Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 08-04-2009MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION August 4th, 2009 6:00 PM — Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center 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 quorum of the Commission, noting the absence of Commissioner Hilgart and the presence of Council liaison Wojchouski. 2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of July7th, 2009 and the special meeting minutes of July 21st, 2009. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 7th AND THE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 21st, 2009. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5 -0. Citizen Comments. NONE. 4. Consideration of adding items to the a eg nda. Commissioner Gabler asked for an update on the M & I Bank project and an update on Mn/DOT's construction project. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory storage building in a mobile home park, zoned R -4, Mobile Home Park District. Applicant: Kiellberg s, Inc Planner Grittman presented the report, stating that Kjellberg's Incorporated is seeking approval for a conditional use permit for an accessory storage building. Grittman illustrated an aerial image of the site location. Grittman noted that the accessory building was built a few years previous, without the proper zoning or building permits. The applicant and the City have been in negotiations regarding the proper process since that time. At this time, the applicant has submitted an Planning Commission Minutes — 08/04/09 application for conditional use permit. The zoning ordinance does allow for conditional use permits for these types of structures under certain conditions. Grittman outlined these conditions as follows: 1. If associated with any open storage, the storage area is screened from surrounding mobile home units. 2. The storage area is surfaced to control dust and drainage. 3. The storage area and building(s) are for the sole use of the residents of the mobile home park and are not available for use by non - residents. Staff had an opportunity to talk with the applicant and has confirmed that the structure is for the use of the residents of the mobile home park and maintenance of the park. In regard to the second condition, the outdoor storage area is surfaced with a class five material. Grittman noted that it is likely that the storage itself is probably not legal, except for this conditional use permit. In regard to condition one, staff is recommending that the applicant add a solid fence or solid shrub plantings along the south and west side of the property, which are visible from residential units. The applicant has indicated that he believes that the existing landscaping meets the condition. Grittman noted that the applicant has not provided a landscape plan that illustrates how the existing landscaping meets the requirements. It would be staff s recommendation that this plan be provided in order to meet the ordinance requirements. Grittman outlined the other Conditions listed in Exhibit Z. Staff recommends as part of any approval that any landscaping be provided by October 31 s` of this year, and that any fencing proposed is required to receive the proper permits. At this time it is not known whether the applicant will propose any fencing. Grittman also stated that the building is subject to the complete review and inspection as required by the Building Department. Finally, the applicant is required to make all corrections as required by the Building Department in a timely manner. The applicant has indicated that the building was inspected by the Fire Department. Staff s recommendation within the report is to table. The applicant has provided an updated aerial image, so the Planning Commission has the option to table for landscaping plan, or rely on staff to review as part of a conditional recommendation. Commissioner Gabler asked if the outdoor storage area is acceptable once the permit is issued. Grittman confirmed. Gabler inquired if they are required to put in parking in front of the office area. Grittman stated that the parking area is paved. Gabler asked if it is required to be paved. Grittman stated that because it is not a commercial parking area, it is most likely not required by code. Commissioner Spartz stated that the building had passed fire code compliance and inquired whether fire code or building code has priority in terms of review. Grittman stated that there is no priority, both are completely applicable. Spartz asked if in the zoning ordinance can be changed to require a building permit prior to fire code compliance. Grittman explained that it is typical that the applicant applies for building permit and the fire code review comes in as part of that review. Spartz stated that he is looking to codify the process. Grittman stated that the problem here is that the applicant didn't get any review. Grittman stated that under Planning Commission Minutes — 08/04/09 normal circumstances, the applicant applies for the appropriate zoning approval, then the building permit, of which a fire code compliance review is completed. Wojchouski inquired if something had been proposed earlier by the applicant. Schumann indicated that Mr. Kjellberg had previously applied for a detached accessory structure, which was denied by the City Council. Spartz inquired whether the applicant was present at the meeting. Grittman responded that the applicant did not indicate whether they planned to be present. Dragsten stated that he had reviewed the site and the screening seemed to be sufficient to the highway side. He noted that the south side is completely open, but that side faces the sales area. Wojchouski inquired if the applicant applied or the City brought this item forward. Grittman confirmed that Kjellberg's submitted the application. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Spartz asked if the applicant is agreeable to the stated conditions. Grittman responded that the applicant indicated during the meeting with staff that they would be preparing a landscaping plan, although given their comments, he is unsure how intensive that plan will be. Spartz commented that as a matter of respect, it would be advisable for the applicant to appear before the Commission so that questions may be asked and answered. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO CONTINUE ACTION ON THE KJELLBERG'S INCORPORATED REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THE SEPTEMBER MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WITH A SPECIFIC REQUEST TO BE FORWARDED TO THE APPLICANT THAT THEY APPEAR AT THE CONTINUED HEARING. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0. 6. Consideration of a request for extension of Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a multi- tenant commercial development in a B -3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: Cornerstone /DOJO LLC Community Development Director Schumann presented the report, stating that the applicant has requested an extension of their Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development. The site is a commercial multi -tenant plan, located just off of Highway 25. The CUP was approved in 2008 and will expire on August 11th. The extension request is for one year term and is being made due to current economic conditions. Staff is recommending approval of the one -year extension. Commissioner Dragsten inquired if the applicants have any plans to begin, or are they still looking for tenants. Schumann indicated that the applicants are searching for tenants at this time. Planning Commission Minutes — 08/04/09 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION OF THE AUGUST 11TH, 2008 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A MULTI- TENANT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN A B -3 (HIGHWAY BUSINESS) DISTRICT FOR CORNERSTONE/DOJO LLC, WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE EXTENSION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0. Consideration to review an update regarding the amendment of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance for Off - Street Parking. Planner Grittman reviewed the staff report for the Off - Street Parking item. Grittman explained that the Planning Commission and City Council had taken part in a joint workshop to discuss the City's ordinance related to passenger and recreational vehicle parking. Grittman reported that this session was very productive. The format of the meeting was to determine expectations for parking on residential properties, including storage and other restrictions. The group worked through typical residential properties piece by piece. The group reviewed incrementally the yard spaces and surface types in relationship to vehicle storage and parking. Staff has put together a graphic that illustrates the summary of the discussion. Planner Grittman referred to the illustration, stating that the group also defined some terms that had not been included in the ordinance, adding to clarity of the proposed amendment. Staff has not written the information into code language at this point, as it was intended that the Planning Commission have an opportunity to review the graphic and the updated language and respond with comments. The next step will be to prepare a final graphic and preparation of actual code language. Commissioner Voight inquired about how this piece will fit into the overall code after revision. He commented that this graphic should be interactive, allowing people to click on the graphic and get the full definition. Voight also commented that he thought the group had defined the small area in the back of a forward -set garage as a side yard. Planner Grittman responded that that was correct, there did seem to be a consensus that it should be defined as side yard. However, as the group went on in their discussion, it was made clear through the comments made that this area was in fact considered part of the rear yard. So although it was labeled side yard, the group treated the area as rear yard in terms of what could be parked or stored there. Voight indicated that the area adjacent to the driveway that goes into the side yard should perhaps not be paved. This is labeled "Section B ". Perhaps instead it could just be surfaced. He stated that he doesn't necessarily have strong feelings one way or the other, but as this area may only be used for occasional parking, paving may not be the best option. Grittman stated that in fact, the discussion did diverge a bit on that issue. The current language states that it should be paved. During the workshop discussion, there Planning Commission Minutes — 08/04/09 was some opinion that if used for recreational vehicles, it could just be surfaced. For vehicle parking, it is required to be surfaced. Commissioner Gabler inquired if paving versus surfacing impacts storm water issues. Grittman stated that most surfacing materials, such as Class 5 is almost like pavement in terms of storm water management. Gabler suggested that staff look at paving requirements in relationship to storm water for further ordinance updates. Gabler stated that she did not have a preference on whether that area should be paved or surfaced. Grittman stated that you are not allowed to park vehicles in the rear yard unless directly in front of a garage in the rear yard. Grittman pointed out that in some cases, those situations do require variances. Spartz inquired if there are areas in the community have neither a garage driveway. Building Official Anderson stated that most properties have either a garage and /or a driveway. Dragsten asked to clarify the rear yard area referred to by Commissioner Voight. Grittman confirmed that in that area, residents could store recreational vehicles without surfacing. Gabler suggested that perhaps that area should be identified separately. Gabler asked if the passenger and recreational vehicles had been defined. Grittman stated that it is defined in the recommendation. Voight noted that language for commercial vehicles has also been included and he generally liked that language. Voight noted the dimension requirements included and inquired if the area for ladders on a vehicle would be included in the height dimension. Grittman stated that you would measure to the top of the structure, so you would measure the racks, but not the equipment on the racks. Grittman stated that 8.5 feet is the