Planning Commission Minutes 02-03-2015MINUTES
MEETING — MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 3rd, 2015 - Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Present: Brad Fyle, Linda Buchmann, Alan Heidemann, Sam Murdoff
Absent: None
Others: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Ron Hackenmueller, Charlotte Gabler
(Council Liaison)
1. Call to order
Brad Fyle called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. Citizen Comments None
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
• Tour (Schumann)
• LMC Training (Schumann)
4. Consideration of approving Planning Commission minutes
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 14TH, 2015 REGULAR
MEETING MINUTES. LINDA BUCHMANN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED 3 -0. (Alan Heidemann did not vote.)
5. Continued Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Amendment to the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Sections 1— Use Table, Section 2 — Use -
Specific Standards and Section 3 — Accessory Use Standards and Chapter 8, Section 4 —
Defmitions as related to regulations for Solar Energy Systems
Planning Case Number: 2014 -054
Steve Grittman reported that the Planning Commission had tabled action to amend the
City's zoning ordinance as related to standards for solar energy generation at its January
14, 2015 meeting and continued the public hearing with direction to staff to provide
further information and to revise the ordinance to address issues identified.
Grittman summarized the following proposed revisions:
A. Retain the current requirements for Solar Energy Systems in the Zoning Code,
Chapter 5.3 (D)(29) for accessory use
B. Amend the language in that section to add the requirements suggested in this
report, as follows:
Generally allow solar arrays as roof - mounted systems, and create a
maximum height extension. Provided not more than 6 feet above the roof.
Planning Commission Minutes 2/03/15
2. Ensure that solar arrays are developed to minimize glare, including
adequate protective screening or coatings as appropriate.
3. Limit solar arrays to locations that are not visible from the public right of
way in residential areas, or require that they are integrated into the design
and architecture of the home.
4. Allow ground - mounted solar arrays in the rear yards when such arrays
comprise an aggregate area no more than 20% of the size of the principal
structure.
5. Allow ground - mounted solar arrays on business and industrial property by
Conditional Use Permit, with size limitations related to current accessory
building allowances, and in such a way that would not impede principal
building or site use expansion.
6. Require that business /industrial ground - mounted systems be allowed only
where applicants show that roof - mounted systems are not practical due to
building strength/support.
7. Require that accessory buildings related to solar arrays constitute, or are
included in, the allowed accessory building construction on the subject
property.
8. Include the existing requirements of the City's code, including a
requirement that all installations meet height and setback requirements
applicable to accessory uses in the underlying zoning district.
C. Clarify the definition of Essential Services to specify that the identified items are
support facilities and structures, but not buildings for human use or occupancy.
D. Clarify the definition of Utilities -Major to specify that the identified uses listed at
(A) Public infrastructure services include buildings or structures that are intended
to house human activity.
E. Clarify that solar energy generation is not allowed as a stand - alone, principal use
of property.
F. Amend the zoning use table (Table 5.1) to specify that Utilities -Major are allowed
by CUP only in the I -1, Light Industrial District, I -2, Heavy Industrial District and
the B -2, Limited Business District.
Grittman pointed out that the City is not opposed to solar energy generation facilities. The
primary issue for consideration is whether such a use is appropriate in an area planned for
future growth.
Brad Fyle expressed concerns about right of way setbacks, the safety of ground mounted
solar equipment and screening. In response, Grittman noted that setbacks are designated in
code, that electrical permit requirements address safety issues, and that screening is not
required because it is structurally difficult to do and would block access to sunlight.
Sam Murdoff asked about the difference between establishing conditions and requiring a
CUP within the industrial district. Grittman said that the intent of the language is to allow
solar generation equipment as a permitted use on the roof and as a conditional use on the
2
Planning Commission Minutes 2/03/15
ground in the industrial district. Doing so would limit the number of CUP requests and assist
property owners in locating ground mounted solar equipment so that it does not limit the
potential for future building expansion.
Murdoff asked how soon the City would be looking to develop industrial land. Grittman
replied that industrial development is hard to predict and dependent on the competitive
market. He noted that because of the locational requirements and infrastructure investment
involved in establishing an industrial park, the City's Industrial and Economic Development
Committee (IEDC) had pushed to reserve industrial land for future growth and development.
Linda Buchmann asked about the 25 year land lease term proposed for the solar facility.
Grittman suggested it would be considered a permanent land use from a generational
standpoint and that the length of the term may be tied to funding mechanisms.
