Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 03-04-2008 MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 4th, 2008 6:00 PM Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski Staff: Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman- NAC 1. Call to order. Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and declared a quorum, noting the absence of Commissioner Hilgart. 2. Consideration to approve the minutes of February 6th, 2008. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6th, 2008. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 3. Consideration of adding items to the a eg nda• Commissioner Voight added as item 13 the consideration of a proposed amendment to City Code. 4. Citizen comments. NONE. 5. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for a retail commercial development in the Central Community District. Applicant: Lags Tires, Inc. Planner Grittman presented the staff report, illustrating the proposed addition to the former Maus Foods Building at 6th Street and Highway 25. Grittman indicated that the existing building is in the northeast corner of the site and has been remodeled for office and retail uses. Grittman stated that the current application is for a concept stage Planned Unit Development. Grittman explained that in reviewing a PUD, there is a three stage • process, which includes two stages of public review and a final staff review. The first stage review is of the concept plan, which provides a look at general issues with the proposed use. The concept stage allows the City to identify those issues and discuss Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/08 possible solutions. Grittman stated that concept stage review gives the applicant and staff guidance for a development stage application. At that time, the City will often see a plat and much more detailed engineering drawings. Grittman commented that the purpose of the PUD in this application is to accommodate the second building on the site. The applicants have proposed a Tire Plus tire and battery facility at the southern end of the site. Grittman presented the conceptual building graphic, which included a series of overhead doors facing south. Grittman noted that this application also has to go through a DAT review as this site is within the CCD. Grittman reported that the building proposed is 7200 square feet, utilizing space currently occupied by parking space. He commented that when the existing building was a grocery store, the site was tightly parked for that retail use. He noted that one of the proposed uses for the larger existing building is a restaurant bar facility. As this will tighten the parking on site, the applicants will be asked to provide for a joint parking arrangement, including information on peak business hours. Grittman explained that though the site is short of parking based on ordinance parking requirements, the CCD does accommodate this type of arrangement, as long as the uses fit well. Grittman stated that typically, restaurants do have different peak times than other uses, particularly office uses. There are a couple of other issues that will need to be addressed, Grittman indicated. The existing parking lot was allowed to expand into the right-of--way on Cedar, 6th and 5th Streets. Parking also comes up to the property line on Highway 25. Grittman stated that the 5th Street ROW is also used as railroad easement. Grittman explained that the parking situation is an existing condition for the existing site. Typically, the City requires parking to be at least 5 feet from the property line. For new plats, the City now requires parking to be off of the drainage and utility easement. Grittman noted that while the limits of the parking are existing conditions, they are appropriate for review due to the expansion of site use. Grittman noted that the City may want to consider requiring that parking only occur on-site, which would make development more problematic. Grittman stated that currently, access to the site is gained from 6th Street and from Highway 25. He indicated that this proposal includes closing the access from Cedar Street and a series of access points along 6th. Planner Grittman reviewed the conditions of approval outlined in Exhibit Z. In relationship to condition 1, he noted that the concept plan shows permanent encroachments into the drainage and utility easements, and the City would need to understand how drainage works and what kind of limitations the site has. The second condition would require that if the City considers allowing parking into right-of--ways, the applicant would be required to enter into a license agreement. The third condition would require detailed analysis of floor plan, parking summary and hours of operation for all proposed uses, as the City will need a good understanding of all uses and parking needs if it is to allow a joint use reduction in parking count. The applicant will also need to provide a landscape plan illustrating additional plantings to . screen overhead doors, as when traveling north, there will be visibility of this area. The applicant will also be required to submit a detailed sign plan for Tire Plus use. 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/08 Grittman also noted that development stage plans will require formal engineering plans. . These conditions have been reviewed with the applicant and are provided as a reference point for the next application. Grittman stated that at this point, staff is comfortable recommending approval of the concept plan, but with the notation that there are issues that need to be worked out as noted in the conditions. Wojchouski asked what the dashed line shown on the plans indicates. Grittman stated the person who drew the plan may have assumed that to be a setback line. However, in the CCD, there is no setback line. Wojchouski asked if there is any concern with parking infringement on Highway 25. Grittman stated that the parking goes up to the property line, but does not appear to enter the ROW, which is an existing condition of the site. Wojchouski inquired whether the 25' notation near