Planning Commission Minutes 12-02-2008• MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, December 2nd, 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
Call to order.
Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and declared a full quorum of the
Commission.
2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of November 5th, 2008.
• Schumann indicated that the November 5th, 2008 minutes would be provided at the regular
January meeting.
3. Citizen Comments
NONE.
4. Consideration of adding items to the a eg nda.
Schumann added items for discussion of DAT, Bertram Chain of Lakes project, Foreclosure
Recovery Process.
5. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for a variance to Chapter 3 of the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance re lating R-2A Design Standards. Applicant: Ejimadu, Evanistu
Community Development Director Schumann presented the report for the item,
explaining that Mr. Evanistu is requesting that the Planning Commission consider a
variance from the City's required design standards and setback related to an existing
residential property located at Lot 17, Block 1 of Carlisle Village 5th Addition.
Schumann explained that at the time Carlisle Village was platted, two residential
properties existed on the site, including the subject property. These properties became
• existing lawful non-conforming uses within their respective zoning districts. So although
some aspects of the homes did not comply with the new layer of applicable zoning code,
Schumann stated that they were allowed to continue in their current use and state until
such time that substantive modifications are made to each site. The approved
Planning Commission Minutes - 12/02/08
• development plans and agreement for the site did not specifically exempt the two existing
properties from the applicable zoning standards. This lot falls under the R-2A portion of
the development.
Schumann stated that Mr. Ejimadu is seeking to renovate the existing property, making
both interior and exterior modifications. The detached garage that existed on the site has
been removed. At this time, Mr. Ejimadu is seeking to construct an attached garage on
the south side of the home, in what is now the front yard. Commission will note that as a
result of the platting of Carlisle Village, the side and front yards of the Lot 17, Block 1
property shifted. The side yard of this property is now in effect the front yard.
As such, the addition of the attached accessory structure would require that the applicant
meet the design standard, landscaping and setback provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
Schumann reviewed the provision, stating that Section 3-2[B] requires that no portion of
any garage space may be more than five feet closer to the street than the front building
line of the principal single family use. In this case, the applicant is seeking to position
the garage on the southern front corner of the existing home. The interior layout of the
home makes this point the most logical, as placing the garage at the northern end of the
home would have the entry point of the garage leading directly into bedroom areas.
Additionally, the garage could not be shifted completely to the east, as the proposed
accessory structure dimensions, at 22" x 24", would not fit the current lot dimensions and
configuration.
Schumann stated that m considering a requests for variance, the Planning Commission is
required to make a finding ofnon-economic hardship. Variances maybe granted in
circumstances where the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property or lot existing and
of record upon the effective date of this ordinance or that by reason of exceptional
topographic or water conditions of a specific parcel of land or lot, the strict application of
the terms of this ordinance would result in exceptional difficulties when utilizing the
parcel or lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the district in which
said lot or parcel is located, or would create undue hardship upon the owner of such lot or
parcel that the owner of another lot or parcel within the same district would not have if he
were to develop his lot or parcel in a manner proposed by the applicant. Additionally, the
Commission must find that the variance will not "Unreasonably diminish or impair
established property values within the neighborhood or in any other way be contrary to
the intent of this ordinance."
Schumann stated that in this case, the platting of the property resulted in shifting of lot
configuration, which may make the location of an attached accessory structure in
accordance with ordinance requirements unreasonable.
The Commission will want to consider whether variance to the other two code provision
for landscaping and facade improvements are acceptable in light of the homes pre-
existence within the plat.
Commissioner Dragsten opened the public hearing.
2
Planning Commission Minutes - 12/02/08
• Hearing no comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
Hilgart inquired how the new garage would be position. Schumann illustrated the
proposed configuration on the lot survey.
Commissioner Spartz noted that landscaping work had been completed on the site.
Spartz inquired whether adjacent neighbors had been made aware of the variance request.
Schumann responded that they are noticed, as required. Spartz stated that due to the
quality of the exterior and landscaping of the surrounding homes, he would have a hard
time relaxing landscaping and exterior design standards, but could support the setback
variance.
Hilgart stated that he would like to have seen a blueprint of how the garage attaches to
the home. Dragsten noted that it does appear that they will meet the side setbacks.
Hilgart indicated that he would like the siding to match the home.
Wojchouski inquired if they are aware that they need to put in a solid driveway.
Schumann stated that they had not discussed that. However, Mr. Anderson would most
likely speak with them about that.
