Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 03-10-2009MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 10th, 2009 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 1. G. Call to order. Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and declared a quorum of the Commission, noting the absence of Commissioner Spartz. ion to approve the Planning Commission minutes of February 3rd, 2009 and the MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GABLER TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 3rd, 2009 AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 6t', 2009. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0. Citizen Comments. NONE. 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. NONE. S. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Sales & Display as related to an outdoor volleyball facility in a B -4 (Regional Business) District. Applicant: River City Extreme/Parnell, Mark Planner Grittman reviewed the staff report for the request. He began by summarizing the action that had been taken by the City in 2008 related to a similar application made by River City Extreme. Grittman indicated that in May 2006, River City Extreme submitted a request for Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Sales and Service for an outdoor volleyball facility. During the hearing, several neighbors were in attendance to voice Planning Commission Minutes — 03/10/09 concerns over current operations, and the impacts that the proposed outdoor volleyball activity would have on their neighborhood, including noise, traffic and lighting. At that time, the Planning Commission recommended denial and City Council ultimately denied the request based on the potential for conflict with the surrounding neighborhood. Currently, Grittman reported that River City Extreme is again requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor sales and service to allow the construction of an outdoor volleyball court on their site within the Jefferson Commons subdivision. The volleyball court would remain in this area until such time as construction begins on phase II of the building. G ittman indicated that the proposed area would contain two volleyball courts in a space 7,315 square feet in area. The courts are designed to have four feet in between and are surrounded by a grass perimeter. Grittman explained that open or outdoor service is a permitted Conditional Use in the B -4 District, if the use is connected with the principal use and is limited to thirty percent (30 %) of the gross floor area of the principal use. Grittman stated that the applicant meets the conditions required by ordinance. No sales area is proposed for the site. The use is instead an outdoor service use. The applicant has previously noted that there will be no outdoor alcohol sales in the area. Grittman noted that the applicant has indicated that all actual sales activity, including alcohol sales, will be confined to the building, although plastic beverage service after sale will be allowed into the court area. The applicant is proposing to light the court area with wall pack lighting, currently mounted on the building, or to be added on the existing building walls. Any additional lighting beyond the noted shielded wallpacks will require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit, and must be reviewed by the City. If available light becomes an issue, the applicant should consider shortening the hours of operation where natural light will be adequate. Grittman commented that the use will be surfaced with sand appropriate for a volleyball court. Grittman noted that as opposed to the vinyl coated chain link previously proposed, the applicant is proposing a 12' high mesh netting around the perimeter of the courts. The net material will provide an effective barrier, while not posing as a significant safety risk. Such material has been used for other recreational facilities within the City. The applicant has indicated that no exterior access will be provided to the fenced court area. Access into and out of the court will be through the interior doors on the west side of the building (east side of courts). All parking and landscaping requirements have been met. In terms of hours of operation, Grittman stated that the current application suggests a general end to outdoor activities at 9:30, with a "lights out" requirement of 10:00. The applicant had discussed an expected season of spring through September. The City has also discussed variable hours by season, such as during the school year. 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 03/10/09 Grittman reviewed the conditions approval as listed in Exhibit Z and then recommended staff approval of a request, citing the application as consistent with ordinance standards and the applicant's intent to mitigate potential conflicts under the assigned conditions. Commissioner Voight clarified that the applicant is not changing the lighting currently on the building. Grittman stated that ss correct. If they do, it will be wall pack lighting as outlined by the conditions. Voight noted that the Commission was divided on the previous application, but had discussed a trial permit. Grittman clarified that a Conditional Use Permit runs with the land. The City cannot list a termination date. If the applicant complies with the terms, the permit continues. However, if they