the existing Papa Murphy's space is the width of the alley way between parking stalls. Grittman stated that he believes that to be a drive aisle width. Grittman stated that the dimensions are just shy of requirements and are allowable by PUD. Gabler asked if the applicant is planning to stack Tires outside. Grittman stated that the application does not include an outdoor storage or display permit. If outdoor display is intended, the applicant would need to specify that use and apply for that permit. Gabler inquired where garbage would be stored. Grittman stated that it was his understanding that there would be interior garbage handling. Regardless, by code it will need to be • screened enclosure. Gabler noted that the site includes a lot of building and pavement, and she believed that the site needs more green and landscaping. Spartz asked if restaurants present the worst case scenario for parking. Grittman replied that the applicant had provided a mix of uses, including a restaurant, assuming this parking scenario. He noted that the PUD does require a floor plan to understand all of that. The more restaurants, the more parking required. Dragsten noted that the code states that based on the uses, the site needs 215 spaces, but the applicant has proposed 158. Dragsten stated that is his largest concern. He also suggested that improvements should be made to island landscaping. Dragsten inquired whether the site will be platted. Grittman confirmed that a preliminary plat will come with the development stage PUD as a next step. Grittman stated that he believes it is the intent to provide a separate lot for the Tires Plus pad. Voight stated that his concerns are the same as mentioned by the other commissioners, specifically parking and landscaping. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Bob Viering, President of 1St Minnesota Bank in Monticello, addressed the Commission. Viering stated that while he is thrilled that the Maus site is redeveloping, he does have concerns about what is presented. By adding a pad site, it seems as though it would • block the view of other businesses that are in the building itself. Viering suggested that in looking at the Chatters restaurant, that building cut off the view of many of the existing Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/08 strip center businesses and it damaged the businesses that are there. Second, he stated that it is most likely that the bar restaurant will serve lunches, and parking will be an issue. Viering indicated that his third concern is traffic circulation. He stated that by taking out the exit onto Cedar, they are putting a majority of traffic onto Highway 25, and that road is busy right now. He noted the right-in configuration required for 1St Minnesota. He stated that he would prefer to see the building pushed back and that the Commission seriously look at the restaurant use, as it sounds as if it significantly under parked already. Dragsten stated that the right-in note is a good comment. Dragsten commented that he is not sure how to incorporate the suggestion on moving the building back. Rich Demeules addressed that Commission as the property owner. He indicated that the main reason for closing access to Cedar is because their parking lot has become apass- through from Cedar to Highway 25. He stated that whether this project moves forward or not, they would be looking to close this access. In regard to other comments, in the lease agreements they have signed with all tenants, it has been made clear that there is the potential of a pad site going into that corner. Demeules commented on the planning report, which requires that they tear down any structures in the drainage and utility easement. He stated that the original building setback all along Cedar is 10 feet, while the new required utility easement is 12 feet. Demeules stated that the code requires 215 parking spaces, of which they have 158. He stated that they had done calculations, and that they would need 146 spots at any peak time. He noted that his business will be in the existing building and that they are conscious of the parking, as they do not want it to be a problem for them. Dragsten asked about his comment that the peak demand is 146 spaces. Demeules stated that they will have 158 total spaces, but only need 146. He indicated that for example, at lunch time, there will not be Papa Murphy's traffic. He stated that they have sports bar going in, but recognize that they will not be able to put any more restaurants in. . Dragsten noted that there is corporate space for Standard Iron. He reiterated that his concern is that this is a commercial site and as demand continues to be created, the parking deficiency would increase. Gabler asked Demelues if they thought about pushing the building to the east. Demueles stated that they are trying to keep building between two existing access points. He stated that pushing the building back blocks the view of the site. Gabler asked if it is possible to shrink the building at all. Chris Speaks, Tires Plus representative and applicant, responded that the current size of the building accommodates indoor tire storage and garbage facilities. Spartz asked if rather than moving the building, perhaps closing the access on Cedar and turning the building would cure the parking problem. 