Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 12-02-2014MINUTES REGULAR MEETING — MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, December 2nd, 2014 - Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Present: Brad Fyle, Sam Burvee, Charlotte Gabler, Alan Heidemann Absent: None Others: Angela Schumann, Jeff O'Neill, Steve Grittman (NAC), Ron Hackenmueller, Lloyd Hilgart, Shibani Bisson (WSB), Jennifer Hildebrandt, (WSB), Manuel Jordan (Heritage Shade Tree Consultants), Brent and Lanette Aitchison, Amy Sauter (Lund Sauter, P.A.), Faith Appelquist (Tree Quality, Inc.) 1. Call to order Brad Fyle called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Citizen Comments None 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda • Attendance policy (Gabler) e Adjust January meeting date (Schumann) • Recognition of Commissioner Gabler (Schumann) 4. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes a. Special Meeting — October 27a', 2014 CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 27TH, 2014 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES. SAM BURVEE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3 -0. (Alan Heidemann did not vote.) b. Special Joint Meeting — October 27"', 2014 CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 27TH, 2014 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING MINUTES. SAM BURVEE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3 -0. (Alan Heidemann did not vote.) c. Regular Meeting — November 5U', 2014 CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO APPR.^rVE THE NOVEMBER 5TH, 2014 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. SAM BURVEE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3 -0. (Alan Heidemann did not vote.) 5. Public Hearing — Consideration of Amendments to Title 10 of Monticello City Code - Zoning Ordinance and Title 11 of Monticello City Code — Subdivision Ordinance, chapters and sections as follows. Applicant: City of Monticello a. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section 4(M) — Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Permit b. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 10 — Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control c. Monticello Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 5 — Design Standards Shibani Bisson explained that WSB reviewed City codes for compliance with state and federal requirements for the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit and recommended amendments to Monticello's zoning and subdivision ordinances. Bisson introduced Jennifer Hildebrandt, WSB's environmental compliance manager, who presented information about the General Permit, summarized the proposed amendments, and responded to questions. Hildebrandt explained that the MS4 General Permit is a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency mandate in place to treat non -point source pollution in Monticello since 2006. She identified some common pollutants in stormwater runoff and pointed out the importance of controlling runoff and erosion to avoid adverse impacts on area water quality. She noted that Monticello uses a regional ponding approach to manage runoff from infrastructure. Hildebrandt briefly discussed measures three, four and five of the six minimum control measures required of MS4 Permits. These measures, which deal with illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction site stormwater runoff control, and post construction storm water management, indicate how the city handles infrastructure within the jurisdictional watershed. Hildebrandt noted that the City had participated in numerous Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program ( SWPPP) and permit activities in 2014. SWPPP activities included prioritizing educational initiatives; revising ordinances illicit discharge, subdivision, and zoning ordinances; reviewing enforcement response procedures for consistency and inspection procedures for direction related to resolving non- compliance issues; developing standard operating procedures related to development; updating the Public Works program; and identifying staff training opportunities. Permit activities included completing inspections and mapping; and public education and outreach. Hildebrandt briefly summarized the following proposed ordinance amendments: Title 10 - Monticello Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 2 — Section 2A(M) Grading Drainage d Erosion Control Permit Requirements Revise title to read Gradin , Drainage, Stormwater tManaeement and Erosion Control Permit Requirements Title 10 - Monticello Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 4 - Section 4.10(A-H). Grading Drainage & Erosion Control 2 • Revise title to read Grading, Drainage, Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Permit Reguirements • Update purpose section to include statutory authorization • Add Best Management Practices (BMP) definitions • Update plan requirements to reflect state minimums • Reference City Design Manual • Add frequency of inspections to align with state minimum • Update maintenance requirements to align with state minimum • Clarify what "final stabilization" means for a construction site Title 11 — Subdivision Ordinance: Chapter 5 Design Standards Section 11 -5 -5: Erosion and Sediment Control, Section 11 -5 -6: Drainage • Insert reference in City Design Manual • Insert requirements related to locating within 1 -mile of impaired water to align with state minimum • Incorporate Minimal Impact Design Standards to design requirements (state standard) Title 7 — Chanter 10 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Ordinance Section 7 -10 -1: Purpose and Intent Section 7 -10 -8: Suspension of MS4 Access Section 7- 10 -14: Enforcement • Include suspension of MS4 access to include emergency cease and desist orders • Update to include a section for writing a violation if