maximum width allowed without separate license on a roadway. Grittman stated that the idea was to present some ideas for commercial, but allow the Commission the ability to consider those regulations separately from the passenger and recreational vehicles. There remain questions on the types of small commercial vehicles should be allowed in residential areas. Wojchouski asked about the reference to State statutes included in the report. Grittman answered that there are several State statutes that relate to vehicle licensing. She inquired if the blue highlighted language comes directly from State regulations. Grittman responded that the weight categories come right from the State. However, the blue language is as proposed by staff. Wojchouski asked if the State statutel68 defines passenger vehicles, does it also include a definition for recreational and commercial vehicles. Grittman stated that the statute is unclear in that regard. Wojchouski indicated that her point is that perhaps using the State language or the definitions used commonly by other cities might provide some consistency. Grittman stated that most cities use the weight criteria. However, Wright County has been reluctant to enforce the ordinance using that standard, which is why staff added the dimensional criteria in addition. Grittman said that it is surprising Wright County doesn't want to enforce as it comes right from State law. Grittman stated that part of the problem Planning Commission Minutes — 08/04/09 for them is trying to ascertain the weight of the vehicle from public right of way. So probable cause and right to enter property comes into play. So using both standards may help with the ability to enforce. The problem with using license requirements is that depending who does the licensing, there could be a problem. Wojchouski stated that maybe the best idea would be to review a series of examples in order to evaluate this issue properly. Spartz asked if a commercial vehicles fits within the dimensions, but is 10,000 pounds, would it not be allowed to be parked in the driveway. Grittman confirmed that under the current ordinance, that would be correct. Wojchouski stated that she recalled there was some discussion that the 9,000 pound weight limit is out of date and should be moved to 12,000 pounds. Grittman stated that these discussions were the reason staff suggested passing an ordinance that deals with the items everyone seemed to agree on, that being passenger and recreational vehicles, and then deal with commercial vehicles later. Grittman stated that the next step will be to put this into ordinance format for the Commission's review. Schumann commented that it would be good to review the language prior to calling for public hearing to make sure it reads as desired. She also suggested that the Building Department review it from an inspection and enforcement perspective to make sure that it is going to work practically. 8. Consideration to review possible adjustment of the September Planning Commission regular meeting date. Schumann noted that due to school open house dates and times, it may be that the Commission would like to consider shifting the regular date and time of the meeting. Schumann indicated that the off - street parking item and the Kjellberg item would be coming back in September. Spartz inquired if it could be moved to 7:00 PM. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO MOVE THE REGULAR SEPTEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO 7:00 PM. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0. 9. Consideration to set regular meeting dates for the Monticello Zoning Ordinance Revision Steering Committee. Community Development Director Schumann reported that MFRA has put together information on their proposed diagnostic proposed for the ordinance, which provides better information on the timelines and structure of the zoning ordinance revision process. The proposal includes work by a steering committee including all five Planning Commissioners. They would need to meet regularly. Staff would recommend using the second regular meeting of the Planning Commission, which occurs on the third Tuesday of each month, for those Steering Committee meetings. They could be moved earlier or later depending on the Commission's desires. The Commissioner's requested that those Planning Commission Minutes — 08/04/09 meetings be held at 5:00 PM. Schumann noted that Council member Wojchouski and Posusta would be serving as the Council representatives on the Steering Committee. Schumann confirmed that the Steering Committee meetings will then be held regularly on that third Tuesday of each month. 10. Community Development Director's Update. Schumann reported that the Department of Natural Resources local grant program had over $16 million in requests, for which they only had just over $266,000. They awarded one grant, which went in total to the Bertram Chain of Lakes project. Dragsten inquired what this funding would be used for. Schumann responded that it would be used to purchase the next segment in the phased plan, but has to be used in tandem with other funding sources, due to the fact that this amount alone is not enough to make the next purchase. Voight commented that FiberNet's construction contractor, MP Nexlevel, has been getting positive marks in terms of their work as compared to the work completed previously by TDS. Dragsten asked about mainline construction timelines. Schumann reported that MP Nexlevel would be trying to get as much of the City completed this construction season as possible. She noted that much more information can be found on the City's website www.fibemetmonticello.com. Dragsten asked if FiberNet is a separate from the City. Schumann stated that it is an enterprise of the City. So although it operates as an individual entity, it is part of the City. Gabler inquired whether it is known whether M & I Bank plans to construct this year. Schumann stated that she would note that item, as their CUP is also likely to expire soon. Gabler also noted that Mn/DOT has moved in trailers near CSAH 18 and Hart Boulevard as part of the bridge replacement on I -94. 11. Adiourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0. ecord