4 Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/08 Voight asked how Demeules had arrived at the numbers portrayed on the parking analysis spreadsheet. Demueles responded that those are based off City ordinance requirements for the uses. Dragsten asked if the applicant had seen Exhibit Z. Demeules confirmed. Wojchouski noted that Maus employees had parked on the north side and asked if they own that area, and whether it is included in the count. Demueles stated that is an existing condition and is included in the counts. Wojchouski asked about the property across the railroad tracks. Demeules stated that he does not own that piece. Grittman noted that northern portion, which includes parking, is an existing condition, but it is an encroachment into City ROW and railroad easement, it is not part of their actual property. Hearing not further comments, Chariman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Dragsten stated that parking is a major concern, and he is not sure it can be overcome. Gabler inquired whether the applicant would be able to utilize parking across Cedar Street. Grittman stated they would need a separate agreement, and because of the grade separation, it may not even be something the Commission wants to consider. Spartz also noted his concern about parking, stating that as it is laid out, the site is about as tight of a parking arrangement as there is. He stated that is his contention for perhaps moving the building back. Voight agreed. He also noted that his concern is not only the number of spaces short, but the circulation through the site. Dragsten stated that in relationship to parking, the Commission should perhaps give the applicant some direction. Gabler asked if the existing pylon is just for the existing building. Grittman confirmed, stating that Exhibit Z asks for a sign plan for Tires Plus as part of next application. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONCEPT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AS PRESENTED, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE JUSTIFIES THE USE OF PUD AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE CCD, CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWSS, WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON THE ABILITY TO SATISFY PARKING REQUIREMENTS. 1. The applicant shall be required to revise the site plan, removing all permanent structures from the drainage and utility easements. Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/08 2. The applicant shall be required to enter into a license agreement with the City for any parking • on the right-of--way. 3. The applicant shall supply a floor plan for the existing building so that a detailed parking analysis may be performed. 4. A landscape plan shall be provided, illustrating additional plantings along 6"' Street to screen the overhead doors and providing the proper number of landscaped islands. 5. The applicant shall submit a detailed signage plan for the Tires Plus use. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. In discussion, Dragsten asked for the Commissioner's input on an understanding of parking count in terms of whether the application will be viewed favorably. Spartz suggested that the Commission leave an emphasis on the items one, two and three, as they have the potential to create the biggest problem. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 6. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Development Stage Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit for Drive-Throu Facility and Conditional Use Permit for Shared Access for a fast food restaurant in a B-4 (Regional Business District. • Applicant: McDonald's Corporation Planner Grittman reviewed the staff report for the request, illustrating the site plan for the proposed conditional use. Grittman described the site's circulation elements, which includes a separate drive thru lane along the west boundary and a double drive thru format. He indicated that the site itself was designed for cross access with the neighboring properties to the east and west. Grittman stated that staff has a number of comments on the proposed plan, which have been listed in the staff report. He stated that it is his understanding that the applicants have already updated their plans based on those comments, and is accepting of the noted conditions. Grittman noted that detailed engineering comments are also included in the report. Grittman reviewed the conditions of Exhibit Z. In regard to condition one, staff recommends that the drive thru area parking be designated for employee parking. Grittman stated that the site has more than the required number of spaces. The suggestion was made due to the fact that these spaces are only accessible through the drive thru and that they are not needed to meet City's parking supply requirements. Grittman stated that condition two requires additional directional signage to better direct site circulation. Condition three requires that the applicant overlay turning radius for 6 Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/08 various vehicle movements. He noted that there are a number of tight turns, specifically from 7th Street and getting thru and around the drive thru. Staff is asking that the applicant provide templates to show how trucks and emergency vehicles would flow through the site. The photometric plan also requires revision, as it currently violates ordinance standards. The applicants have indicated that they will modify the plan. Grittman stated that condition five asks that the non-drive thru vertical elevation be re-designed to add design elements to break up the wall view. Finally, the applicant is asked to provide pedestrian striping to get access across 7th Street at a marked location. Grittman explained that with those conditions, there are no other significant issues and staff recommends approval. Spartz stated that this does not look like a run of the mill McDonald's design, but rather an upgraded structure. Spartz inquired whether a playland area was included. Grittman stated that the restaurant does not include a playland area, as it didn't meet the applicant's demographic analysis requirements. Gabler asked if there is a concrete curb between the pad and drive thru, or if not, what will separate the drive thru on the west side. Grittman confirmed it would be curb. Grittman stated that the City would also look for additional landscape buffer between the two areas. Gabler stated that it will be nice to have a McDonald's at this end of town. • Dragsten commented on the access opening at the southwest corner of the site. Grittman commented that staff had discussed that with the applicant, as it was perhaps not necessary. There was a concern about cross traffic, as the engineer had noted that cross traffic would possibly mix with drive thru traffic. Dragsten noted it might be used for emergency vehicles. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Jim Hileman, Area Construction Manager for McDonald's Corporation, addressed the Commission. Hileman stated that they have been working with staff, and noted that the City has a good system for putting all parties together. They had received good feedback that was pertinent and achievable. He explained that they are working toward addressing the issues addressed by staff. Hileman made himself available for questions. Spartz inquired about the playland, asking if such an area will then be considered for the existing location. Hileman stated that there will be an impact on the other site, although it isn't know what that impact will be. For the new site, a playland did not meet the screens put in place to determine need. He explained that the screens are tailored to address the needs of town traffic and those coming out of the shopping trade area. Hileman noted that the playlands are a significant expense and have significant operating costs. Hileman stated that he has been with McDonald's for 13 years, and there was an initial push to put them in most location, but that has toned down and is based on targeting. Spartz responded that it puzzles him that he would need to go to another town if his kids wanted to play in a playland. He stated that he would think that it is a benefit 7 Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/08 and that McDonald's would want families to spend their money here. Spartz commented that he hopes McDonald's looks at it with existing facility. Hileman responded that facility is more of a freeway traveler facility, and those customers are often looking for quick service and a good meal. Voight stated that he had no questions. He commented that he did think visual elements on the non-drive thru elevations is a good idea. Hileman discussed some of the visual elements of the building, noting the material selections, awnings, color palette and illumination features. Hileman stated that he is happy to present a more finished, earth- toned building which is often far more acceptable to municipalities. He noted that the night illumination make a very attractive building and there is no glare as it features wall, awnings or roof car elements for a nice presentation. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Spartz commented again on the lack of a playland. Gabler commented that she disagreed with his comments, as the Monticello Community Center offers that feature, and it is important to encourage use of that facility. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE EXISTING PUD AND THE B-4 DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS. 1. The parking stalls on the east side of the site, adjacent to the drive through lane, shall be designated for employee parking only. The applicant shall provide a separate sign plan for all directional signage. The applicant shall overlay turning radii for emergency and delivery vehicles at the entrance to the site and through the drive through lane, to ensure that these vehicles can circulate properly. The photometric plan shall be revised to illustrate lighting produced from the sight only. No readings may exceed one footcandle, as measured from the centerline off adjacent rights-of--way. The applicant shall revise the non-drive through (west) building elevation to add vertical elements, similar to those provided on the south and east elevations. The applicant shall provide pedestrian striping across 7~' Street. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE THROUGH FACILITY, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE PUD AND THE USE SATISFIES THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/08 • MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GBALER. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 7. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3-9 re ug lating address number si ng_ sApplicant: City of Monticello Schumann presented the staff report, stating that the Planning Commission is asked to consider an amendment to Monticello Zoning Ordinance 3-9[E]5, which regulates the location, size and placement of address number signs. Schumann stated that in consultation with the City Planner, it was determined that it would be most appropriate for address identification to be regulated within City Code rather than within the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, the Building Department has indicated that other portions of the City Code, or State Building Code, already provide the City with the ability to regulate address signage. Schumann noted that these provisions were included in the Commission's report. Schumann explained that as there are provisions already in place related to address signage this time, the Planning Commission is asked to amend the Zoning Ordinance to simply delete all reference to address identification signage. The City Council will be asked to approve this amendment in conjunction with an amendment to the City Code which would incorporate any terms not be covered by the Building Code. • The Building Department will also propose that the Council consider a City Code amendment which further regulates addressing signs for commercial, industrial and institutional buildings. These proposed changes are at the request of the Monticello Fire Marshal. Those are to increase the size to make signs more readable for emergency vehicles. Schumann indicated that the purpose of the amendments is to simplify code language, eliminate duplication and inconsistencies, and provide City support for emergency response efforts. Staff recommends approval of the zoning amendment as proposed. Gabler inquired if the amendment then specifies no size regulation. Schumann clarified that size regulation is covered within the building code, which has been adopted by ordinance. Gabler inquired if numbers etched in stone are acceptable. Schumann confirmed that they would be. Voight sought clarification on the size standards referred to in the report. Schumann stated that the City Code amendment that will be proposed would require the minimum of 4" required by the State, plus additional inches based on how far the building is set back from the street. Dragsten asked about what happens to existing numbers. Schumann stated that the existing numbers that do not meet the proposed standards would become non-conforming. Any significant exterior remodeling would require them to meet the new standard. Schumann noted this proposed ordinance only applies to commercial, industrial or institutional projects. 