standards are not followed • Update to include what a written violation notice could include Gabler asked about design standards in place for large surface lots such as Home Depot and Target. Hildebrandt stated that design standards are established as a minimum and would most impact smaller land disturbance activities. She indicated that larger commercial developments often have separate review processes. Gabler asked about impaired alignment standards within the city. Hildebrandt noted that there are certain portions of the city in which drainage flows to an impaired water body. She indicated that specific information is available to view on the state website. Gabler wondered about MnDOT's role in conducting pond cleanups throughout the metro area. Hildebrandt said that MnDOT's district is an MS4 as well and, as such, is required to manage sediment appropriately when conducting pond cleanups. Gabler asked if Wright County was also subject to an MS4 program. Hildebrandt said that she suspected so but noted that the county and city's jurisdictions would not overlap. Brad Fyle asked if the city was required to have these rules or if it could just let the state oversee the program. Hildebrandt pointed out that, as of March 101, 2003, cities nationwide are required to have these standards in place in addition to state minimums that exist. Fyle wondered how the city could afford to monitor this program. Hildebrandt acknowledged that many MS4 communities were not prepared for an unfunded mandate. She indicated that, although funding mechanisms have been discussed at the state level, none has been established at this time. Fyle expressed concern about the effectiveness of the height of a silt fence at the Goodwill site. Gabler pointed out that it may keep groundwater from seeping underneath the building. Fyle also asked if the new ruling would affect residential areas. Hildebrandt confirmed that infiltration requirements would be a consideration as part of future residential construction. Hildebrandt pointed out that cities may choose to establish more restrictive requirements than those required by the state and noted that Monticello had not chosen to do so. Gabler asked if ordinance revisions would result in changes to the standard design plates. Hildebrandt indicated that such changes would more accurately reflect statewide practices. Gabler also asked about soil stabilization standards. Hildebrandt noted that the intent of the n standards is to allow the property owner to determine best practice for that property. Fyle opened the public hearing. As there were no comments, the public hearing was closed. Fyle asked Building Official Ron Hackenmueller if he'd be able to keep up with the new rules. Hackenmueller said that staff use a common sense inspection approach and work with contractors to let them know if there is a problem which may require taking other steps. He indicated that staff monitor erosion control as they do inspections. He also explained that the silt fence is a tool to prevent dirt from migrating onto sidewalks during excavation. SAM BURVEE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2014 -121, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 10 OF MONTICELLO CITY CODE - ZONING ORDINANCE AND TITLE 11 OF MONTICELLO CITY CODE — SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS AS FOLLOWS: A. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 2, SECTION 4(M) — GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PERMIT B. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 4, SECTION 10 — GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL C. MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 5 — DESIGN STANDARDS ALAN HEIDEMANN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. 6. Consideration of a request for appeal of Administrative Decision as related to application of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Chanter 4, Section 2 - Tree Protection Angela Schumann provided an overview of the process by which the Monticello Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, was asked to consider an appeal of an Administrative Decision made by the Community Development Department related to the application of zoning regulations pertaining to tree protection, Chapter 4, Section 2 — Tree Protection. 4 Schumann indicated that the appeal specifically concerns the determination that the subject tree, a silver maple located at the property line between 612 West 4th Street and the recently approved Vine Street Place plat, proposed by Benoit Properties, LLC, does not meet the 36" Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) measurement required for consideration as a "specimen tree99 as defined by the Monticello zoning ordinance. A specimen tree is defined as "any canopy tree with a DBH of 36 inches or more and any understory or ornamental tree with a DBH of 10 inches or more that is not exempted as a specimen tree by this ordinance ". Chapter 4.2 regulations for tree protection, unless otherwise exempted, are applicable to those trees considered as a "specimen tree ". Schumann indicated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 7th, 2014 to consider the preliminary plat of Vine Street Place and the variance request related to lot access. During the hearing, the property owners at 612 W. 4th Street, Brent and Lanette Aitchison, noted the presence of a large tree at the rear of their property, at or near the property line. The Planning Commission added a condition relating to considerations for tree protection to their resolution recommending approval of the plat and approval of the variance. Schumann noted that the City Council reviewed the preliminary and final plat on August 11 ffi, 2014. The presence of the tree was again noted as a concern by the Aitchisons during discussion on the plat. The approval condition relating to tree protection was carried forward in the