Charlotte Gabler asked if the amount of space required to accommodate ground mounted
panels would be included in the calculation of allowable area for accessory use on a
residential parcel. Grittman indicated that a solar array and an accessory building would be
subject to allowable area restrictions within the industrial and commercial districts but would
be allowed to coexist in the residential districts. Gabler wondered if the code should limit the
ability to do both without restriction.
Grittman briefly noted that the City has limited authority as it relates to the Monticello
Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA). He indicated that the annexation growth boundary is an
estimated 7,000 acres, most of which is agricultural land.
Fyle reopened the continued public hearing.
Dean Leischow, of Sunrise Energy Ventures in Minnetonka suggested that the City's ban on
solar is misguided and that the Planning Commission had not had a lot of time to educate
themselves about the facts related to how a solar facility would benefit the community.
Leischow said that he'd be delivering information to the City to support that there is plenty of
land available for this use. Leischow recommended that the issue be tabled for further study.
He asked, however, if the commission were to act now, that it recommend adopting an
ordinance that would allow ground mounted stand alone solar facilities as conditional uses in
a solar overlay zoning district as this would provide for discretion as to where facilities may
locate on a case by case basis.
Gabler pointed out that the City had not banned solar but rather established a moratorium to
allow time to consider appropriate development policy related to solar energy generation. She
rccommcnded tabling action on this issue and continuing the public hearing in order to
include City Council in the discussion.
Leischow replied that he looks at eliminating the option to have a primary use ground mount
facility in a commercial or industrial area that may otherwise not be used for anything for the
foreseeable future as a ban.
3
Planning Commission Minutes 2/03/15
Alan Heidemann pointed out that the City may also want to consider the impact of a potential
solar policy on Xcel Energy.
ALAN HEIDEMANN MOVED TO TABLE ACTION AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING RELATED TO ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. PC- 2015 -003,
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE PROPOSED
ORDINANCE NO. 613 REGULATING SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS AND
RELATED MATERIAL PENDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. SAM
MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0.
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Amendment to Development Stage
Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Preliminary Plat for Sunset Ponds 3 11 Addition, a
proposed 48 -unit residential development in an R -2 District. Applicant: Sunset Ponds
LLC/Donald Jensen, Plannins Case Number: 2014 - 050
Steve Grittman outlined a proposal to replat a portion of the Sunset Ponds 2nd Addition to
accommodate 48 small -lot single family parcels with no common area. The Planned Unit
Development (PUD) would be amended to reflect the change in lot configuration,
residential unit, and design standards.
Grittman indicated that the primary concerns with the proposed project related to
engineering aspects of converting the site from attached townhome units and
management issues raised by establishing of a new homeowner's association for the
small -lot detached units.
Staff had required a redesign of Lots 2 -10 in the preliminary plat citing concerns related
to angled side lot lines and a lack of side and rear yard space for Lot 6. The redesign
submitted has improved the overall lot layout and usability but only slightly expands yard
space. Issues related to the internal lot angle should be minimized because the association
will control lawn maintenance. It has been determined that the nine existing attached
townhouse owners will continue to receive and pay for exterior maintenance, trash
removal, insurance, common elements maintenance. The new 48 single family detached
units will responsible for their own exterior structure maintenance, trash removal, and
insurance.
Linda Buchmann shared a concern about safety at the intersection of Gillard and County
Road 39 and asked if the roads are equipped to handle additional population moving into
the neighborhood. Angela Schumann noted that traffic impact analysis is always a
development consideration and pointed out that the revised project plan reduces the
density and will generate less traffic.
Charlotte Gabler suggested that it may be useful to conduct a car count along County
Road 39 from Hart Boulevard to Gillard due to new development in that area. Angela
Schumann agreed to get input consult the City Engineer.
4
Planning Commission Minutes 2/03/15
Sam Murdoff asked about color and roofline variations among the homes. Schumann said
that home design styles tended to vary throughout the PUD. Houses located next to one
another are required to have different fagade designs.
Buchmann asked about the difference in colors on the map of the development. Grittman
stated that the colors identify units with either 2 or 3 car garages.
Buchmann also asked if there had been any concern about flooding on the cul -de -sac that
juts out of 93rd. Grittman pointed out that there is a retaining wall between the wetland
and the south boundary of those buildings. He noted that the engineers had been working
to address drainage in this area to ensure that the neighborhood is properly protected.
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing.
