Loading...
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