Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 10-06-2009MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION October 6th, 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 full quorum of the commission present, as well as Council liaison Wojchouski. 2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of August 4`h Chairman Dragsten noted that the minutes of August had not yet been provided. As minutes for the September 15` and 22 "d were not provided in the packet, the Commission delayed approval to the November meeting. Citizen Comments. NONE. 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. NONE. 5. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for amendment to Planned Unit Development to allow application of R -1 Zoning District Standards in an R -IA Zoning District. Applicant: Pearson, Robert Planner Grittman presented the staff report, stating that the applicant is requesting modification of development standard as they apply to three lots within the Hillside Farms 4`h Addition. The property was originally developed as R -lA, due to the history of the property, the area had begun platting under the R -1 designation when the City adopted the R -lA ordinance for high amenity sites, which included this site. This site was allowed to continue platting as R -1 lots, but with the requirement to meet R -lA design standards. Subsequently, that PUD has been amended to allow some modifications to the design standards for two stories and other home designs. The market for higher end homes slowed considerably, so Planning Commission Minutes — 10/06/09 that the applicant is now seeking to allow base R -1 standards to three lots due to market conditions. Grittman explained that the City pursued the R -1 A ordinance in order to support the City's goals of providing move -up housing. The idea was to apply the higher design standards to higher amenity property. This included not only Hillside Farms, but other properties as well. The goal for higher end housing has also been noted in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Grittman indicated that the issue for the City will be how tightly the City wants to adhere to R -1 A standards where they are already in place, or whether it will consider modifications in order to possible regenerate some level of single - family housing. This is a policy question for the City. So although this may be the first request for such modifications, the request has to be considered in terms of the City's broader long -range goals, including those referenced in the Comprehensive Plan. Planner Grittman stated that the Commission has a variety of options to consider, which include adoption of the proposed R -1 standards as requested by the applicant, or consideration of limited modifications to the R -lA as an intermediate option. Staff discussed with the developer whether there are ways for pursuing step -up housing but still accommodating some flexibility. For example, maintaining a larger footprint, but allowing for less finished square footage. Another option is to allow smaller square footage, but maintain strict architectural design standards. Those are not the applicants, request, but ideas brought forward by staff. Finally, the Commission obviously has the option of retaining the requirements currently in place. Grittman explained that this is a pure policy decision for the Planning Commission, and as such, staff does not have a clear recommendation for the Commission. Staff has instead provided an analysis that lays out options and potential range of impacts. Commissioner Voight inquired if these are the last three vacant lots in the subdivision. Grittman stated that they are not. Voight inquired why the applicant is seeking to modify only these three lots. Grittman noted that the applicant is present and can respond, but it is likely that the ideas is that as these three lots back up to Fenning which will become a more heavily traveled road, these may be an idea area for more moderate housing than other lots interior to the development. Commissioner Hilgart asked if the R -lA prohibits R -IA housing. Grittman stated that technically the ordinance allows split, but the combination of design requirements makes achieving a split design impractical. Hilgart commented that he recalled that in some circumstances the Commission had changes requirements to prohibit splits. Grittman stated that requirements in other development had also been amended, and may have in fact prohibited splits as compromises. Schumann indicated that the most recent amendment to Hillside Farm, which allowed for a garage - forward design, the Commission prohibited split entry design on those lots. There was s similar decision on an amendment in Carlisle Village. Voight inquired what the benefit of reducing finished square footage, but not overall square footage would be. Grittman replied that if one of the applicant's goals is to reduce the price point for homes, one of the ways to do so would be to maintain the required base footprint Planning Commission Minutes — 10/06/09 size, but allow for less finished square footage in the interior, thereby reducing the overall price of the home on the market. Someone could then move into a lower priced home initially, but the home would retain the potential for step -up status. Grittman stated that it may not necessarily reduce the cost substantially. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Robert Pearson, 13005 Main Street, Rogers, addressed the Commission. Pearson stated that the third and fourth additions were started in February of 2007. At that time, there was an arrangement with Keyland to purchase all of the lots in those phases. Keyland built all of the homes with the exception of 1 in the first and second addition. Right at the time the roads and sewer were placed in third and fourth, Keyland stated that they would not be purchasing the lots in those additions. Pearson stated that Hillside Third consists of 31 single - family residential lots. He illustrated the layout of the plat of Hillside Farms. He explained they anticipated a two year hold on all of the available lots in third and fourth. In two years, they have sold only 1 lot in either third or fourth addition. In short, the economic circumstances are dire in the housing market. Pearson stated that for those in the construction trade, things are very difficult, which snowballed to the rest of the economy. With the tightening of employment and income, credit has tightened and it is very difficult to qualify for a loan, which in turn affects the ability to qualify for a larger home. Referring to the layout of the plat, on average, the lots are about 14,700 square feet. Pearson also noted that the grading plan in the area of the three lots lends themselves to smaller homes. He briefly discussed the building types for the third addition lots. Generally, people prefer walk -outs, but to allow for proper drainage, some of the lots are look -outs. Pearson also discussed the idea that it is most likely that those in the market for a home will be looking for smaller, greener homes. People will be moving from larger homes to smaller, more open homes. People will also be thinking about how much it costs to commute. He noted that it is difficult to talk with builders about building in Monticello and even more difficult when discussing the requirements. He explained that the three lots chosen seem to best fit smaller homes, while maintaining architectural control. The goal is simply to get something moving in the community. Pearson stated that he has always approached developing with a municipality as a partnership. He stated that from a practicality standpoint, he cannot change the lots. From a marketing standpoint, Pearson suggested that can do some marketing of these three lots with a bit of flexibility. He indicated that given the current market, he believes he will be marketing to those who already live in the community; they would most likely not be coming from outside the community. Pearson summarized that the purpose of making the request was to have an open discussion with the Commission. Commissioner Hilgart commented that everyone if experiencing the same circumstances. He noted that there have been only 7 permits within the City this year. Hilgart noted that two Planning Commission Minutes — 10/06/09 permits were pulled for Hillside Farms this year. He stated that he is not willing to go to the R -1 standard, due to concern about the quality of the homes already in the neighborhood. Hilgart also noted that he would also not want to see the requirement for the third stall of the garage removed. Pearson noted that he had approached the builder of the two homes in Hillside Farms. That builder is unwilling to buy and build on any additional lots. Pearson stated that he would agree that the requirement for three stalls would stay. Commissioner Spartz stated that he would echo some of Commissioner Hilgart's. He stated that he would need more specifics on architectural standards before considering reductions in other areas. Commissioner Gabler stated that she would entertain some flexibility if the architectural controls were maintained. She agreed that she has concerns about the lots in relationship to the balance of the neighborhood. Pearson noted that with a few months more, it is likely that he would not have moved forward with lot developments on thirds and fourth. He commented that these three lots were specifically chosen due to the fact that the would seem to have the least impact on the balance of the development. He commented again that builders just do not want to develop under the R -lA standards. Pearson stated that he personally believes that eventually the R -1 A zoning will go away just because of where the housing market is going. Voight responded that Pearson makes a valid point in that families may be looking to downsize. However, the discussions have been that people will still expect amenities. The aesthetics and architectural quality will be a high priority, although 200 square feet less may not be. He stated that it is important to him to look out for those who have already built and purchased in the development. Voight noted that the City spent a lot of time working on the Comprehensive Plan and its goals, so it is unlikely to him that the City will just throw out those objectives. Pearson stated that he agrees with the Commission on the architectural quality. He stated that he would want to review all of the building plans to ensure that they meet a certain standard. Pearson also commented on the layout of the plat. He explained that the two through streets has hindered the development of a true neighborhood feeling. He also noted that there is no trail connection to the city and the sidewalks stop at the end of the plat. These two items have also negatively impacted the development. Chairman Dragsten suggested that it sounds as if Pearson and the Commission are generally agreement in coming to some consensus on maintaining design standards, but perhaps finding some common ground on flexibility in other areas. Pearson responded that perhaps the best idea would be to table the discussion to allow him time to talk with builders about design examples for the Commission to review in relationship to the request. Dragsten inquired if Pearson has any other developments. Pearson stated that he did not. Planning Commission Minutes — 10/06/09 Dragsten commented that most of the suburbs are only doing about 10 -20% of what they were doing at their high points. Pearson agreed, stating that the further one goes out, the lower the percentage. Pearson commented again that if there is a market in Monticello, it will come from within and it will be a long time before it comes from outside the community. Spartz asked Pearson to point out again the lots in question to be clear for the public. Dragsten noted that RW Land Holdings out of Princeton submitted a letter for the record. They requested that he City maintain the R -lA Zoning. RW Land Holdings owns the property directly to