9 Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/08 Wojchouski cited an example, noting the size increase is proportional based on how far back the building sits. She stated that it makes sense for emergency vehicles as they try to find addresses. Dragtten asked if the address number has to be on the building. Anderson confirmed it has to be on the building. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing and hearing no comments, closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3-9[E]5 REPEALING THE REGULATION OF ADDRESS SIGNS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 8. Consideration of a request for Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3-5, Off-Street Parking Requirements, as related to the regulation of the size and weight of vehicles parked in residential districts. (Tabled from 2-6-08 meeting) Applicant: City of Monticello Grittman stated that this item had been reviewed previously by the Commission and deals with language related to parking of commercial vehicles in residential districts. The ordinance amendment is proposed to create a method to enforce the code reasonably and to protect the residential character of neighborhoods. • Grittman stated that the current ordinance only regulates by weight, setting a limit of 9,000 pounds, gross vehicle weight. Grittman indicated that research has shown that a limit of 12,000 pounds to be a much more common standard. He explained that many pick-ups exceed the 9,000 pound threshold, so the Commission had discussed regulating by size and other options. The summary of the Commission discussion was to amend the ordinance to replace the 9,000 pound limit with 12,000 pounds and add a section to the code which uses MN State vehicle licensing, which assigns a letter code by weight for commercial vehicles. The ordinance proposed prohibits commercial vehicles with G or higher. Grittman explained that the licensing option is much easier for staff to enforce. The language also adds an exception for emergency vehicles and provides a definition of emergency vehicles. Grittman stated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the ordinance. Voight asked if Grittman has ever seen one of these stickers. Grittman stated that he has, as he has been paying much more attention due to this amendment. He stated that it is a pretty effective way to make a quick determination whether a vehicle is of a certain size. Voight asked if they are on all vehicles. Dragsten confirmed, stating that they are in the right hand corner. Spartz asked about recreational vehicles. Grittman stated this ordinance does not address those vehicles. Grittman stated that if the City decides it wants to discuss further regulation of recreational vehicles, it should move that forward at a later time. 10 Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/08 MOTION BY CHAIRMAN DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 3 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE AS RELATED TO EXTERIOR STORAGE AND OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS NECESSARY TO RETAIN THE CHARACTER OF RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT PROVIDES FURTHER CLARITY TO THE EXISTING ORDINANCE LANGUAGE. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 9. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance for the regulation of Grading, Erosion & Sediment Control. Applicant: City of Monticello Schumann reviewed the updated staff report, stating that the Planning Commission had reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed ordinance for Grading and Erosion Control in December of 2007. However, prior to bringing the amendment to the City Council for final review and approval, staff held an implementation meeting to review the ordinance in terms of implementation and enforcement. Representatives from Community Development, Engineering, Public Works and the Building Department were present at the meeting. Schumann explained that as a result of discussion at that meeting, the ordinance has been revised. The revisions warrant a second review of the proposed ordinance by the Commission. Schumann commented that the revisions to the ordinance exist primarily within the enforcement portions of the ordinance, Section 33-9. The previous ordinance language was somewhat redundant and inconsistent in terms of violations of the ordinance and remedy to violations. Any other revisions to the ordinance are minor in nature and are related to providing clarity in the Definitions portion of the ordinance. Voight commented that a special note has been made in the report regarding the application of this ordinance if grading within 200' of a waterway. Schumann confirmed that if a home backs up to a pond and grading was to occur within 200' of that waterway, this ordinance would apply. Schumann cited retaining walls built within a stormwater easement area and filling of ponds as examples of why a permit would be needed. The ordinance and better public education will help prevent such issues. Voight confirmed that one wouldn't need a grading permit to dig post holes if within 200' of a waterway. Schumann stated they would not. Dragsten stated that he thought that the SWPPP covers erosion control for lots. He stated his concern would be over-regulation. Schumann stated that large scale developments still fall under their individual SWPPP and the ordinance is designed to work hand-in- hand with the City's SWPPP. 