Don Jensen, representing Paxmar and Sunset Ponds, LLC provided further details about
the proposed development and responded to questions related to the project. He noted
that civil engineer Scott Dahlke was also present to provide information.
Jensen suggested that adding a plan for detached structures with 2 and 3 car garages to a
development with so many attached structures had provided the step up housing
opportunity which had initially intended for the PUD. Jensen pointed out that the lot lines
had been reconfigured and alternatives to eliminating Lot 6 had been considered as
requested. He stated that the association would be taking care of maintaining the
rectangular space in the rear and that they would prefer more dwelling units than less to
support the dues structure. He suggested that the revised layout proposed would improve
backyard relationships which addresses the intent of the condition in Exhibit Z.
As there were no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Murdoff shared concerns about roofline and fagade uniformity. Jensen acknowledged that
the design does not deviate from a 5/12 roof pitch and said that they could discuss
whether changing the pitch makes design sense. He noted that ownership had planned
that the dwelling units on 93rd be detached to provide a design cue that this the start of
something different. Jensen also suggested that, in some cases it takes more of an
architectural eye to note differences between the structures, but that there are differences.
There is a bit less variability because most of the units are the 3 car design motif.
Jensen also outlined steps taken by the engineers to improve upon the drainage of
previous storm sewer design. He also noted that the low floor of the split entry is high
enough for 100 year flood elevations.
Buchmann asked if walkout units were included in the plan. Jensen indicated that there
are no walkouts and there has been no drive to change the stair structure.
Alan Heidemann asked if prospective buyers could choose to build on any lot in the
development. Jensen confirmed that the homes would be built on a spec basis and
5
Planning Commission Minutes 2/03/15
developed from north to south. He indicated that the neighborhood would be built out
within 2 years.
ALAN HEIDEMANN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC- 2015 -001,
APPROVING THE AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD AND
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SUNSET PONDS 3an ADDITION BASED ON THE
FINDINGS THEREIN, INCLUDING THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z.
LINDA BUCHMANN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3 -1 WITH
SAM MURDOFF VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
EXHIBIT Z
Sunset Ponds 3rd Addition
Rezoning to PUD, Development Stage PUD, Preliminary Plat
Lots 1 -5, Block 4, Lots 141, 51 Block 5, Lots 1 -9 Block 6,
Lots 1 -9, Block 7, Sunset Ponds 2nd Addition
1. Redesign proposed plat to reflect the alternative lot line layout in Exhibit O of this
report, or another option that meets the objectives identified in the staff report
including the elimination of angled side lot lines.
2. Prepare final Homeowners Association documents meeting the intent of the City
relating to common maintenance and enforcement.
3. Adherence to the architectural design submitted as a part of the PUD application,
referring to the "Hickory II" size, layout, and details. Minor variations in
detailing and layout may be approved by the Community Development Director,
provided such variations are consistent with the presentation and intent of the
City's PUD approvals.
4. Enforcement of Homeowners Association maintenance requirements shall not be
enforced by the City of Monticello, but may not be amended without City
approval via PUD Amendment until the Association has been turned over to
individual homeowners from the control of the developer.
5. Prepare revised plans and documents reflecting the approved PUD and
Preliminary Plat for City records.
6. Revise engineering and civil plans in accordance with the conditions
recommended by the City Engineer.
7. Continued Coordination with the Streets Superintendent regarding mailbox design
and placement.
S. Prepare and submit Final Plat and PUD documents in accordance no later than
thirty (30) days after Preliminary Plat and Development Stage PUD approval by
City Council.
2
Planning Commission Minutes 2/03/15
9. Vacation and re- establishment of easements for the proposed plat shall be in
accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer.
Grittman noted that the item would go before the City Council for consideration on
February 23rd, 2015.
7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Amendment to the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section 3 — Common Review Procedures and
Requirements, Chapter 2, Section 4 - Specific Review Procedures and
Requirements, Chapter 5, Section 3 — Accessory Use Table, and Chapter 8, Section 4
— Definitions. Applicant: City of Monticello, Planning Case Number: 2015 -003
Steve Grittman briefly outlined the following proposed "housekeeping" amendments to
the City's zoning code.
• Common Review Procedures and Requirements - Chapter 2, Section 3
The proposed amendment revises written notification requirements for
Comprehensive Plan amendments to be compatible with written notification
requirements for zoning amendments. Written notice shall be provided to all
property owners within 350 feet for amendments which involve five acres of land
or less. Notice need only be published within the City's official newspaper for
amendments which involve more than five acres of land.
