Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 04-07-2009Planning Commission Minutes — 04/07/09 MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION April 7th, 2009 6:00 PM Commissioners Present: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Commissioners Absent: Lloyd Hilgart Council Liaison Present: None. Staff: Angela Schumann,, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman — NAC 1. Call to order. 2. 3. 4. Chairman Dragsten noted the absence of Commissioner Hilgart and Council member Woj chouski. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of March 10th 2009. Schumann reported that the minutes would be provided at the May meeting. Citizen Comments. None. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Commissioner Gabler requested an update on the status of the Denny Hecker properties. Commissioner Spartz requested consideration to discuss a spring clean -up on some of the vacant or undeveloped properties. 5. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for Amendment to Community Development Director Schumann reviewed the staff report for the request, stating that the applicant is seeking an extension for the project known as the Monticello Travel Center, Landmark Center. The applicant is seeking a one year extension. This will be the second extension for the project. Schumann illustrated the project location. Schumann stated that staff sees no issue with the extension and is requesting approval. Gabler inquired whether the applicant had met all conditions. Schumann stated that they had submitted revised CUP plans and at the time they submitted for a building permit, those documents would be reviewed for compliance with conditions. Dragsten inquired whether the applicant was requesting the one year extension. Schumann stated that she had indicated to the applicant that one year was consistent with the Planning Commission's previous extensions. Spartz stated that he would like to stay consistent with precedent set for one year. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION OF THE JUNE 11TH, 2007 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A RETAIL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT MONTICELLO TRAVEL CENTER 2ND ADDITION, TO JUNE 11TH, 2010, WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE EXTENSION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. Chairman Dragsten inquired if there was something before the legislature involving a timeline for preliminary plat expirations. Grittman confirmed that there is some bill language being floated that relates to that, but no one knows whether that will move forward. It would affect preliminary plats. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0. 6. 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 of Monticello Planner Grittman reviewed the information provided to the Commission. First, he indicated that the park dedication language that will be inserted is very simple. The calculations behind that number can be complex. Grittman noted that there was also alternative language that got adopted into the ordinance with the last amendment that needs to be eliminated. Essentially, the 10% dedication number currently required will be replaced with another number. Grittman noted that he did have an opportunity to talk with the Parks Commission about the ordinance amendment and the calculations. Grittman explained that using the existing amount of park dedication and the current population, results in a ratio of park demand. That number is then carried forward to apply to new development, with the inclusion of the Bertram Chain of Lakes. Additionally, when land is not desired by the City, the City has the option of selecting a cash dedication. The change in the statute that occurred recently only allows the City to use the cost of land acquisition to calculate the fee, not the development costs of the park and the land costs. So, based on that previous formula, the park dedication fee had risen up into the $3500 range. -1JVhen that is removed and reformulated based on need to convert to price per acre based on recent Bertram Lake acquisition costs at $25,000 /acre, it works out to $3,182 per acre cash dedication. Further converting that to a per unit count, it amounts to approximately $1,414 of cash fee per unit. Reviewing the calculations, Grittman stated that the amended ordinance would then require 11.4% in land dedication. The City then also adopts a fee by ordinance for the cash dedication. The per unit basis also means that a developer with a higher density 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 04/07/09 development would pay more in park dedication, which makes sense, given that the more persons, the more demand on the park system. Commissioner Voight inquired if a developer builds a higher density development, would the City would receive more cash than if they paid on a per acre basis. Grittman concurred, stating that the statute acknowledges that the more homes, the more demand on the park system. Voight asked how the City selects the proper park dedication percentage. Grittman stated that the number needs to be based on a park plan that serves the entire service area population. Theoretically, the City would have a plan for the amount of parkland it needs for its entire growth area and in what general vicinity. By adopting such a plan, the City has a rationale for the amount of park it needs, where land dedication would be taken, and where cash dedication will make up the difference. So, while Monticello doesn't have a plan for the future annexation area, the City does know that it will grow into that space and the comp plan does include reference to parkland for that growth area. So the City has taken what is working for the current population and system, and then applies that to the growth area, then adds the Bertram into the calculation consistent with the comp plan and the unmet need. Voight inquired about the 70/30% numbers. Grittman stated that those numbers relate more directly to Bertram. The City cannot say that all of the Bertram acquisition is the responsibility of new