11 Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/08 Dragsten referred to the surety requirement. Schumann stated that the proposed ordinance requires a surety for both the overall development, as well as for individual lot developers. The amount of surety would be set by the Council with the fee schedule. Dragsten inquired if this ordinance more or less applies later, after overall large project development. Schumann stated that this ordinance applies from the time of platting on to someone building a retaining wall on a lot ten years after purchase. Dragsten asked if individual lot projects have been a real problem in regard to erosion control. Schumann responded that the ordinance was presented because of the need to consolidate the number of policies, ordinances and procedures in place at the City. Staff wanted one common standard that all could use as a guiding document. It would also regulate the work of staff and consulting inspectors. Schumann stated that the ordinance presented does not propose much outside of current policy, with the exception of tightening of triggers for permit and the sureties. Spartz asked if it is up to the City Council to put a price on permits. Schumann confirmed. Spartz inquired if after the final grade, the resident wants to put in a retaining wall, they must pull a permit. Schumann stated it will depend on the project in relationship to the area, volume or proximity to waterway. Spartz stated that for example, he is on pond. Schumann confirmed he would need a permit to grade within 200' of the pond. Wojchouski asked if the security is non-refundable. Schumann stated it is refundable. Spartz inquired when the resident becomes responsible for pulling the permit. Dragsten stated when they become owner of the lot. Schumann noted inspection schedule built in to the ordinance. Spartz asked if there were any other major changes made as a result of the staff meeting. Anderson discussed the revision of the enforcement portion of the ordinance. Gabler stated that such an ordinance is appreciated on the development side, because it means that the City has a stated, consistent policy. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CHAPTER 33 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE FOR GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL AND CORRESPONDING AMENDMENTS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT CITY POLICIES AND STRATEGIES FOR THE PROTECTION OF MONTICELLO'S WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES. . MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSION GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 12 Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/08 Dragsten thanked staff for their work on the ordinance. 10. Consideration to review for recommendation proceeding with a Request for Proposal for the completion of a comprehensive update to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Schumann stated that the Planning Commission is asked to consider proceeding with a request for completion of an update to the Zoning Ordinance, as the Planning Commission and City Council are in the final stages of the review of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan update. Schumann explained that the Comprehensive Plan's primary purpose is to lay the groundwork for land use policy. However, while the comprehensive plan presents the framework for land use, it is the City's codes and ordinances which control actual development. She noted that outside of the seven-county metropolitan area, zoning regulations control land use. Schumann cited the draft Comprehensive Plan, stating that "A priority should be given to the review and updating of zoning regulations. The vision and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan will not be achieved unless zoning regulations are aligned with the Plan." The document specifically indicates that the revision of the ordinance is a next step in achieving the plan's vision and objectives. In addition to the need for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Schumann noted that the Planning Commission and City Council have often struggled with outdated • portions of the ordinance. An example is the Commission's recent recommendation on the revision of the sign ordinance. Commission cited this as a priority, and directed staff to structure a review and amendment process for that portion of the ordinance. For these reasons, Schumann stated that staff is asking that the City consider moving forward with a complete redrafting of the current zoning ordinance. Rather than taking sections of the code piece by piece, a complete revision will allow the City to review not only the language of the document, but the purpose statement of each district in relationship to the changing patterns of development and strategies from growth management, and how each piece of the ordinance impacts another. Schumann commented that the revision of the zoning ordinance has been budgeted for 2008. Due to the scale and potential cost of this project, staff believes that a request for proposal process will be necessary. Schumann outlined a potential process for the project, stating that developing a scope of work will be the first step in developing an RFP. She recommended the formation of a steering committee make policy decisions which will lay the groundwork for the entire project. Schumann stated that three major policy areas should be considered. Specifically, Schumann indicated that the format of the ordinance should be reviewed, as the current • "cascading" format is not a very useful tool. Schumann also referenced that the steering committee may seek to review land use categories and purpose statements, due to the 13 Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/08 change in designation within the comp plan. Finally, she referenced that the steering committee may want to look at incorporating other concepts such as low impact design. Schumann stated that understanding these issues will allow the RFP respondents to prepare a more accurate proposal in terms of the project's time, process and budget. They are also discussions that the policyrnakers will want to be involved in deciding prior to revising the actual language of the code. Schumann commented that she believes that the project will take up to two years and will