Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 04-05-2007• • • Commissioners: Council Liaison: Staff. 1. Call to order. MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 5th, 2007 6:00 PM Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Brian Stumpf Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson Kimberly Holien and Steve Grittman — NAC Chairman Dragsten noted the full quorum of the Commission and the presence of the Council Liaison Stumpf. 2. Approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings of March 6th. 2007. Commissioner Voight requested that in the item regarding the River Street overlay district and setbacks, his comment had been that government should not regulate setbacks "any more than necessary". MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 6', 20079 AS CORRECTED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 3. Consideration of addinja items to the agenda. NONE. 4. Citizen comments. NONE. 5. Continued Public Hearing — Consideration of a reauest to establish an overlav district applied to Properties alone River Street. and an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance Section 3-3 rFl reQulatiniz front vard setback averaizina. Applicant: Citv of Monticello Planner Holien presented the staff report, describing the background of the item to date and noting that at the last meeting the Commission had requested that the planner prepare a report 0 Planning Commission Minutes — 04/05/07 comparing the setback options. Holien referred to a chart that had been provided to the Commissioner illustrating the number of non -comforting lots per potential setback scenario. Holien reported that the least number of non -conforming lots would be created under an ordinance requirement for a straight 30' setback. Holien stated that staff would recommend that the straight 30' be recommended based on consistency with other residential district, ease of enforcement, and that it creates the least number of non -conforming lots. Holien illustrated lot examples and the possible setback options for each. Voight asked about maximum setbacks within the Zoning Ordinance. Holien stated that she could check, but believed that only the minimums were in place. Spartz asked about where the current ordinance applies. Holien explained that it applies City- wide to areas where setbacks exceed 30'. Gabler asked if the non -conforming lots would be grandfathered in. Holien replied that would be accurate. Stumpf pointed out that the minimum setback wouldn't help the situation allowing a home to be set back some distance behind the neighboring properties. Voight asked Chief Building Official Anderson for confirmation on the issue. Anderson confirmed that the current clause only establishes the minimum. Hilgart asked if it makes sense to do the averaging on both minimum and maximum setbacks. Schumann noted that Planner Grittman had previously indicated regulation of setbacks based on an adjacent property setback implies that the zoning code would not be enforced equally on all properties. Voight stated that we don't need more rules than necessary. Inquired what the purpose of the setback is. Some king of uniformity. Voight asked at what point we micromanage setbacks, taking away individual rights of property owner. Dragsten agreed, but indicated that the issue can be applied in the opposite way, having property rights affected by a house be set back so far as to impede the view from another property. Dragsten asked Stumpf about why the item was sent back to the Commission, after the Commission had made a recommendation. Stumpf answered that the concern was related to where houses might be placed on lots and the fact that consistency was an issue. Therefore, further discussion on the possible creation of an overlay district was needed with input from the area affected. Anderson noted that there is a 50' minimum setback required on the river side of River Street. Anderson explained that in some cases the averaging doesn't necessarily help, and cited examples. He stated that the straight 30' setback regulation creates the least non -conforming lots. 2 0 Planning Commission Minutes -- 04/05/07 Dragsten noted that there seemed to be consensus among the Commissioners to recommend the 30' minimum setback, the question was the maximum. Stumpf asked about a "not to exceed" clause for new or redeveloped property. Dragsten commented that his concern was that in some areas, it might better to have them lined up. . Dragsten stated that there seemed to be a limited number of circumstances where the maximum setback should be applied, so try to regulate in that regard would be difficult. Dragsten asked the Commissioners if they saw a need for a maximum. Spartz commented that although there are some examples of where there are large differences between home setbacks, he sees the sense in keeping it simple. Voight and Hilgart agreed. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3-3[F] TO REQUIRE A 30 FOOT MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. is 6. Public Hearin2 — Consideration s deration of a request for Prehmmary and Final Plat for Monticello Business Center, a commercial subdivision in a B-4 (Regional Business) District. Applicant: Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust Planner Holien presented the staff report, stating that the applicants are seeking to split off a portion of Lot 1 to sell a .76 acre portion of the lot. Holien stated that no building footprint has been placed on the site and that setback information in not readily available. Holien reported that future land uses would be evaluated at the time that a formal application was brought forward. A conditional use permit for a gas station was applied for with the original Wal-Mart application and has since expired. An access easement was provided by the property owner for this parcel, and there is the ability to access the site from three locations. Based on the information provided, Holien stated that staff recommends approval of the request. Hilgart sought confirmation that only the subdivision plat is the application. Holien confirmed and explained that access will only be what is currently provided, and that no additional access would be allowed other than what is currently in place. Holien noted that any future user would most likely need to come forward with a formal application. Voight inquired if the area was zoned B-4. Holien replied that the agenda title was correct, the area is zoned B-4. She noted that the zoning doesn't affect lot width or area. She explained that the Commission is asked only to approve the subdivision as it currently exists, there is no request for rezoning. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. 3 Planning Commission Minutes — 04/05/07 Jim Zigman addressed the Commission, representing Wal-Mart. There was a question regarding setback requirements, to which Holien replied that B-4 has zero setbacks, so it would not affect the approval. Zigman noted that Wal-Mart is moving away from owning its own gas stations. Dragsten clarified that Zignman had received the engineer's report and asked if Wal-Mart had any problems with complying with the conditions. Zigman indicated that the applicant could comply. Hearing no further discussion, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Gabler questioned how tight the site was for a drive through user. Dragsten noted that use would have to come in as a conditional use permit application. Gabler requested that the the item be noted. Dragsten asked if it has always been the City's understanding that plats have to be recorded within 100 days. Holien stated that is an ordinance requirement. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF THE MONTICELLO BUSINESS CENTER FOURTH ADDITION, SUBJECT TO A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE B-3, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS: 1. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer, as noted in a memo dated March 28, 2007 and detailed above. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 7. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance Chapter 3-2fNNl, as related to the exterior storage of vehicles in rear yards in residential districts. Applicant: Citv of Monticello Planner Holien presented the staff report. Holien indicated that the current ordinance required that junk vehicles are not to be stored on any portion of the yard. Holien summarized the ordinance definition of "junk vehicles". To support the recent amendments to the nuisance ordinance and aid in enforcement, the proposed amendment prohibits vehicle storage in rear yard, with the exception of areas where the only garage is in the rear yard. Regarding the number of vehicles stored in areas where there is a garage in the rear yard, Holien stated that the proposed ordinance would be self-limiting. The ordinance requires vehicles to be stored within the garage, or on surfaced space. Holien noted that the planning report for the amendment also refers to other off-street parking requirements. Holien noted that the City does not currently regulate parking in the side and which is currently allowed p g yard, Y with no setback restrictions and directly abutting the property line. Planning staff would recommend that the Commission consider future amendments in this regard, along with other 0 Planning Commission Minutes — 04/05/07 language revisions, which were noted within the report. Holien did note that in staff s experience as a consequence of this ordinance, property owners with rear yard vehicle storage may move their vehicles into the garage space and remove other items, which then end up in the rear yard. Holien explained that if the Commission would like to only address the rear yard, the ordinance amendment proposed is applicable. However, if a more comprehensive amendment addressing the items mentioned previously, that amendment can be addressed next month. Hilgart asked about sideyard parking, noting that the ordinance doesn't allow pavement to go all the way to the property line. Holien stated that while that is true, the ordinance only regulates front yard vehicle storage and surfacing currently. So in effect, cars can be parked on grassed surfaces in side yards up to the property line. Gabler asked how this ordinance would affect neighborhoods that may have restrictive covenants. Holien stated that this would apply to all properties, in addition to any covenant. Hilgart asked if there were complaints from the public. Holien stated she was not aware of any, but asked Anderson to respond. Anderson stated the Building Department has responded to complaints about "junk", which has also included vehicles. He noted that in some cases, there are in excess 7 or 8 vehicles stored in rear yards. Anderson suggested that if property owners have vehicles, they should be on a surface, or alongside the existing garage. Dragsten stated that this amendment would be to address vehicles in the rear yard only, not necessarily other items. Holien confirmed that this ordinance addresses vehicles only. Anderson stated that Council had wanted to address problems in the street, and this issue was found in addition to the items in the blight ordinance. It wasn't the intent of this ordinance to address seasonal items. Anderson cited those items as incidental, where vehicles are more of a principal use. Dragsten asked if "junk" is referred to in the ordinance. Anderson confirmed, stating that the regulation requires property owners to keep things in a neat and orderly fashion. Dragsten questioned the ordinance requiring parking in front drives to be 15' off the property line. Anderson stated that regulation is difficult to enforce. Anderson noted that the boulevard comes to 13 to 15 feet, so vehicles parking on driveways, particularly in older sections of the community, may be out in the public right of way. He stated that the incidental use isn't the problem; the clause is mainly for use during snow removal. Stumpf noted that his emergency vehicle is parked at the end of his driveway, so that he can get his vehicle out of the driveway. Schumann noted that the intent of the provision was perhaps to protect the boulevard sidewalk and snow storage. Anderson commented that the purposed of this amendment is only to address rear yard vehicle storage. The other issues can be addressed at another time. Dragsten agreed. g �' Hilgart asked that if most vehicles parked in the rear yard are inoperable, and therefore in 5 0 Planning Commission Minutes — 04/05/07 violation under the blight ordinance. Anderson replied that the City wants to discourage the use of the rear yard for vehicle storage altogether. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Dragsten stated that there seemed to be agreement on this item, but asked staff to look at the 15' setback requirement. Voight requested that staff also look at side yard regulations. Voight noted that could probably be more of a problem than the rear yard. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE OFF-STREET PARK REGULATIONS AND IT WILL ASSIST IN PROTECTING THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY AND TO REQUEST THAT STAFF BRING BACK AMENDMENT TO 15' AND SIDE YARD SETBACK. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 8. Consideration to approve a resolution finding that a modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1- 38 conform to the general plans for the develop_ ment and redevelop_ ment of the citv. WRE, LLC dba Walker In - Store Koropchak presented the item, stating that as indicated within the report, the Planning Commission has before them a resolution associated with creation of TIF District 1-38. Koropchak stated that the statute allows Monticello to create TIF Districts. Koropchak indicated that TIF Districts can be created within the boundaries of Central MN Redevelopment Project No. 1. She explained that this district will be created within Otter Creek property. The property will receive a write -down on the land cost. Koropchak illustrated the property to be acquired. She noted that although the company will have title to 5 acres, only 1.5 acres is developable. The potential property owners will construct a building of 10,000 square feet, and have an average wage level of $19.00 per hour without benefits. City staff has met with Walker In -Store for a pre -design. They are expected to close around May 1 st on the purchase and redevelopment of the property. Koropchak explained that the property is in the area which is under a declaration of covenants. The covenants require no outside storage, no metal buildings, and require in - ground irrigation. Koropchak stated that the HRA will approve the TIF plan on April 11 th, then the plan goes to the Council on the 23rd. She noted that market rate for the land is $3.00 per square foot. The HRA markets it to qualified buyers at $1 per square foot. She stated that the TIF assistance does not go to the company, it goes back to the HRA for land costs and utility development. no 0 Planning Commission Minutes — 04/05/07 Koropchak stated that the item before the Commission is to consider whether the proposed TIF district is consistent with the development district and with the comprehensive plan. It is required as part of meeting statutory requirements. Koropchak stated that the Commission is also asked to consider whether the use fits the zoning, covenants and goals of the economic development district. Dragsten asked if the Business Park was all set up as a TIF district, or if the Commission is asked to make these findings for each project. Koropchak stated that a new TIF district is created for each buyer. The reason each district is set up independently is because statute has timelines for when projects need to be completed for TIF district regulations. Koropchak stated that the City is platting each lot based on the size of the development. Dragsten noted that this item is not a public hearing and opened the discussion to the Commissioners. Spartz asked about parking. Koropchak noted that the applicant has more than ample parking based on 18 jobs. Spartz asked if Planning Commission can consider this item before HRA approves the TIF Plan. Koropchak confirmed that it can. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION FINDING • THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CENTRAL MINNESOTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND THE TIF PLAN FOR TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-38 CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 9. Consideration to review for comment the Wright Countv NEO Land Use Plan Holien indicated that a full summary of the draft NEQ plan had been presented to the Commission and invited questions or comments on the item. Hilgart asked how the area west of Monticello being designated as rural residential could interfere with future growth for the community. Holien stated that the rural residential classification allowing 1 home per 10 acres would be a permanent land use designation. Holien stated that in the previous plan the area had been designated as agricultural. Dragsten stated that when he read through the plan, it appeared that when the County looked at what type of land it was, it wasn't necessarily good for agricultural use. Dragsten stated that he would think that would be better addressed in Monticello's land use plan. He indicated that to let it go to 1 per 10 would be a waste of land in his opinion. Hilgart stated that he would rather see it as 2.5 acre lots. Holien stated that Wright County has not made any recommendations for within the Monticello OAA. Hilgart asked who has final say on the document. Holien stated that it would be the County Board of Commissioners. Hilgart asked if the County looks at each area separately. Holien 7 Planning Commission Minutes — 04/05/07 0 responded that the comp plans are broken into quarters of the County. Dragsten asked if the MOAA goes to the Otsego limits. O'Neill stated that it is close. Spartz stated that he doesn't see how the land use categories and the concerns over rural residential to the west would be any different for the east. O'Neill explained that perhaps because the east is more urban on that edge. O'Neill stated that planners, staff and township are all supportive of the 1 per 40 to preserve the rural character. In addition to that, the area is on the edge of the YMCA property, and the City wants to encourage less density in that area. Spartz asked if it might not be appropriate to also recommend agricultural, or 1 per 40 to the east, as well. Spartz asked when the next hearing is. O'Neill stated that the public hearing is at 8:00 PM on April 12that Rockford township hall. Spartz asked if Schumann could provide more information on the meeting. Spartz stated that he is still concerned about the area to the east as going to the smaller lots would seem to tie Monticello's hands. O'Neill stated that he would check with Tom Salkowski. Dragsten asked about the status of the YMCA purchase. O'Neill responded that the task force of City and County reps are working toward the purchase. In the event that no deal is reached, under this plan, the land would be allowed to develop as scattered housing development. Then a portion of the YMCA could be sold for development. O'Neill stated that is why staff is recommending a 1 per 40 designation. Dragsten stated that the maximum p � . g development scenario under Wright County zoning would be by PUD, at 6 per 40. O'Neill stated that staff is comfortable with the plan, with the notations made within the report. Dragsten requested that the Commission's comments be forwarded to the City Council, with a notation that the east area rural residential designation is a concern, in addition to the west. 10. Adi ourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Recorder g aVchumann • E