violate the conditions in Exhibit Z or the basic zoning conditions, then the City can consider enforcement or revocation. Voight asked for clarification of hours of operation. It was confirmed that they requested a start time of 4:00 PM. Commissioner Gabler inquired what the difference between an interim and conditional use permit is. Grittman stated that an interim use permit is a specific class of permit that would be listed for a specific use within the code. An interim use permit does not currently exist for this type of purpose. The City can limit the hours of operation but cannot limit the term of the CUP. Gabler asked if the City could prohibit parking on the west side of the building as part of the permit. Grittman indicated that the Commission could, but would likely want to talk with the applicants about employee parking to minimize traffic. Gabler asked if the City can do random checks to make sure of compliance. Grittman stated that the City can set up a one -year review period for a formal compliance check. Chairman Dragsten indicated that he was uncertain about the type of fencing proposed. Grittman indicated that the mesh product will be used for screening and fencing purposes. This can be discussed further with the applicant. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Sean Fogerty, 3608 Redford Lane, addressed the Commission. Fogerty illustrated his property on the northwest side of the River City Lane facility. Fogerty pointed out that much seemed to be the same as the last application. He commented that he enjoys the facility and that they run a nice facility. He explained his concerns are about what River City can't control outside. Fogerty stated that when his family is outside, they can hear normal conversation outside the facility. The issue is not the lighting. He explained that the elevation of his home sits above the level of the fencing. From their home, he believes they will see and hear this activity. Fogerty noted that there are a lot of young families adjacent to this facility. Fogerty commented that his children go to sleep by 8:00 PM. The 9:30 end time presents a conflict to that time due to the possible light and noise coming from the facility. He inquired if it is possible to have a noise survey completed. While this could be reviewed in a year, there is nothing in the permit that prevents the noise problem. Fogerty stated that he understands that this proposal meets the technical requirements of the ordinance, but this request has the potential to impact the surrounding neighborhood. Fogerty stated 3 Planning Commission Minutes — 03/10/09 that the noise is the biggest issue and asked the Commission to recommend denial of the request. Dan Lemm, 11380 Cameron Avenue NE, stated to the Commission that if this were a public park, this request would not be an issue. The volleyball facility would just be constructed. Lemm also suggested an 8' dirt berm to buffer the noise factor. Craig Walter, a co -owner of River City Extreme, spoke to the Commission on behalf of River City Extreme. He clarified that there is currently no parking on the west side, it is just a drive aisle. The parking is illustrated for the phase 2 banquet facility. He stated that there will be a pole and cabling to secure the netting, prohibiting traffic in and out of the court facility, except for through the interior building door. In terms of the noise, Walters stated that he understands the concern. However, he noted that this is part of a community having different activities within a neighborhood. Walters referenced days and hours, suggesting that they be expanded to 5 PM — l OPM for weekdays, but should also include noon to 10 PM to allow for weekend play. Hilgart inquired whether anyone was familiar with Hawk's hours. Gabler responded that their last game is at 9:30 and the first is at 5:00 or 6:00. Gabler asked what days they are thinking of operating. Walters stated that at this point, they have not yet set a schedule, they are looking to get through this approval first. Walters stated that during the week, the first game wouldn't start until 5:00, with things wrapping up by 10:00. Gabler stated that based on the number of leagues, they should be able to limit weekday hours and times to help work with the neighborhood. Hilgart inquired when the play would start in the spring. Walters stated that depending on weather, late April or early May, with perhaps a spring, summer and fall league. Dragsten asked how far into fall the leagues would run. Walters responded that these types of leagues tend to wrap up into September, weather and interest permitting. Voight commented that he would not seek to limit days of operation, but would like to start from 9:00 AM until lights out perhaps in conjunction with school hours. Walters indicated that his concern would be with keeping consistency with hours in league play. Voight stated that he is fine with the 9:30 end of play and 10:00 lights out, but would recommend extending play earlier. Dragsten inquired if they would run Saturday and Sunday. Walters stated that it would depend on interest in tournament play. Dragsten asked if there was any interest if the Commission limited play to a certain number of days, they could set the days. Walters stated that could be a possibility. Dragsten inquired if ending play at 9:00 would be an option. Walters stated that would push the allowance for three games; they would prefer the 9:30. Dragsten stated his concern is getting the activity wrapped up by 10:00 PM. Dragsten asked how River City would prevent people from leaving the court facility through the mesh netting. Walters clarified that the netting would be secured to the ground to prevent that occurrence. He noted that with league players familiar with the court rules, it shouldn't be a problem. 