Grittman noted that there are probably some items that they cannot meet in the R-2A,
such as roof pitch. The intent of the motion then would be to consider only non-
structural changes.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED
VARIANCE CHAPTER 3 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
REGULATING R-2A DESIGN STANDARDS AS RELATED TO GARAGE
SETBACK, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PLATTING OF THE PROPERTY
CREATED A SITUATION IN WHICH COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS OF THIS
ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN EXCEPTIONAL DIFFICULTIES WHEN
UTILIZING THE PARCEL OR LOT IN A MANNER CUSTOMARY AND LEGALLY
PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH SAID LOT OR PARCEL IS
LOCATED BASED ON A CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE
TO INCLUDE R-2A DESIGN STANDARDS EXCEPT AS APPLICABLE TO
STRUCTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
6. Consideration to adopt the 2008 Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment.
Schumann presented information related to the completion of the 2008 Natural Resource
Inventory.
Natural Resource Inventory identifies existing natural resources within a given area, in this
case the planning area and some strategic locations within the City. Then those resources are
inventoried for quality and community importance,
The NRUA was completed in order to help support and achieve the goals of the 2008
Planning Commission Minutes - 12/02/08
• Comprehensive Plan. The scope area does go beyond the Orderly Annexation area, because
natural resources of significant importance do go beyond those political boundaries.
Schumann reviewed the final inventory documents which establish a baseline for the
inventory, including anpre-settlement vegetation and aggregate resources map. She
explained that WSB & Associates then inventoried natural resources using the Minnesota
Land Cover Classification System. From there, a community meeting was held to help
determine places that the community felt should be included in field research. Field research
included those locations, as well as places that scored high based on MLCCS and Element
Occurrence Rankings for ecological significance.
As a result of the inventory and field work, the following resources were produced: an
MLCCS map that illustrates Level 1 cover, Areas of High Quality Natural Areas, Areas of
Cultural and Ecological Importance. Schumann noted that this study has yielded information
on little-known high quality natural areas, two of which are in the Bertram Chain of Lakes
Area. Schumann noted that the preservation and conservation of agriculture came out high
in the first public meeting. Another document that resulted from the NRI/A was a conceptual
greenway corridor map, which does not provide a specific alignment, but rather suggests a
general route, which may connect through development, or use existing powerline or
conservation easements.
Schumann explained that another piece of this project was the GIS component. All of the
results of the inventory and assessment have been added as layers of information into the
existing GIS system. Staff has received a training on this information and mapping. Each of
these maps can be layered to help make land use decisions.
Schumann noted that this is a planning tool. While it doesn't prescribe specific action, it does
make recommendations for future planning utilizing the information. For example, the
NRUA notes the community's focus on preservation of the Monte Club Hill as a natural
amenity. The NRI/A's MLCCS evaluation notes this area as having been impacted by
invasive species, so a restoration and remediation plan is recommended strategy.
Another recommendation is to continue educational programming for natural resources,
whether on existing trails, or at locations such as the Bertram Chain of Lakes. Schumann also
explained that additional resources, including suggested ordinance updates and management
plan examples would be added as examples.
This information would be integrated as supporting information in decision-making. It is a
tool to reference as you make your decisions.
Spartz asked for an example where something may be proposed, but by which the NRUA or
Comprehensive Plan would not support that proposal. Schumann cited the platting proposed
in the Ditch 33 area. As the Ditch 33 area was noted as a culturally important resource, the
Commission can now view development proposals in that area with this information as a
resource for where trails or parks should be, or how wetlands could be restored. Spartz asked
• if ordinances are required to make those decisions. Schumann stated that the NRUA allows
the City to work with the developer on the best development scenario for natural resource
incorporation; ordinances would strengthen that capability.
4
Planning Commission Minutes - 12/02/08
• Voight inquired if sample ordinances could then mandate what can and cannot be disturbed.
Schumann stated that future ordinance provisions can be as restrictive or non-restrictive as the
City desires. Voight stated that he would like a map that overlays all of the information
together to summarize what was found.
Dragsten asked if the City is going to look at implementing recommendations now, or as
development occurs. Schumann stated that her recommendation would be to complete the
desired items with upcoming planning efforts, rather than to wait. This is so that the
development actually occurs as the City wants it to. Dragsten asked about how this impacts
private property owners, for example with disease or invasive species. Schumann stated that
the focus would probably be on those areas deemed of highest quality, and many of these are
held publicly or are owned by single large entities that the City can work with. Dragsten
inquired if this would be sent to private landowners. Schumann stated that it would be made
available on the website. In regard to invasive species, we can certainly go through this
document with individual landowners, if they wish.