• Initiation of Proceedings for Zoning Amendments — Chapter 2, Section 4(B)
This proposed amendment rewords the language related to applying for a zoning
amendment. The new language clarifies the actions of the Commission and staff
in initiating the amendment process and provides consistency between initiation
by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Specific Review Procedures and Requirements - Chapter 2, Section 4
This proposed amendment relates to the City's appeal procedures for
administrative decisions. The amendment would be reworded to broaden the
second appeal to any affected party. It also adds a stipulation that the City will
place second written appeals on the next available agenda of the City Council but
only if such Council meeting takes place at least seven (7) days after the filing of
the appeal.
• Accessory Use Table - Chapter 5, Section 3(C) This proposed amendment was
withdrawn.
• Additional Specific Standards for Certain Accessory Uses — Chapter 5,
Section 3(D)
This proposed amendment clarifies language relating to Open or Outdoor Sales
and Storage.
dp-
7
Planning Commission Minutes 2/03/15
The amendment allows the Community Development Department to review
accessory uses that are not specifically listed in the code and determine their
acceptability based on similar identified uses. If no similar use is found, an
applicant would need to request an amendment to the code. The amendment also
deletes the series of requirements that are currently listed for temporary sales of
motor vehicles in a residential zone, presuming that legally parked vehicles on
driveways are not a sales lot, and are otherwise allowed. It also specifies that
outdoor sales in residential districts is not allowed.
5.3(D)(21)
Open Sales. The accessory use table in this Section presently lists "open sales" as
a permitted accessory use in all residential districts, some business districts and in
all industrial zoning districts. "Open sales" is also listed as a conditional use in
some business districts. In actual practice within the City, while some degree of
outdoor sales activity is permitted within residential districts, such activities are
allowed only on a temporary basis (unlike open sales activities in business and
industrial districts).
With the preceding in mind, the amendment directs the following:
1. Specifies that outdoor sales in residential districts is not allowed.
2. Provides that the Community Development Department can review residential
accessory uses that are not specifically listed in the code and determine their
acceptability based on similar identified uses. If no similar use is found, an
applicant would need to request an amendment to the code. The amendment
deletes the series of requirements that are currently listed for temporary sales
of motor vehicles in a residential zone, presuming that legally parked vehicles
on driveways are not a sales lot, and are otherwise allowed.
5.3(D)(23)
Outdoor Sidewalk Sales and Displa. This amendment would limit the area of a site
devoted to sidewalk sales and display to no greater than 5 percent of the gross floor
area of the principal use.
The following is a listing of the current conditions imposed upon sidewalk sales as
well as the additional condition which would regulate the scale of such activity:
Outdoor sidewalk sales and display areas associated with legally permitted retail
uses shall:
(a) Not encroach into areas necessary for the safe ingress and egress into the
retail structure.
Planning Commission Minutes 2/03/15
(b) Maintain a minimum pedestrian walkway of at least five feet in width along
the front of the display.
(c) Take place only on an improved dustless surface.
LdJ The area of the site devoted to sidewalk sales and display shall not exceed aye
(5) percent of the gross floor area of the principal use. Sidewalk sales and
display which exceed five (S) percent of the gross floor area of the principal
use may be allowed by conditional use permit.
5.3(D)(24)
Outdoor Storage, The Zoning Ordinance presently lists outdoor storage as a permitted
accessory activity in residential zoning districts, some business districts and some
industrial districts. Staff notes that outdoor materials in the Business Districts are
included and controlled by the sales and display requirements of the existing code and
this amendment. As a result, this amendment deletes "Outdoor Storage" from the
Business Districts, relying the Outdoor Sales and Display and Sidewalk Sales language to
manage this use. Considering that the nature of outdoor storage allowed within
residential districts is significantly different than that allowed within industrial districts,
the draft amendment also directs that the following be specifically listed on the accessory
uses table (Table 5 -4):
• Under "Additional Requirements ": "Residential Districts subject to Section
5.3(1)((24)(a)"
Under Additional Requirements ": "Industrial Districts subject to Sections
5.3 (D)(24)(b)"
Definitions - Chapter 8, Section 4.