4 Planning Commission Minutes — 03/10/09 Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing no fiurther comments. Gabler asked if a condition could be added related to complaints. Dragsten responded that instead the Commission could add a condition related to a formal review. He also noted that River City has tried to work with the neighborhood to resolve issues since the last application. Dragsten stated that it could be reviewed at the end of the season. Grittman confirmed. Dragsten stated that the biggest concern is the noise. Schumann commented that the City does have a noise ordinance. The Wright County Sheriff is also responsive to complaints about noise. Schumann stated that the applicant is responsible like any other entity to comply with the ordinance. Voight stated that he would recommend leaving the end time, but pushing start time to 9:00 AM to give the applicant some flexibility. Hilgart indicated that he thought the end time was as late as it should be, but perhaps should be earlier during the school year weekdays. However, he is okay with it as proposed. Gabler agreed. Gabler stated that she would like to limit the number of days of play. Voight stated that he does not agree with that idea. Hilgart stated that if approved, it should be approved for play on all days. Hilgart asked if the applicant is required to put up the netting to comply with ordinance. Grittman clarified that they meet the ordinance requirements for buffering due to existing landscaping and fencing. The screening provided by the netting further supports visual screening and also containing the activity. The building also serves as a major visual barrier to the north and east. Hilgart inquired if it would be better to have a solid fence for noise purposes. Grittman responded that it would provide more audible screening. However, the elevation of surrounding homes may make a 6' fence ineffective, as well. Walters indicated that River City would prefer to stay with the netting over a solid fence for a variety of reasons. The Commissioners briefly discussed whether the City should limit the days of play in the conditions established. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS PRESENTED WITH CONDITIONS AS NOTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS AMENDED BELOW: 1. All outdoor service activity will occur within an enclosed (fenced) area. 2. The hours of operation shall be limited to Noon (12:00 PM) to 10:00 PM, with a general end to activities around 9:30, and lights out by 10:00 PM. 3. Upon construction of Phase II of the principal building, the volleyball court use shall no longer be permitted. 5 Planning Commission Minutes — 03/10/09 4. Any additional lighting or signage to accommodate the volleyball use shall require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. Alternative hours should be considered if the current/natural light proves to be inadequate. 5. A building permit shall be required for any fence in excess of six feet in height. 6. The applicant is to comply with the stated limitations on access and outdoor sales and service as specified within the staff report of 3/10/09. 7. Applicant is to comply with the City's codes related to noise. 8. The Conditional Use Permit is to be reviewed by the City for compliance in November, 2009. MOTION SECONED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0. 6. Public Hearing — Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, regulating Signs. Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Commission Community Development Director Schumann introduced the sign ordinance amendment, stating that the Planning Commission had been through an extensive development and review leading up to the evening's public hearing. Schumann described the actions taken to develop the ordinance hearing. She explained that the Commission had held two public input forums prior to the development of the ordinance, asking for input from all segments of the community. The Commission also outlined its own primary goals for the crafting of the ordinance. Based on those goals and the input from the public meetings, a draft ordinance was then developed. That draft was fine -tuned over the course of three Planning Commission meetings. Schumann reported that at that point, the revised draft was brought forward to the Chamber's Government Affairs Committee for comment. Then, a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council was held to further revise the draft and to answer remaining questions regarding the document. Finally, a last public forum was held allowing for another opportunity for public feedback on the final draft prior to public hearing. At that forum, a series of scenarios were discussed, using hypothetical sign situations. Schumann indicated that the proposed ordinance does depart significantly from the current ordinance in several areas, including development for sale signage, political signage and distinctions between