Planning Commission Minutes 09-04-2012MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, September 4, 2012 - 6:00 PM
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: William Spartz, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler
Council Liaison Absent: Lloyd Hilgart
Staff Present: 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
a) Regular meeting of August 7th, 2012
CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
AUGUST 7, 2012. BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED 3 -0.
b) Special meeting of August 21 st, 2012
BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2012.
CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3-
0.
3. Citizen Comments None
4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None
5. Public Hearing — Consideration of an amendment to Chapter 4, Section 4 — Exterior
Lighting and Section 5 — Signs, as related to LED illumination. Applicant: City of
Monticello Planning Case Number: 2012 -031
The Planning Commission was asked to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
that would address illumination standards for signage. Current standards require
shielding of the light source to avoid glare or light spillover onto streets and adjacent
properties. Related to this requirement is a standard that requires site lighting to be
shielded in the same way, and also requires such lighting to cast no more than 0.5 foot
candles of light onto the adjacent right or way or private property. Because the City's
regulations prohibit lighting in which the individual light source is exposed to direct
view, the use of LED (Light Emitting Diode) lighting is technically not allowed by the
code.
Planning Commission Minutes — 09/04/12
Since the development of the sign ordinance, the use of LED lighting for signage and
building accents has become more popular and common. LED light is emitted in a
particular direction, and has the effect of appearing brighter to the eye since it is cast
directly toward the viewer, rather than broadcast and spread by a shield or lens, because
many individual lights are used.
Staff has found that many other cities, although troubled by the technology, have not
regulated LED light sources. Others have this type of prohibition, but have not enforced it
on these lights. Some communities have applied a "nit" standard, and others have
allowed the use of LED -lit signage with an agreement that the lighting is dimmed during
certain hours.
The Planning Commission considered three options:
1. Leave the ordinance as it is written, requiring any LED lighting to be
shielded.
2. Amend the ordinance to allow such lighting, but regulate the intensity of
exposed LED lighting, along with other factors, such as location, zoning,
and /or traffic.
3. Amend the ordinance to allow the use of LED lighting according to the
industry.
There was some discussion of amending the language of the ordinance for illuminated
signs as in option two. The Planning Commission considered the City of Bloomington's
regulations for light displays.
(7) Illuminated Signs
Illuminated signs shall be shielded to prevent lights from being directed at
oncoming traffic in such brilliance that it impairs the vision of the driver
and may not interfere with or obscure traffic signs or signals. Lighting
may not illuminate any adjacent properties, buildings, or streets.
Notwithstanding this provision, LED light displays may be installed
without shielding provided that:
(a) Unshielded LED light displays may only be located on B -3 or B -4
zoning properties.
(b) Unshielded LED lights are not installed in any area that abuts
residentially zoned property;
(c) Unshielded LED lights are not installed in such a way as to direct light
toward residentially zoned property within 500 feet of the light source.
(d) Unshielded LED lights may not exceed a maximum illumination of
5000 nits (candelas per square meter) during daylight hours and a
maximum illumination of 500 nits (candelas per square meter)
Planning Commission Minutes — 09/04/12
between dusk to dawn as measured from the sign's face at maximum
brightness,
(e) Dimmer control. Unshielded LED lights must have an automatic
dimmer control to produce a distinct illumination change from a high
illumination level to a lower level for the time period between one
half -hour before sunset and one half -hour after sunrise.
Bill Spartz asked if LED lighting could be limited to the Freeway Bonus District rather
than the B -3 or B -4 zoning districts. Staff agreed that this approach might provide a
useful limited scope trial for such illuminated signs since both Holiday Stations are
within 800 feet of the freeway.
The public hearing was opened.
Jake Bauer, representing Holiday Station Stores Engineering Group, was available to
respond to questions.
As there were no specific questions, the public hearing was closed.
CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A ZONING
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO THE USE OF LED LIGHTING
DISPLAYS WITH THE CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED IN OPTION 2 ABOVE WITH
THE LOCATION REVISED FROM THE B -3 OR B -4 ZONING DISTRICT TO THE
FREEWAY BONUS DISTRICT. BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED 3 -0.
6. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for a Bank Facility
with Drive - Through Facility, Joint Parking and Joint Access. Applicant: SA Group
Properties, Inc.
SA Group Properties, Inc. requested a one -year extension of the conditional use permit
originally issued for a commercial development project at Broadway Market in 2006. The
CUP was issued for cross parking, cross access and a drive- through for the commercial
development proposed at the corner of CSAH 75 and CSAH 39. It is due to expire on
September 25, 2012 due to non -use.
Bill Spartz noted that a drive- through no longer requires a CUP as a result of the revised
zoning ordinance. Brad Fyle clarified that there would be certain expenses involved in
reapplying for a CUP if an extension were not to be granted. There was some continued
consideration as to the appropriate length of an extension. Staff pointed out that the
applicant continues to market the property.
BRAD FYLE MOVED TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION FOR ONE YEAR OF THE
SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2006 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE - THROUGH
FACILITY, JOINT PARKING AND JOINT ACCESS FOR THE BROADWAY
Planning Commission Minutes — 09/04/12
MARKET DEVELOPMENT, WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE EXTENSION. BILL SPARTZ
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3 -0.
Consideration of an update on the Fallon Avenue Overpass planning. (BW)
City Engineer Bruce Westby presented information regarding progress on planning for
the Fallon Avenue overpass and related improvements.
He noted that the Planning Commission had ranked this project as their first priority
during a review of the transportation plan. City Council had authorized WSB to conduct
studies in conjunction with the 2 °a river crossing analysis. Eight concepts were originally
outlined and evaluated as to traffic operations, project costs and property impacts.