This proposed amendment clarifies zoning definitions relating to Outdoor Sales, Storage,
Display, Parking and Vehicle Fuel Sales. Additional text is proposed to better define and
limit the affected uses. Some are altered to better define what is being addressed, and
changes to "Parking" have been proposed to better incorporate the City's ordinance
related to allowable parking of small commercial, recreational and emergency vehicles as
noted in Chapter 4.5 — Off - Street Parking. The changes are intended to eliminate conflict
within areas of the code and provide for clarity between each classification of use as
follows:
OPEN SALES: Any open land used or occupied for the purpose of buying, selling, and /or
renting merchandise and for the storing of same prior to sale. This use includes all
outdoor sales and display of goods and/or materials that are not specifcally addressed
as Outdoor Storage, Sidewalk Sales & Display, or Off - Street Vehicle Parking
OUTDOOR STORAGE: The keeping, in an un- roofed area, of any goods, junk-, material,
merchandise, or vehicles in the same place for more than twenty -four (24) hours. This
shall not include the display of vehicles for sale in a new or used car sales lot.
W
Planning Commission Minutes 2/03/15
SIDEWALK SALES & DISPLAY - OUTDOOR: Outdoor sale and display, conducted as
an accessory, incidental activity by the proprietor, of products normally sold inside a
retail establishment, suhiect to the limitations identified in this ordinance.
PARKING — OFF - STREET: The act of keeping a passenger vehicle as defined herein
and /or small commercial vehicles, recreational vehicles and emergency vehicles as
defined herein, on an approved parking space, properly surfaced, for t„^r fy per
ef 6 e period of less than twenty four (24) hours
VEHICLE FUEL SALES: Buildings and premises where gasoline, oils and greases,
batteries, tires and automobile accessories may be supplied and dispensed at retail (or in
connection with a private operation where the general public is excluded from use of
facilities), and where in addition, the following services may be rendered and sales made,
and no other:
o "Automotive Repair — minor" as defined by this ordinance
o Sales of cold drinks, packaged foods, tobacco, and similar convenience goods for filling
station customers, as accessory and incidental to principal operation;
• Provision of road maps and other informational material to customers; and
• Provision of restroom facilities but not including showers.
Uses permissible at a vehicle fuel sales establishment do not include "Automobile Repair
— major" as defined by this ordinance, major mechanical and body work, straightening of
body parts, painting, welding, storage of automobiles not in operating condition, or other
work involving noise, glare, fumes, smoke or other characteristics to an extent greater
than normally found in filling stations. Vehicle fuel sales establishments are intended
for the servicing and delivery of goods to passenger vehicles and small commercial
vehicles. Facilities for sales to large trucks may be included, but shall not include
activities that would constitute uses most commonly found at a truck stop, such as
showers, truck washes, truck parking or truck storage for more than temporary
periods necessary to purchase and pay for retail goods.
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, the public hearing was
closed.
ALAN HEIDEMANN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION PC- 2015 -004
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
ADDRESSING VARIOUS HOUSEKEEPING ISSUES AS SPECIFICALLY
IDENTIFIED IN THIS REPORT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SECTION 5, SECTION
10
Planning Commission Minutes 2/03/15
8 AND THE ADDITION OF LANGUAGE RELATING TO VEHICLE FUEL SALES,
BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0.
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request to adopt the 2015 Monticello Official
Zoning Map
Angela Schumann noted that one rezoning action (Ordinance No. 600 — Rezoning
Outlot A, Monticello Commerce Center 7a' Addition from B -4 to R -4) had resulted in
a change to the zoning map since last year. Schumann asked that the Planning
Commission adopt the 2015 Official Zoning Map as well as the
Shoreland/Floodplain Companion Map.
Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. As there were no comments, the hearing was
closed.
ALAN HEIDEMANN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC- 2015 -002
RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF THE 2015 CITY OF MONTICELLO
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, INCLUDING SHORELAND/FLOODPLAIN
COMPANION MAP. LINDA BUCHMANTIS1 SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED 4 -0.
9. Added items
• Tour (Schumann) — Angela Schumann indicated that the City Administrator has
invited new board members to join him in a tour of the City. She asked the
commissioners to provide options for dates and times within the next month which
would work best for them to participate in this event.
• LMC Training (Schumann) - Angela Schumann also noted that staff would register
the new Planning Commission members for the Land Use Basics Training course
offered by the League of Minnesota Cities. Staff will email information pertaining to
access to the online course.
10. Adjournment
ALAN HEIDEMANN MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:20 P.M. SAM
MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0.
Recorder: Derry Burri
Approved: Marcher
Atteat. \ .I>
Development Director
11