Building - There had been some interest in the Ford site but no applications had yet come forward. Upcoming Worksessions- Staff scheduled a tentative date to conduct a City tour and initial subdivision worksession the third Tuesday in August. Bill Spartz noted that it 11111 Planning Commission Minutes — 07/03/12 might be best to wait until an additional Commissioner was appointed. Additionally, staff suggested consideration of scheduling a joint work session in the fall with the IEDC to review the City's industrial land base. 11. Consideration of items added to the agenda a) Update on Broadway Market — The Conditional Use Permit comes up for review in September. As the property is no longer owned by the original development firm, staff will contact the bank on August I" to discuss extending that CUP. 12. Adiourn BRAD FYLE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:04 PM. BARRY VOIGHT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. Recorder: Kerry T. Burn 9 Approved: August 7, 2012 Attest: k06, Angela S Nh rn , mmunity Development Director 11