The Transportation Advisory Committee and the IEDC recommended that City Council
move Concepts 1, 3a and 5 to the public input phase. Concept one involves a 4 -way
intersection at Fallon Avenue and Chelsea Road and a T intersection at the current radius
returns on 7th Street at a total cost of $4.1 million dollars. Concept 3a utilizes two
roundabouts on 7a` Street to increase the flow of traffic at a total cost of about $3.5
million dollars. This concept would provide safer intersections that operate more
efficiently for traffic. Concept 5 would include one roundabout in the middle rather than
two intersections at a total cost of about $3.5 million dollars. This concept would provide
a less interrupted north south flow and increase the margin of safety. The Concept 5
alignment would work best if there were to be a second river crossing at Washington.
This option seems to be getting fair amount of support.
Staff has been in discussion with key stakeholders involved with each option and are
working to clarify issues, tabulate input, research funding sources and develop a
preliminary funding plan.
8. Consideration to review an update on Interim Temporary Sign Ordinance
In March of 2012, the City Council extended the 2011 interim ordinance allowing for the
expansion in usage of temporary signage through December 31, 2012. The ordinance
allowed for an unlimited number of temporary sign days for portable temporary signage
of a certain material with one sign per business. The extension did not apply to banners,
flags or pennants as they tend to present a maintenance problem. Signs are to be spaced
75 feet apart. Temporary sign permits are required.
The interim ordinance was adopted to allow the Planning Commission, and City as a
whole, an opportunity to analyze the temporary sign issue over a finite period and
determine the impacts of the interim regulation. In extending the interim ordinance, the
City Council requested strict enforcement and reporting for the purpose of better
analyzing alternatives for final amendment language.
Surveys were sent to all 35 temporary sign permit holders requesting information on the
number of temporary sign days used to -date. Eleven responses (for 13 properties) were
10
Planning Commission Minutes — 09/04/12
received. The majority reported usage from 0 -40 days. Seventeen violation notices have
been issued for temporary signs. Primary enforcement issues were the lack of a permit,
signage was too large, too many signs, and the location of the temporary signage.
hi December of this year, staff will bring forward a complete year of analysis for the
Commission's review and final ordinance consideration.
9. Consideration to review an update on the R -3 (Medium Density) Residential District
amendment
The Planning Commission had tabled action related to a zoning amendment for the R -3
(Medium Density) Residential District. The proposed amendment addressed the potential
for allowing higher densities in the R -3 than currently allowed. After discussing potential
alternatives, the Commission indicated that more time was needed to analyze the options.
Staff will provide the Commission with a set of revised amendment options in October.
The options include:
Leave the R -3 District densities as currently regulated and add a higher density R-
4 District. The R -4 District will require prescribe performance standards which
must be met as opposed to conditional or negotiated under a PUD.
• Amend the R -3 District to allow for a small increase in density in performance
overlay or PUD requests. Adopt an R -4 District as noted above.
• Adopt amendments to the R -3 which graduate densities from lowest densities at
permitted use to highest densities achieved under a PUD.
In addition to providing density recommendation for each option, staff will also provide
specific performance standards (building materials, landscaping, parking, etc.) and
analysis on the level of approval discretion under each option.
Bill Spartz confirmed that it would not be required to allocate a certain percentage of
property to the R -4 District if it were to be established.
A new hearing notice will be published for the proposed amendments for the October
meeting.
10. Consideration to appoint a Commissioner to the review committee for the Economic
Development Chapter of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan.
The IEDC had noted that an assessment of the need for future industrial land area was a
top priority. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission, IEDC and EDA work
together to complete a thorough review of Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4, Economic
Development as a first step in discussing the current validity of the development
strategies contained in the plan. This will provide an appropriate platform for launching a
more specific discussion on available and future industrial land area.
Planning Commission Minutes — 09/04/12
Brad Fyle agreed to serve as the Planning Commission representative to a joint
worksession between the IEDC, Planning Commission and EDA. Charlotte Gabler will
serve as alternate to the workgroup.
11. Community Development Director's Report
Growth Projections
Steve Grittman outlined Monticello's percentage share of population growth compared to
the growth projections of Wright County, Sherburne County, the Twin Cities
Metropolitan area, the seven county area, and as part of the state of Minnesota. This
information indicates how Monticello has grown along baselines, provides an
understanding of where the City will be in terms of land absorption in 20 -25 years from
now, and helps to determine what kinds of housing units could be built.
According to the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, the housing count was dropping in the late
2000's but was projected to grow with steady incline and then level out by 2015.
Monticello's actual population was 12,759 in 2010. 2020 population is projected to be
22,000. The 2030 population projection of 31,000 estimates that 12,100 housing units
would require 15,000 acres of developed land - more than the 6,000 acres currently
available. In 25 years the city's population is projected to be 37,000 with some 14,700
housing units or almost exactly ten thousand more units than currently exist.
These projections help plan for future transportation, sewer and water, and how the
community will continue to take shape. The projections track well with regional
expectations, although there is more confidence in long -term projections.
Bill Spartz asked if land would be available for growth if the City were to reach
population projections. Staff reported that there would be acreage available within the
orderly annexation area.
Charlotte Gabler asked if there would be a need for higher density housing units. Staff
reported that there would likely be a mix of housing units overall.
12. Adjourn
CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:17 PM.
BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3 -0.
Recorder: Kerry T. Bum
Approved: O91ober 2,,201
Attest:
Angela Schu ommumty Development Director