districts. There was also a shift from commission oversight to more administrative oversight, streamlining the process for sign applicants. The ordinance amendment also standardizes height and area for commercial and industrial signage and includes wall signage regulations that are much simpler. Schumann further described amendment notes, stating that an allowance for sandwich boards was made for all commercial businesses. She stated that temporary signage was perhaps discussed most by the Commission. In this draft, an 50 additional square feet on a message board above and beyond allowed wall signage is allowed for giving up other 0 Planning Commission Minutes — 03/10/09 temporary site signage. Schumann noted the additional non - profit signage clause, due to concern for non - profits that have no location to advertise. This allows 50 day on all PS district properties so that a non - profit could seek out one of those sites and utilize it for temporary signage. Schumann noted that many incentives that are allowed under the proposed ordinance, resulting in less mandating, more incentives to reach the Commission's desired outcomes. Overall, Schumann stated that staff believes this ordinance amendment reflects the goals set by the Commission and reflects the feedback of the public. With those comments, staff is recommending adoption of the proposed amendment. Commissioner Gabler noted that dynamic displays are an evolving technology perhaps a more frequent review of that clause is needed. Dragsten commented that the Commission does seem to do annual or bi- annual reviews of this code just out of necessity.. Grittman noted that the 2- minute message timing item had received the most discussion at previous meetings. Dragsten asked Grittman to clarify the window signage regulation. Grittman replied that the current ordinance does not regulate window signage. The proposed regulation sets a 25% coverage regulation per window, but the Commission may want to discuss whether that is the appropriate number. Voight inquired whether the Commission could exclude the CCD from this provision. Grittman confirmed that possible district by district, although is more difficult if attempted within a district by use. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Robert Pond, 206 Pine Street, addressed the Commission. Pond commented that due to size of varying windows, in order to be able to read a message due to size, the coverage required would be much more than the 25 %. He recommended removing the provision. Roger Pribyl, manager of Monticello Holiday StationStores, inquired of the Commission who would enforce this ordinance, as they have not been in the past. He indicated that as he travels the community, consistent application of the ordinance has not occurred. Pribyl also commented on various signage issues he has noted throughout the community, including vehicles with signage. Dragsten noted that in relationship to vehicles, that is more of a parking issue. Dragsten indicated that the code is enforced by Gary Anderson's code inspectors. Pribyl stated that he believes that the inspectors may be told to turn the other cheek in relationship to consistent enforcement. Dragsten stated that he appreciates that Pribyl complies and indicated that there does need to be a level playing field for all. Wes Olson, 524 W. 6t' Street, Monticello, spoke to the Commission representing the Monticello Chamber of Commerce. Olson stated that he serves on the Chamber's Board of Directors. In trying to be pro- active in representing membership, the Chamber Board does seek to appear before City boards on issues of importance. He indicated that the signage ordinance was discussed at length and a formal statement was provided to the Commission. Olson read an excerpt from that letter, which requested that the Commission eliminate the clause regulating window signage. Enforcement of this 7 Planning Commission Minutes — 03/10/09 ordinance would eliminate opportunity for local business owners, particularly downtown. Property owners will take care of their windows and this should not impact other signage allowances. Voight inquired whether Olson would distinguish between commercial districts and the CCD. Olson indicated that he would remove the clause entirely, as he did not see a difference between them. Voight responded that he does see a big difference in the size and scope of windows from south Highway 25 and the downtown, for instance. Olson commented that the ordinance should find commonalities. Dragsten noted that Commission added the regulation due to those instances where window signage took up a large share of the window itself. Wojchouski apologized to the business community, indicating that the Planning Commission and Council did not know about the level of concern with this provision and thanked the Chamber for coming forward. John Tennessen, VonHanson's Meats, addressed the Commission. Tennessen noted the current economic state and commented that the signage. they can put on their windows relates directly to a positive result. He asked the Commission to remove the window signage provision. He did not support an exemption just for the CCD. Dragsten inquired how often VonHanson's uses window signage. Tennessen answered that they change twice a year, with their messages greatly assisting their seasonal business. Dragsten inquired if the windows are