City Council resolution. The applicant was asked to define the location and size of the tree and recommend tree protection measures in satisfaction of the required condition of approval. Benoit Properties, LLC consulted with Delwyn Colwill, a certified arborist with Tri- County Tree Service. Colwill measured the tree at 34" and provided recommended tree protection measures. The Aitchisons also hired an arborist to evaluate the tree. Certified master arborist Faith Appelquist of Tree Quality Inc. measured the tree at 38" DBH and prepared a tree protection plan. Appelquist's report was forwarded to the City by the Aitchison's attorney. In response to Appelquist's evaluation of the size of the tree, the City Attorney recommended that the City obtain an independent measurement of DBH for purposes of applying the ordinance. Manuel Jordan, of Heritage Shade Tree Consultants, was engaged by the City to measure the subject tree and explain the methodology of the measurement. His analysis yielded a measurement result of 34" DBH. Northwest Associated Consultants, the City's consulting planner, reviewed this analysis as related to the zoning ordinance and concurred. The Community Development Department's determination is based on these analyses. Schumann noted that the zoning ordinance does not define DBH. She pointed out that the appeal information provided by the Aitchisons, as well as the sources cited by 5 both Heritage Shade Tree Consulting and NAC, illustrate that measurement of DBH is variable and can depend greatly on the tree being measured. Brent and Lanette Aitchison, 612 W. 4b Street introduced themselves and their representatives Amy Sauter and Faith Appelquist. Amy Sauter stated that the primary issue is the method by which Jordan measured the tree. She suggested that DBH is measured at four and a half feet from the ground. She stated that Jordan had measured the narrowest part of the tree below the four and a half foot line using a methodology consistent with trees that have a fork or a branch at four and a half feet. She suggested that the subject tree does not have a fork or a branch at four and a half feet. Sauter also stated that Jordan had noted a wound or an injury where a branch had been removed. She pointed out that the appeal cited several sources which state that a measurement should be taken slightly above a wound located at the four and a half foot mark. Sauter asked that Jordan re- measure the tree using methodology for a tree that has a defect at four and a half feet. She suggested the tree would measure 36" and qualify for specimen tree status under the ordinance if it were measured properly. Heidemann inquired how the tree was measure by Appelquist. Appelquist noted that she'd used a forestry supply diameter tape measure which is pulled around the tree to automatically calculate diameter. Commissioner Gabler inquired about determining diameter breast height. Appelquist explained that DBH is commonly used forestry term which means diameter at standard height. She acknowledged that DBH is four and a half feet as a general rule of thumb. Gabler asked Schumann how specimen trees came to be defined as 36 ". Schumann said that the Planning Commission had approved the 36" as part of the adoption of the tree protection ordinance, more than likely at 36" as it represented a tree of significant size. Gabler wondered if, in future, it might be more accommodating to flex the size requirement or establish a range of sizes for a specimen tree. Appelquist suggested that the fork that had been removed had created the defect at four and a half feet. She noted that there are many forks above the injury. Gabler asked if a tree can swell or contract a bit depending on the season. Appelquist indicated that swelling would not really affect the measure of a tree. Patrick Benoit, of Benoit Properties, introduced himself as the developer on this project. He stated that he has tried to work with the Aitchisons from the beginning. He pointed out that roughly 40% of the tree is on his side of the property line. He suggested that he shares the concern that this tree may die during a construction phase if not treated with the utmost care. He pointed out that his arborist had prepared tree protection plans involving fencing and mulching at the base of the tree and into the construction area. C9i Gabler asked if the tree affected construction on the lot. Benoit indicated that the tree canopy goes further out into the property and covers some of the roofline. Appelquist said the building would impact more than 25% of the canopy. Benoit noted that state statute allows him to trim the canopy over his property and his arborist prepared a plan to carefully trim the tree so that it looks aesthetically pleasing and would ensure continued growth. Gabler wondered if the tree could be trimmed to address everyone's concerns. She asked about potential harm to the tree as a result of pruning. Appelquist pointed out that about 25% of a mature tree canopy can be pruned at any one time and suggested that pruning the tree to the property line would exceed the tree's ability to recover. Benoit pointed out that his plan meets setback requirements of 12 feet from the base of the tree into the property. He indicated, however, that Aitchison's arborist thinks the setback should extend 10 -12 additional feet into the canopy. Heidemann asked if the 12 foot extension would also be required of a specimen tree. Schumann reported that it would according to, General Requirement 3, "The area within the dripline of any specimen tree shall not be subject to paving or soil compaction greater than 10% of the total area within the dripiine or within 12 feet of the tree trunk." Commissioner Burvee asked Mr. Benoit to explain his aborist's measurement. Pat Benoit indicated that his arborist had come to the same 34" measurement. Mr. Manuel Jordan confirmed that he'd been hired by the