the north of the property. Commissioner Gabler stated that she would like to table with the request that Mr. Pearson come in and discuss the options for amendment further. Spartz stated that some idea may work. In terns of giving Mr. Pearson direction, he is unsure whether the Commission should allow a split -entry if any amendment is allowed. He stated that his primary concern will be maintaining architectural quality. Hilgart stated that he would be less willing to budget on the square footage, but depending on the style of the home, he would be willing to decrease the finished square footage requirement. Hilgart stated that he is surprised that no one from the neighborhood is present to comment. Hilgart noted that the current ordinance allows splits in other areas outside of the 7 lots recently amended. Schumann confirmed that as long as the homes meet all of the other design standards, that would be correct. Voight stated that he agrees that it would be nice to work with the applicant, but whatever the outcome is, it is important to maintain the feel of the neighborhood. Chairman Dragsten agreed and stated that he would support Commissioner Gabler's idea of meeting with the applicant to provide additional direction. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO TABLE ACTION ON THE REQUEST, WITH A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE APPLICANT MEET WITH MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AND STAFF TO DISCUSS OPTIONS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5 -0,. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to Chapter 3, Section 5 of Monticello Zoning Ordinance relating to off - street parking and storage on residential property. Applicant: City of Monticello Planner Grittman presented an update regarding the proposed amendment to the off - street parking ordinance. He noted that discussions had occurred over the last few months on this item. The intent of the amendment is to consolidate the various standards that occur in different places in the current ordinance, and clarify the regulations to be more easily interpreted by staff, official and property owners. Grittman explained that the majority of the ordinance was developed in response to comments provide at a joint Planning Commission and City Council workshop. Grittman referred to a Planning Commission Minutes — 10/06/09 graphic and table that will be incorporated into the ordinance which outlines where particular types of vehicles can be parked or stored, how many can be parked or stored and the types of surfacing required. Some minor adjustments have been made in response to comments provided at the last Planning Commission meeting. One of these relates to setbacks in PZ districts. hi the PZM district, which is most often developed as a commercial district, it has been common to allow parking in the front yard. As such, it is proposed that parking setbacks for the PZR only and not the PZM. Schumann also noted that the ordinance now refers to the Public Nuisance code for refuse and junk vehicles rather than having its own language. This is to maintain consistency between the two codes. Chairman Dragsten inquired about the item that read "under no circumstances shall large commercial vehicles be parked in residential districts ". Grittman replied that this is a new provision that refers back to the definition of "large commercial vehicles ", which is also new. Grittman pointed out that the ordinance has been presented in two pieces. The ordinance proposed includes language agreed on in principle by the Commission and Council for passenger and recreational vehicles and also makes suggestions for definitions and regulations pertaining to commercial vehicles. Grittman explained that the proposed language defines large commercial vehicles as those over 13,00 pounds and /or over dimension of 8 feet in height, 8.5 feet in width and 22 feet in length, regardless of commercial status or message. Gabler asked in one more item could be added that discusses the dimensional requirements. Grittman answered that because the city has not yet finally recommended regulations for commercial vehicles, that column wasn't added. Dragsten pointed out that the definitions section also defines those. Grittman stated that the Commission will want to make recommendations on the commercial vehicles in order to more clearly define those prohibitions and allowances. Grittman again noted that the Council and Commission had not reached a consensus on the commercial vehicles regulations, these are just staff's recommendations for your review. Hilgart inquired if 1 -ton vehicles would fit the small vehicle definition. Grittman stated that it would most likely fit in the passenger vehicle definition. Wojchouski inquired if there is anything prohibiting the Commission from discussing the commercial designations. Grittman responded that the Commission could in fact discuss these recommendations and provide those recommendations to the Council. Voight commented that he is frustrated with the commercial vehicle regulations, or lack thereof. He indicated that he likes the definitions provided for commercial vehicles. He recommended that all small commercial vehicles should be treated just as passenger vehicles. Voight inquired if the emergency vehicle clause was included in these proposed regulations. Grittman stated that the emergency vehicle clause was included in past discussions, but no specific exemption was provided here. Schumann stated that she believed that item went Planning Commission Minutes — 10/06/09 forward with the amendment proposed 2 years ago, but was denied by the Council. In looking through the current ordinance, it does not appear. Grittman recommended adopting what you can agree to, then come back to review those you need to discuss further. He suggested making two motions, one recommending language for passenger and recreational vehicle regulations, and a second motion for the commercial vehicles. In that way, the whole item would not fail. Wojchouski agreed with that approach, supporting Voight's recommendation that small commercial vehicles be treated similarly to passenger vehicles. Grittman also responded to Commissioner Gabler's question, stating that a reference to the definitions also be added to the table. Commissioner Hilgart stated that under the passenger vehicle definition it discusses setting the weight limit at 9,000 pounds. However, under the small commercial vehicle definition, it is a vehicle 9,000 — 13,000. He stated that the two regulations should be consistent. Grittman answered that he pulled these definitions straight from the State regulations. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Dan Lemm, 11830 Cameron Avenue, addressed the Commission. Lemm agreed with there is no vehicle that is legal to drive that is over 8.5 in width. He stated that he believes this ordinance is still too grey. He stated that he can get a half ton truck that is 22 feet long and commercial vehicles under 8 feet. Lemm also commented on the strike out language. Dragsten stated that it is just for reference on what will be deleted. Lemm also suggested that the 16 person van item be changed to 15, as anything over that requires a chaffeur's license. Wight stated that he disagrees and believes the ordinance proposed to be crystal clear. Lee McDougal, 1101 Hillcrest Circle and wife Carrie addressed the Commission. He inquired why the ordinance is being brought up. Dragsten responded that it is being brought up due to lack of clarity in enforcement. It is important to have an ordinance that people understand what is required. McDougal stated that they way he understands the proposed ordinance, he could still park his boat or trailer in the back yard. So, what is the reason for a revised ordinance. He stated that there seems to be no reason for the ordinance. The public nuisance ordinance addresses problems with blight on properties. McDougal stated his problem is that his truck can no longer be parked where he currently parks it. Dragsten responded that this ordinance will not be able to address every situation within the City. McDougal stated that his father -in -law drives a large commercial vehicle. If he is passing through and wants to stop, this ordinance now prohibits that. Schumann commented that the City's Traffic Code already prohibits large commercial vehicles from traveling on City streets. McDougal inquired why then the City needs an ordinance prohibiting them from parking on residential lots. Voight responded that the problem is that we have tried to make this clear, and problems still exist. Additionally, the Sheriff does not want to enforce based on weight. McDougal stated that the ordinance seems discriminatory in that it prohibits large commercial vehicles, but not small commercial vehicles. Voight stated that the Commission is trying to develop an ordinance that fits for the entire City. Carrie McDougal stated that if a privacy fence surrounds the entire property, what is wrong Planning Commission Minutes — 10/06/09 with someone parking vehicles in their rear yard. Lee McDougal stated that there are plenty of other violations that should be dealt with first. Carrie McDougal inquired how the Commission can approve something if it is not finished completely. Voight stated rather than making simple steps, the City should go all or nothing. McDougal inquired how getting rid of big trucks is solving a problem. Voight stated that the fact of the matter is that the Commission has agreed that the majority of the ordinance is finished and is making a recommendation on small commercial vehicles, which is within the scope of what the City is looking for. Voight pointed out that they also have the opportunity to bring their comments forward to the City Council, as well. McDougal stated that he does not believe the Commission should be able to dictate where he parks his truck on his property. Dragsten stated that the Commission is trying to make the best decision possible for the community as a whole. Dragsten noted that the large truck parking items has also been in effect for some time, the Commission is just trying to clarify the entire ordinance. McDougal stated that there is no reason for this ordinance. Voight noted that the reason for the revision is also due in part to complaints received. Dragsten also noted that there are other problems outside of commercial vehicles. McDougal asked if his pickup truck can be parked alongside his second garage. It isn't clear where it can be parked. Dragsten stated that based on this ordinance, it cannot be parked there. Spartz noted that the development of this ordinance relates back to the spring sweep and the enforcement of the existing ordinance, which seemed overly restrictive. He indicated that eh ordinance proposed tries to address these issues. He thanked them for their comments, but stated that the Commission develops the ordinance, the Commission is charged with trying to develop an ordinance that accommodates situations as best as possible. McDougal stated that this is the third time the City has reviewed commercial vehicle parking and there should be a pile of complaints. The Commissioners noted that complaints had been included in there packets. Wojchouski commented that it is likely that the majority of citizens would not like large commercial vehicles in their neighborhoods for long periods of time. Schumann explained that the last time this was denied by Council. At that time, the Council indicated that it did not seem to be a big enough problem to regulate. They directed staff to monitor complaints. Staff has been doing so and has provided information to Commission directly from the Citizen Service Desk. For staff, there is an ordinance in place that is not being enforced, and it is difficult to tell citizens we can't enforce the ordinance. McDougal asked where he can park his truck. Anderson answered that it would need to be parked in the garage. Dragsten pointed out that they could also ask for a variance. Dan Lemm again addressed the Commission. Lemm inquired