covered most of the time. Tennesssen stated that messaging is there most of the time, although windows are not completely covered. Mike Helm, 1219 Highway 25, Monticello Pawn & Gun, spoke to the Commission. He inquired how many people knew there was a new bait store in town. He noted that as a primary reason that the code needs to be less regulatory and more generous. He stated that the 25% rule is not reasonable. Helm cited the numerous constraints in marketing and indicated how important signage is. The ability to have nice, visible signage is critical. Helm stated that codes should also address small business and not just big business. Dragsten indicated that the Planning Commission had spent over 10 months in crafting the ordinance and the difference in what is allowed now versus previous is night and day. Helm agreed. Dragsten stated that the City tries to make sure that it is fair for all business, including as related to signage. Helm cited Denny Hecker properties as an example of one who seemed to get more allowances. Helm commented that perhaps allowing more days for temporary signs by season would also be worthwhile. Dragsten commented that these regulations can be reviewed after having time to digest their impact. Helm indicated that by far his biggest concern is the window signage. Wojchouski noted that new businesses get 40 days from the time of their opening for expanded temporary signage. Ray Olson, 107 West Broadway, the Computer Repair Shop, confirmed to the Commission that he would also like to see the 25% window regulation stricken. Planning Commission Minutes — 03/10/09 Dragsten inquired whether Olson used window signage for his business. Olson responded that his primary source of customer traffic results from his window signage. Mark Pederson, In Range, indicated that he has utilized temporary signs, but has always obtained a permit. He noted that the permit is $25 for 40 days. Pederson commented that due to their location, the temporary signage is an issue. He stated that 40 days is not long enough. Dragsten commented that he thought it was being extended to 50 days. Grittman clarified that it is 50 days only for the Public /Semi Public Districts. Pederson also questioned what the definition of a temporary signage is in terms of wording. Dragsten indicated that by law the Planning Commission cannot dictate what is placed on the sign. Pederson noted that they use other means to advertise their locations, as well. Dragsten stated that it seems to be more of a retail use in an industrial district. Wojchouski inquired whether this business would get an additional 40 days as it closed and then re- opened. Grittman stated that he believed it would qualify for another 40 days. Dean Rasmussen, 101 West Broadway, Glass Hut, spoke to the Commission. Rasmussen noted his recent improvements to the building and that his business has been in the community for over 30 years. Rasmussen stated that he uses window signage a great deal and that it is professionally done. Rasmussen questioned whether signage that is in place now would need to be removed under this ordinance. Rasmussen stated that he would like to see that provision removed. Dragsten commented that the intent was not to hinder business, but rather to help control what may have gotten out of control. Rasmussen commended the Commission for their work on the ordinance, but indicated that perhaps this provision is overly regulatory. Dragsten inquired whether Rasmussen would agree that a business whose sign is perhaps not done as tactfully reflects negatively on his business. Rasmussen stated that regulations could be put in place, although he is not sure what they might be. Dragsten commented that it is difficult to find a regulation for quality. The Commission does not want lower standards to impact everyone else. Dan Lemm, 11380 Cameron Avenue, stated that as a consumer that the window advertising is very effective. Lemm suggested that signage be regulated on a case by case basis. Dragsten stated that approach will not work. Lemm responded that the current ordinance is not working, either. Lynn Dahl- Fleming spoke to the Commission. She addressed the Commission first on behalf of the Monticello Arts Council. Initially, she stated that her concern was for non- profit use temporary signage. The number one reason people stop is due to a sign. She stated that she appreciates the extra days allowed for this purpose. Secondly, as a downtown business owner, she applauded the Commission's work on the ordinance as a whole. 6 Planning Commission Minutes — 03/10/09 Dahl - Fleming inquired about some of the provisions under the dynamic display portion of the ordinance. She noted that strong language about the potential for driver distraction and traffic issues. Grittman answered that there are studies that relate to driver distraction, which show a significant correlation. The reason for the language is to allow the City to regulate in this area. Dahl- Fleming also noted the 10 inch regulation and inquired whether sign companies were consulted. Grittman responded that the 10 inch number seems to be a median number. He noted that MN Sign Association and Daktronics commented on the overall section, but had no specific issue with that provision in particular. Dahl - Fleming noted that larger letters and less words generally means a better sign impact. Dahl- Fleming