require a series of workshops with the full Planning Commission, with representation by at least two City Council persons. A series of public workshops and sessions with other City commissions would also be held at appropriate points. Schumann indicated that if the Commission chooses to recommend that the RFP process move forward, the next step will be to request formal approval from the City Council. If approved, the City will prepare the RFP, form a steering committee, and set a schedule for the review and selection of a proposal. Gabler asked if the comprehensive update will make it easier to discern standards, particularly in relationship to the CCD. Schumann stated that she believes so. Gabler stated that it is hard to understand where CCD ends and some of the regulations do not seem to match between the code and the downtown plan. Voight stated that he thinks the project is necessary as long as the City ends up with • something enforceable. Schuman noted the goal is also to incorporate the Planning Commission's previous work on PUDs, as a lot of groundwork was done on that item. Dragsten inquired why all the public hearings would be involved. Schumann responded that it would depend on how the steering committee wanted to set up the process. They could take the whole ordinance to one hearing, or break it up by chapter, or section. Dragsten asked if it is necessary to amend the whole ordinance. Schumann stated that most of the sections and chapter relate or correspond to another. To have a more useful ordinance, it is most likely that you would be updating the whole code. Dragsten suggested that the standards just be moved from one section to another, which perhaps wouldn't require the time and expense of updating the whole code. Grittman stated that Monticello's code was written in 1970, but based on a format developed in the 1960's. Over the years, it has been cobbled together with amendments, to the point that it is unusable for the typical citizen. Grittman noted that it is also very likely you will find code sections that are contradictory. So, in essence, the City would need to amend not just the format, but the language and standards. You have to take a comprehensive look to accomplish both. Grittman also noted that because of the way the comp plan was written, the zoning ordinance will also become more important. Spartz noted the recent sign ordinance issues and amendments and how perhaps the amendment could make the ordinance more user-friendly, clear and concise. 14 Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/08 Dragsten recommended addressing the main policy items, then taking priority portions, such . as the sign ordinance, first. Dragsten stated a steering committee will help clarify the process. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY OF MONTICELLO PROCEED WITH A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) FOR A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 11. Consideration to call for a public hearing for the recommendation of adoption of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. Schumann reported that over the past two years, the City has worked to develop a comprehensive plan that will guide the City's immediate and future land use policy. During the process, the City has held community meetings, neighborhood meetings, task force sessions, and joint City Council and Planning Commission workshops. Through these, valuable information on the direction for the future of growth of Monticello has been gained. Schumann explained that the feedback from these sessions has been analyzed, processed and put into draft form. Schumann stated that at this time, staff believes that the draft Comprehensive Plan is ready for the formal public hearing process required by statute. As such, the Planning Commission is asked to call for the public hearing on the 2008 i Draft Monticello Comprehensive Plan. Schumann explained that the draft would be posted online. Sparrz asked about the transportation plan. Schumann responded that a draft has been prepared, but it needs to be updated. Initially, staff was hoping it would follow the same track and timeline as the approval of the Comp Plan. However, it is likely to follow on the heels of the comp plan instead. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2008 MONTICELLO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ON TUESDAY, APRIL 29~', 2008. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 12. Consideration to appoint a liaison to the Ad Hoc Natural Resource Inventory Selection and Review Committee. Commissioner Gabler volunteered to serve as the Planning Commission representative to the Ad-Hoc committee. 13. Consideration to review for recommendation a City Code amendment relating to building permit fee waiver for disabled veterans of the United Stated Armed Forces. 15 Planning Commission Minutes - 03/04/08 Voight stated that his hope is to direct City staff to develop an ordinance based on an amendment which had been approved by the City of Delano. The Delano ordinance waived permit fees for those veterans disabled in service to the United States Armed Forces, for building projects related to their disability. Voight cited the measure as a way of honoring men and women who have served in the armed forces. He indicated that he believes it is an honorable thing and shows a willingness to honor those who have served. . Dragsten concurred, noting that hopefully it does not need to ever be used. Schumann noted this would be a City Code amendment rather than zoning code amendment. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER A CITY ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF WAIVING BUILDING PERMIT FEES FOR RESIDENTIAL REMODELING OR BUILDING PROJECTS FOR VETERANS HAVING SUSTAINED A DISABILITY WHILE ACTIVELY SERVING IN THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. Spartz stated that if there is anything similar moving through in State law, the City should review that as well. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 14. Adiourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Reco e • 16