Planning Commission Minutes 11-06-2006•
•
0
Commissioners Present:
Council Members:
Staff:
1. Call to order.
MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, November 61h, 2006
6:00 PM
Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight
Mayor Clint Herbst, Wayne Mayer, Tom Perrault, Glen Posusta,
and Brian Stumpf
Jeff O'Neill, Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, 011ie Koropchak,
Kimberly Holien and Steve Grittman — NAC
Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order, noting a quorum of sitting Commissioners
and the presence of Council members Herbst, Perrault, Posusta and Stumpf. Council member
Mayer arrived later in the meeting.
Chairman Dragsten also welcomed new Commissioner Barry Voight.
2. Approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of October 3rd, 2006.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 3rd312006.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
NONE.
4. Citizen comments.
NONE.
5. Consideration to review for discussion a draft framework for an amendment to the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance for Planned Unit Developments.
(JOINT WORKSHOP WITH MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL)
Schumann provided an overall agenda (attached) for the workshop, explaining that the
group would probably only be able to get through the first one or two items on the agenda
during the evening's discussion. The balance of the items would be discussed during
future workshops. Schumann began the workshop with a brief presentation.
PRESENTATION SUMMARY
Schumann reviewed the proposed process for the Planned Unit Development amendment.
Schumann referred to the sample points system analysis that had been prepared by NAC
for Monticello PUDs. Schumann explained the analysis presented a good background for
where the City had been in terms of PUD product. In moving forward, she stated that
staff recommended the following process, and explained each step in detail.
l . Discussion of important values or goals attainable through PUD. (See agenda for
breakdown of this process)
2. Staff provides studies and research for goal foundations of PUD ordinance
revision.
3. Revision of application process and review for PUD (including points system
implementation).
4. Amendment or ordinance based on above.
5. Implementation of ordinance
6. Audit of results.
Schumann also discussed that the ultimate intent of the ordinance amendment should be
to achieve the City's goals. In the past, the balance seemed weighted to achieving the
developer's goals. A productive PUD experience should be a win -win for both parties.
The most important factor will be to clearly define the City's goals or values.
Schumann indicated that the balance of the workshop would be spent on that topic. A
discussion of what the Commission and Council members seek to achieve using PUD
will serve as the foundation for further study and revision of the ordinance.
DISCUSSION SUMMARY
The group focused on a discussion of "high -value" priorities for PUDs, from a policy -
maker perspective. It is important to note that while there was general consensus on the
values/goals listed, there was not universal agreement. Goal benchmarks and structure
will be further defined by working through the discussion agenda and the balance of the
amendment process above.
A. Open Space
Forested areas
• Viewsheds
• Wildlife corridors
• Public access/use
0 Greenway connections
B. Neighborhood Amenities
• Architectural details in housing
• Neighborhood enhancements
• Development of detailed housing standards
• Landscaping
C. Lifecvcle Housing
• Determine missing markets types within the City
• Determine saturated market types within the City
• Develop a PUD growth plan based on desired housing types
D. Manap-ement of PUDs
• Timing of amenity installation
• On -going maintenance of PUD amenities such as open space and
neighborhood common areas.
E. PUD Districts vs. Straight Zoning
• Strategic placement of PUD districts based on above goals
• -1 areas for straight zoning
Retain some R A gh g
• Create buffer or transition zones between straight zoning areas and PUD
districts.
The group concluded with a recommendation to continue working through the agenda items
within the next 60 days. The group also expressed a desire to parallel some portions of the
goal/value determination to comprehensive plan outcomes.
6. Adi ourn.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
0
0 B. Neighborhood Amenities
• Architectural details in housing
• Neighborhood enhancements
• Development of detailed housing standards
• Landscaping
C. Lifecvcle Housing
• Determine missing markets types within the City
• Determine saturated market types within the City
• Develop a PUD growth plan based on desired housing types
D. Management of PUDs
• Timing of amenity installation
• On -going maintenance of PUD amenities such as open space and
neighborhood common areas.
E. PUD Districts vs. Straight Zoning
• Strategic placement of PUD districts based on above goals
• Retain some R-1 A areas for straight zoning
• Create buffer or transition zones between straight zoning areas and PUD
districts.
The group concluded with a recommendation to continue working through the agenda items
within the next 60 days. The group also expressed a desire to parallel some portions of the
goal/value determination to comprehensive plan outcomes.
6. Adjourn.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
4�
i
Angela`huxn'� , Recorder
f
0