Dragsten noted that the Township has prided itself on farmland, this document seems to
indicate that the number of acres of farmland is only approximately 15%. Dragsten inquired
about Pelican Lake in terms of the planning. Schumann indicated that much information n
those planning efforts is available through Ducks Unlimited, US Fish & Wildlife and Wright
County. Schumann stated that a management plan has been approved for the area.
Dragsten stated that he thought it would be a helpful document in future planning.
• Hilgart asked if the NRI/A resulted in possible changes to previously approved plans.
Schumann stated that for the majority of circumstances, that is not the case. However, she
noted that Ditch 33 area again as an area that the City may look at differently due to this
process. Schumann also noted that tree preservation will probably occur in a much different
way in the future. However, for the most part, the NRUA illustrates that greenfield
development can occur just as it would have previously.
Dragsten noted that a copy of this should be made available to the Parks Commission.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GABLER TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING
THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA 2008
NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
7. Consideration to review for discussion and direction the second draft of an amendment to
Chapter 3 of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance re ug lating Suns and to set a date for a joint
Planning Commission and City Council workshop
Planner Grittman stated that revisions since the last Commission meeting had been
incorporated into this version of the draft. Grittman reviewed the changes in summary.
These changes include clarification of definitions, specification of monument sign height.
The Commission discussed a determination for ordinance purposes on monument height. The
5
Planning Commission Minutes -12/02/08
• Commissioners agreed on a maximum sign height for monuments of 14'.
For signs for properties for sale or lease, an addition has been made for allowances for
additional signage for every 1000' of frontage. The clause on sandwich boards was also
clarified based on Commission's previous comments.
A section detailing non-conformities has been added to clarify how existing non-conforming
signs will be addressed.
Grittman reported that a number of changes had been made to the temporary sign section
based on previous comments, as well. An allowance for temporary signs in the PS District
was added, allowing for 50 days of use. The Commission reviewed whether 50 days would
be enough time. The consensus was to leave it at 50 days.
Wojchouski commented on the allowance for new business, that the clause seems difficult to
find. Grittman noted that the title could be changed.
Wojchouski inquired if language relating to the fact that these temporary signs have to be
located on their property is included. Grittman stated that it is within the code in multiple
locations. He noted that he would highlight those locations.
Grittman explained that landscaping around free-standing signs was a subject of discussion.
A clarification had been made that a landscape plan would be required generally, and in that
• way Commission could compare overall. Dragsten noted that the Commission had also
wanted the monument signs to be consistent in material to the building. Grittman stated that
there are materials requirements listed in this revision.
The code indicated that area of window signage is not included in signage calculation, but the
code does set a maximum area for window signage. Schumann noted that regulation of
window signage is an addition to the code and that a business cannot get a permit to exceed
the 25% specified.
It was clarified that area of changeable copy is counted against total areas, except where
someone has gone through the process of eliminating their option of temporary signage.
A provision prohibiting dynamic signs in yards or on walls adjacent to residential properties
has been added. Grittman also reviewed the time period decided on by the Commission as
related to changing of dynamic sign messages. The Commission had another discussion
regarding the types of motion and timing.
Wojchouski inquired about what happens if the sign technology does not allow for this type of
movement or timing restriction. Grittman stated that in where they have worked with these
provisions, that has not been a problem. Extending the time allowance is not an issue.
Voight asked if existing signs have messages which violate this provision in terms of timing
. and motion are grandfathered in. Grittman responded that each news message is in fact a new
sign. The new regulations are enforceable.
6
Planning Commission Minutes - 12/02/08
Grittman noted that the Freeway Corridor had been defined in the definition section of the
ordinance. Dragsten inquired if the monument height should be in this part of the ordinance,
as well. Grittman stated that it could.
Wojchouski and Dragsten commented that format changes should be made to make the
ordinance more readable.
Schumann noted that the proposal for the Zoning Ordinance specifies that the new ordinance
would be dynamic, allowing for hyperlinks, diagrams, call-outs, etc. So, the ordinance would
be structured to make this compatible. Dragsten asked if hours of operation need to be
included here. Grittman responded that the solution was that the clause related to facing
residential properties was added instead.
Schumann inquired if the freeway diagram would be included. Grittman stated that it could
be inserted within the definition.
Gabler inquired whether a decision was made to rewrite the CCD sign provisions, or to
integrate them here. Grittman stated that someone downtown would still need to review those
first, then apply this code. However, with the proposed ordinance update, the Commission
would have an opportunity to re-think those provisions in relationship to this code.
Anderson inquired how height of signs would be determined. Grittman responded that the
height would be measured from the adjacent street from which a business gains their principal
• exposure.