City to measure the tree. He provided a detailed explanation of tree biology including a discussion of the points at which branch and trunk tissue meet. The outward expression of where those two sets of tissue meet is called the branch bark ridge, which helps determine where the branch originates. As new trunk grows around, swelling occurs where the different sets of tissue meet. There are different ways of measuring because of swellings that happen either from a defect or for some other reason. In this case, the swellings come from branches. Jordan indicated that the measurement was taken where those swellings stop and where the true trunk originates. As had been mentioned before, measurement of the whole fork is not taken because there would be an overinflated number. The same thing happens if you don't look at where the branches start at those swellings. The swellings are part of branch tissue therefore the lowest point below those swellings is where the true representation of the trunk is. Jordan stated that any measurement taken above that is an overinflation due to different sets of tissue meeting up. He noted examples in the report showcases measuring at narrowest point below four and a half feet when you have multiple forks. Schumann noted that, although the commission must make a determination based on the existing ordinance, it would be useful to further discuss the tree protection ordinance at a future meeting. 7 Heidemann noted that at 36 ", the ordinance related to dripline is a factor and asked how the size of the tree affects the dripline. Jordan said that dripline is normally considered the branch that reaches farthest from the tree. Benoit indicated that the Aitchisons don't want anything excavated up to that point because they are worried about the dripline. Benoit said that such conditions would not be acceptable as it would shut down his project. Gabler asked if anything could be flipped to reduce the impact on the roofline. Benoit said that the plan had been shifted it further to the south to accommodate more setback. Gabler suggested tabling the discussion because she felt that many of the issues seemed to hinge upon information that had not yet been clarified. The other commissioners indicated that they were ready to take action on the issue. Fyle stated that he felt obligated to go by whatever the arborist hired by the city says. Hilgart suggested that Benoit would be responsible for mitigation should something happen to the tree if it were determined to be a specimen tree. Schumann confirmed that the city could enforce mitigation measures in ordinance if the tree was determined to be a specimen tree. BRAD FYLE MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL AND AFFIRM THE DETERMINATION BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT THAT MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 4, SECTION 2 - TREE PROTECTION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE SUBJECT TREE, BASED ON FINDINGS AS FOLLOWS: A. DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT IS A VARIABLE MEASUREMENT BASED ON CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TREE BEING MEASURED FOR ORDINANCE. B. THE SUBJECT TREE HAS BEEN MEASURED AT 34" DIAMETER BREAST HEIGHT BY THE CITY OF MONTICELLO'S CONSULTING ARBORIST, USING COMMONLY ACCEPTED AND PRACTICED METHODOLOGY. C. THE DETERMINATION BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT THAT THE TREE IS NOT A SPECIMEN TREE IS REASONABLE AND SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD. SAM BURVEE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3 -1 WITH CHARLOTTE GABLER VOTING IN DISSENT. 7. Consideration of recommendation regardiniz 2015 Planninp, Commission Appointments H The Planning Commission conducted a special meeting just prior to its regular December meeting to interview and consider three candidates for the positions vacated by Grant Sala and Sam Burvee. Each term was due to expire at the end of 2014. SAM BURVEE MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPOINTMENT OF SAM MURDOFF AND LINDA BUCHMANN TO THREE YEAR TERMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ALAN HEIDEMANN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. Fyle confirmed with Schumann that the Planning Commission would accept applications to interview for the position to be vacated by Gabler who had been elected to serve on the City Council. 8. Added Items • Attendance Policy (Gabler) — Gabler recommended that the Planning Commission establish an attendance policy similar to policies established for the Parks Commission and the IEDC. Schumann agreed with the need for some consistency among commission _requirements especially in terns of attendance and duties of the chair. She pointed out that the Parks Commission limits absences to 3 meetings per year and the IEDC requires attendance at 75% of meetings a year. Gabler indicated a preference for requiring attendance within a range of 70 -75% of meetings a year. Sam Burvee suggested reviewing the full Planning Commission ordinance for relevance. Schumann agreed to bring recommendations for consideration to the upcoming meeting. • Adjust January Meeting Date (Schumann) — Schumann recommended that the January Planning Commission meeting be rescheduled until after the City Council meets to ratify the new commissioner appointments. ALAN HEIDEMANN MOVED TO RESCHEDULE THE JANUARY PLANNING COMMISSION TO 6 PM ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13TH, 2015. SAM BURVEE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. • Recognition of Commissioner Gabler (Schumann) — Schumann thanked Gabler her for years of service as a Planning Commissioner. 9. Adiournment ALAN HEIDEMANN MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:37 P.M. SAM BURVEE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. Recorder: Kerry Burri Approved: J uary s a Attest: Development Director E