whether the City had consulted the Sheriff on this ordinance. If they are not going to enforce this ordinance, the Commission is wasting their time. Lemm stated that he would like to see the City develop a place for these vehicles to be parked. Dragtsen stated that it is likely that commercial drivers would no better than the City where they can park their vehicles. Planning Commission Minutes — 10/06/09 Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Gabler stated that she is fine with the ordinance proposed. She connnented that she does have a problem with the perception that the Commission's purpose is to make ordinances all day. She stated that she does not have time to waster on enacting ordinances just to enact ordinances. The only reason these come forward is because there is a clear problem and a number of complaints. Spartz noted that parking is defined as a temporary use. Spartz stated that the length of time may need a better definition. Other than that issue, he believes this is acceptable to move forward. Grittman explained that the Commission can define a period of time, but that that is difficult to enforce. The point is to differentiate between parking and storage as uses. Enforcement will not come down to temporary or permanent uses, it will come down to condition of parking space and size or weight. The location will be key. Spartz asked if the Sheriffs Department has been consulted. Grittman answered that he does not believe that the Sherrif has been consulted, but as some of the language comes directly from State statute, there should be no issue with enforcing the law. Hilgart and Voight stated that they support the ordinance as presented, with the idea of approving two separate motions. Dragsten stated that he believes this ordinance is much clearer than what is in place, although it may not cover 1005 of all situations. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED WITH THE ADDITIONS AND CORECTIONS AS NOTED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5 -0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER TREATING SMALL COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AS PASSNEGER VEHICELS AS REFERENCED IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED, 5- 0. Dragsten inquired when this item would go forward to the City Council. Schumann indicated it will likely go forward on October 26th. McDougal stated that he has trouble finding the agendas online. Schumann stated that if the public has any trouble finding agendas, they can call City Hall and that information will be provided. Consideration of a request for sketch plan review of a proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a ground -floor residential development in the CCD. Applicant: Master's 5`h Avenue Schumann reported that the applicant has again requested that this item be tabled. He is Planning Commission Minutes — 10/06/09 working on some different ideas and proposals and would like some time to work through those. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO TABLE ACTION ON THE REQUEST. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5 -0. 8. Community Development Director's Update. Schumann stated that in addition to the items in the written report, the City was named "Outstanding Organization of the Year' by NATOA, a recognized telecommunications organization. City Administrator O'Neill and City Council member Posusta accepted the award in New Orleans at the end of October. Dragsten inquired about progress on the Kjellberg item. Schuman reported that she had spoken with Mr. Kjellberg and he is planning to prepare a landscaping plan. The item will go to Council at their next meeting, allowing them time to act within the 60 -day timeframe required by statute. Schumann noted that one last notice would be sent to all active developments, requesting that they get their properties into conformance with the City's public nuisance code prior to winter. Hilgart requested that next time the mowing is done in developments, they need to have the mowed grass blown off of the sidewalk. Hilgart asked what the City is doing to address those homes that still have damage from the hail storm. Anderson noted that in many cases these are foreclosed homes and the work cannot be completed until the redemption period is complete. The mortgage company will then complete the work. Dragsten stated that he has seen that generally the number of foreclosed properties is gradually reducing. Anderson commented that the moratorium the federal government placed is just being released, so it will take some time for those to cycle out. Schumann explained that staff had completed an analysis comparing Sheriff Sale properties in 2008 to 2009. In number there are more, but there are fewer single - family homes. Carlisle Village's bank foreclosure on vacant lots represented quite a few in the 2009 picture. Hilgart inquired if the City is going to do another tree count at Carlisle Village. Schumann responded that they will be meeting with Central Bank, the bank that took over Main Street Bank's assets to discuss that item in the near future. She noted that there are other items that also need to be completed on site. She noted that staff has been in contact with legal counsel related to development improvements. Planning Commission Minutes — 10/06/09 Spartz asked for clarification on the legal document. Schumann stated that a Council member prejudiced the final decision on a land -use issue with some of their grass -roots lobbying. The court sided with the developer in that case and determined that the City has to compensate the developer for their monetary loss. What that means for policy makers is that they need to be very careful about what they say about land -use decisions behind the scenes. Wojchouski stated that it is an important item for Commissioners to read. Anderson noted that utility bills do include some important information on property maintenance and addressing. 9. Adjourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5 -0. (A Record