Schumann asked the Commission to set a date for the joint Planning Commission and City
Council workshop on the ordinance revisions. The Commission agreed that holding the
workshop at the next regular meeting would be acceptable.
8. Consideration to review for comment a Reauest for Proposal for the Comprehensive Revision
of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
Community Development Director Schumann reviewed the Request for Proposal
document. Schumann stated that there are numerous reasons to support a complete
revision of the current code. First, while the comprehensive plan presents the framework
for land use, it is the City's codes and ordinances which control actual development.
State law stipulates that zoning regulations are a critical tool for implementing the
Comprehensive Plan. In fact, outside of the seven-county metropolitan area, zoning
regulations control land use. As such, the Comprehensive Plan cites that "A priority
should be given to the review and updating of zoning regulations."
In addition to the need for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Schumann noted
that the Planning Commission and Council have often struggled with the outdated
ordinance, and have recommended amendments to make the document a more useful tool
for the public.
• At this time, Schumann stated that it is requested that the City move forward with the
process of completing a comprehensive update of the current zoning ordinance.
7
Planning Commission Minutes -12/02/08
Staff has prepared the RFP document for Commission's review and comment.
Schumann reviewed the "Considerations" portion of the RFP, which are items which the
consultant will need to address in the ordinance update, and the development of a detailed
scope of work and plan for public involvement.
The Scope of work includes five main components, including the Development of an
ordinance framework, Development of ordinance language, Statute and case law
compatibility analysis, Incorporation of cross-reference markers and construction
of web compatibility, Update of Official Zoning Map and Public and
policymaker process.
Schumann indicated that staff is prepared to issue the request immediately, pending
Planning Commission's comments on the RFP. Schumann stated that no formal action
was required.
Dragsten inquired about the case law component. Schumann clarified that this would be
a comparison of Monticello's codes at case law and State statute. Spartz inquired if
growth projections would be a part of the zoning revisions. Schumann stated that the
ordinance will not address growth projections, but rather the provisions for design
standards could have the impact of limiting growth by the standards the City applies.
Spartz commented that the growth objectives of the City perhaps could have been
addressed more comprehensively within the Comp Plan.
Schumann noted that at some point the Commission will be confronted with the issue of
the actual application its goals for higher end housing and amenities to development
proposals which do not meet those criteria. Those decisions will be difficult given the
slow economic climate.
Wojchouski inquired if the Building Department will be the main contact for this project.
Schumann responded it would be herself, but all City departments will be involved.
However, the Building Department will be involved in the actual involvement.
Wojchouski inquired if there is an estimated cost for the project. Schumann indicated
that she had funding assigned in both 2008 and 2009. She noted that the consultant will
have to have awell-thought out plan and budget, given constraints. Wojchouski noted
that sometimes staff are leaned on too much in these type of projects.
Grittman commented that the addition of a formal revision of the Zoning Map would be a
worthwhile addition, as changes based on the language would be likely.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE PROCEEDING WITH A
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) FOR A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED.
• MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
8
Planning Commission Minutes - 12/02/08
9. Transportation Plan Update, Design Advisory Team Update, Bertram Chain of Lakes Update
and Foreclosure Recover~pdate.
Schumann reported that it is expected that the draft Transportation Plan will come before
the Commission at a public hearing in February, allowing time to meet with Big Lake and
Becker representatives with regard to regional transportation planning. A public forum
had been held to present the main concepts of the plan. Schumann noted that the
Highway 25 corridor study would be presented separately.
Schumann stated that the City Council requested that the Design Advisory Team and
Planning Commission consider collapsing DAT's review responsibility to Planning
Commission due to overlap in responsibilities and to avoid duplication or slowdowns.
Gabler inquired whether the Commission should add another member to assist with those
items. Schumann stated that the Commission could consider that with the amendment.
She also noted that the City had held a public information workshop regarding the
Bertram Chain of Lakes, which was well-attended. The City and County continue to
move forward in their efforts to purchase the property for a future regional park. The
presentation made at the workshop is available online and is running on cable access.
Schumann reported that staff are working hard at foreclosure prevention and recovery
measures, including work on a federal grant through Minnesota Housing and setting up
networking connections with local lenders and realtors for resources and program
opportunities. Schumann explained the difficulty in trying to keep tabs on foreclosures,
due to the varying stages and facets of the process. More information on prevention and
recovery efforts will be provided as programs develop.
Chairman Dragsten noted that the Commission will also need to handle expiring
Commission terms in January.
10. Adjourn.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
9