inquired if the colors change, does that also constitute movement/ Grittman confimed that it is dissolving. Dahl- Fleming then asked if a sign needs to turn off for a period of two minutes before displaying a new message. Grittman indicated that this language has been revised to read that "prohibited blinking shall include signs which are displayed as continues solid messages for less than the 2 minute time ". Dahl- Fleming inquired why time and temperature signs are allowed to change more frequently. Grittman stated that nothing is objectively different, but those types of signs are allowed statutorily to change more often. She commented that the 2 minute timeframe should be reduced. Dahl- Fleming inquired whether the sign at 6th Street Station complies. Grittman stated that probably not and the City can require compliance on the motion. Finally Dahl - Fleming inquired about the electrical service disconnection provision. Grittman clarified it could be changed from facility to device to be more clear. Dahl - Fleming requested that the Planning Commission review the dynamic displays on more of an annual basis due to the changing nature of these signs and their expense. Dragsten stated that is frequently the case; it has been reviewed many times over the past few years. Wojchouski noted that MN Sign Association has provided a letter of comment. Wojchouski inquired about the 60 -day permit review timeframe concern noted by the Sign Association. Grittman indicated that in many cases, sign permits are issued more quickly than that. However, in relationship to CUP required reviews, this timeframe tracks with those statutory requirements and the City would not want to run on separate tracks. Schumann also noted that by not including such a limit, there is also potential to exceed a shorter limit and therefore, an application would be considered granted because the City hasn't met the shorter time limit. However, in most cases, the permit is being issued within a much shorter window than proposed by sign group. Mike Helm, Monticello Pawn & Gun. Helm questioned regulations for LED signs hanging in windows. Grittman responded that if it meets the definition of dynamic display, it is regulated by the dynamic display Oregulations. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Dragsten noted that the Planning Commission does have a clarification to the language related to the timing of changes on dynamic displays. Voight indicated that in regard to the 10 inch height requirements, this may be too much regulation and may be 10 Planning Commission Minutes — 03/10/09 unnecessary. Gabler stated that it is a minimum and setting a baseline may be a good idea. Dragsten commented again on the 2- minute change regulation. Gabler stated that she thought 2- minutes was a good start, with a review in a year. Dragsten concurred. Dragsten stated that the other issue was the window signage. Gabler stated that she did not have a problem removing that clause. Schumann commented that the 2- minute clause was a concern for her and suggested that if the Council formally adopts this ordinance with the 2- minutes clause, she would recommend sending a letter to all business owners, giving them a chance to comply and an opportunity to comment. Wojchouski suggested an interim review. Dragsten suggested a 120 -day review period. The Commissioners were in general agreement to remove the window signage clause and to allow for an interim review of the dynamic display regulations. Hilgart sought clarification regarding signs on trailers or semi - trailers as signage. Grittman responded that if you have a passenger vehicle parked in a designated parking space and it happens to have graphics on it, it is allowable and legal. The issue is whether the vehicle is parked appropriately. If however, you are a semi - trailer in a commercial district, the issue becomes outdoor storage. Schumann further clarified that the City also had a CUP process that allows open and outdoor storage under a completely different set of regulations. Dragsten inquired what signage occasional sale businesses in the CCD qualify for. Grittman responded that they can have temporary and sandwich board signage. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 3, REGULATING SIGNS, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVIDES ADEQUATE MEANS OF EXPRESSION AND PROMOTION OF THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, WHILE PROTECTING THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY, WITH THE FOLLOWING REVISIONS AS NOTED BY THE COMMISSION. 1. Removal of the window signage regulations pertaining to 25% limitation. 2. Dynamic display: remove 10" height requirement and allow for a 120 -day interim review as related to the 2- minute movement regulation. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0.1 Chairman Dragsten thanked those who provided public comment. 7. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to Chapter 3 of the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance, Title 10 of Monticello City Code as related to Final Platting. Applicant: City of Monticello 11 Planning Commission Minutes — 03/10/09 Planner Grittman explained that staff is requesting that the Planning Commission move to take no action on this proposed amendment. As the Commission will be reviewing zoning- related ordinance overall, any procedural changes to the subdivision ordinance could be reviewed in conjunction with that effort at that time. 8. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to Chapter 6 of the Monticello Subdivision Code as related to Parks, Open Space and Public Use. Applicant: City o Monticello Planner Grittman a park dedication analysis aimed at refining the approach to park dedication and the park dedication ordinance. He stated that this responds to changes in the State statute and court cases related to dedication requirements. Gabler asked if this analysis is similar to other cities. Grittman answered that those cities that are paying attention to the changes will go through this process. Until a couple of years ago, all park development costs could be included in park dedication requirements. However, the statute changes no longer allow the inclusion of facilities in the amount of dedication required. Cities can still spend the funds on development of parks, but cannot set their land and cash -in -lieu with this. Gabler inquired whether outlots were included for the purpose of calculating the fee. Grittman stated that in this scenario, it includes the gross area of development. Grittman explained that dedication ordinances need to start always start with land needed. For the discussion of an amendment, staff has calculated existing community and park facilities at 9% of land area. If it is considered that is a percentage of land area that is appropriate for the current city and population, then that percentage is then applied to the growth area, as well. Grittman noted that Bertram Chain of Lakes acquisition also needs to be added in to that 9% calculation. This changes the park dedication amount to 11.4% for Monticello. However, you can't attribute all of the acquisition to new development, because the existing community needs to pay for some of the acquisition due to need. Gabler inquired why Montissippi Park is included as it is a County park. Grittman responded that because it is a local park resource it is included. If Montissippi did not exist, you might look at the City and state that there is not nearly enough park due to lack of a facility of this type. Grittman indicated that the basis for park dedication always starts with the land standard. From there, you calculate the cash -in -lieu fee. The City can require a cash payment as an alternative to land based on value of the land no later than the time of final plat. The fee is based on raw land, not developed lots. In this case, the City has used $28,000 /acre for the purpose of this ordinance. The City would adopt an ordinance that says you will require a percentage of land required, then take the 28,000 and calculate out to units per acre. The advantage of breaking it down to a per unit charge, is that the per unit applies no matter what the density. This is due to the greater demand on the park system created by greater density. There was a discussion of when and how the fees are collected; Grittman indicated that it is a policy decision made by the City and sometimes related 12 Planning Commission Minutes — 03/10/09 directly to the development agreement. Grittman stated that the fee goes down as the value of land goes down. Schumann stated that the description presented to the Commission will also go forward to the Parks Commission for review prior to holding a hearing for a formal amendment to language. Dragsten stated that his concern would be that the fee is reasonable. Grittman agreed, although he noted that the City would not want to put off acquisition as the land value for this land will continue to increase. Grittman also pointed out that one of the most prominent factors in residential value is the proximity of parks and open space. Schumann also noted that if this were the structure that is adopted, it is significantly less than what is in place, because old number included cost to develop as well as acquire. It was clarified further that the 11.4% includes the Bertram Lake acquisition as part of the park plan. Dragsten requested one additional discussion to clarify final points after the Commission has had more time to digest the information. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO OPEN AND HEARING NO PBLIC COMMENT, CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO APRIL, 2009. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0. 9. Consideration to appoint Chairman of the Planning Commission for 2009. Schumann indicated that as part of the Commission's annual responsibilities per code it needs to appoint a Chair for the year. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPOINT COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN AS CHAIRMAN FOR 2009. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0. 10. Community Development Director's Update. Schumann noted that the City has published notice that the City and County are now accepting applications for two citizen -at -large positions on the Bertram Chain of Lakes Advisory Council. Schumann also noted that the City and County would be hosting an event at the Bertram Chain of Lakes area on June 13`h. Schumann also noted that the City would be hosting Development Listening Sessions in the next month. She indicated that she would send information out on that event by email. 11. Adjourn. 13 Planning Commission Minutes — 03/10/09 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0. 14