development. The 70/30 is based on an approximation that 30% of the City's entire future limits is currently developed. The 70% represents the growth area yet to be developed. The 70/30% ratio is then applied to the Bertram acquisition to be able to provide a rationale for how much of that acquisition needs to be included in the dedication requirements. Voight asked if the City can take future park dedication funds from one area to pay for property elsewhere, such as Bertram. Grittman confirmed that can and should occur. He also indicated that the park dedication funds can also be used to develop parks, but it just can't be used to calculate the dedication amount. Dragsten asked if the 11.4% would then be required with all new residential development. Grittman stated that would be true, unless the City adopted a different plan that illustrated that the City needed something outside of the land area shown to be needed. The 9% number is what the City currently has in parkland. The additional 2.4% represents the Bertram Lake acquisition. Dragsten inquired why the City wouldn't take part of the 9% to acquire Bertram. Grittman stated that if the City could say that the 9% parkland was the right number for the existing population, then only 9% should be required. Then, the City could also logically say that as the City grows, 9% is also the right number for dedication to serve the new population. However, in looking at the future growth area, Bertram Lakes is an additional piece needed to fill the service area's needs. Dragsten stated that is his point. The 9% seems to work well. Schumann indicated that the reasoning behind the purchase of Bertram is that the 9% is not in fact adequate. There is tremendous pressure on exiting active play facilities, which is why the City is actively pursuing the Bertram purchase. It will include 80 acres of active play field area. Dragsten indicated that to add more expense to development in this market is difficult. Grittman pointed out that the cash payment is actually reduced significantly. The current $3,500 per unit included many assumptions that are no longer valid based on the statute. inquired if the City would adjust the cash payment each year. Grittman stated that the City should do so, as the statute requires that the dedication be based on the value of the raw land no later than at the time of final platting. Dragsten asked when the fee would be paid. Grittman replied that is a matter of City policy. The statute implication is that the City would take the land or cash in lieu of at the time of final platting. The City of Monticello has been in the practice of deferring that payment until lot development. Schumann explained that in most cases, the City has an agreement with the developer that sets the terms of the payment process. Grittman stated that there is a fairness issue. She said that traditionally, the City had assigned park dedication as a special assessment via development agreement. Grittman noted that as phases progress, fees should be adjusted based on the current rate. Deferment can create procedural problems. If one developer has to provide the land upfront, they no longer have that asset. Another developer may defer the cost and build it into the costs set with the builder. Dragster, asked about the clause referring to a separate park and trail surcharge. Grittman stated that should not be charged by statute. Dragsten stated that his primary concern is that the City's fees remain in line and competitive. Schumann responded that this is definitely a concern, but Council has kept both trunk and building fees flat for the past two years. Dragsten noted that values are now equivalent to 2002 -2003 rates. Schumann stated that it is a balancing act to make sure that the City can cover the cost of doing business while still keeping development costs as low as possible. Schumann said that the upcoming development listening sessions coming up will hopefully indicate how those strategies are working. Grittman added that this amendment will now be commensurate with real land costs. Additionally, because parks are a valuable asset to encouraging quality in the City's development, the City has to balance the need for this infrastructure and keep up with demand. Spartz asked when the last park dedication adjustment was made. Grittman stated that while it should be done annually, the current fee has been in place for about three years. Going forward, it would be recommended that it should be revised annually with the fee schedule adoption. The Commission reviewed a hypothetical 100 acre development proposal under the current and proposed structure. Spartz inquired how long this formula would remain in place. Grittman stated that it would remain until the point at which the City completes and adopts a park plan. The City would then use that plan as the basis for changing the way the dedication would be formulated. Spartz asked how this fits with the comprehensive plan objectives. Grittman responded that many surveys illustrate that the parks and trails system in a community is often a top amenity that developers and residents look for. While the fee doesn't actually create high -end homes, there is definitely an indirect relationship. 4 Planning Commission Minutes — 04/07/09 Gabler inquired how townhomes and senior complexes would be treated for dedication purposes. Grittman replied that they would be charged on a per unit basis. However, if they do include some private recreation space, that also has to be included in the calculation for dedication. Voight inquired how the classification of parks is determined. Grittman stated that it is often by size and separation between parks. It is now the City's policy to have fewer neighborhood parks, with more consolidated regional parks for maintenance and cost purposes. These are then spaced further apart. Voight commented on the fact that the City does not have a current park plan and he inquired when this would be done. Schumann responded that the Bertram Chain of Lakes project, the capital improvement plan, and the parks already planned for but not yet completed, set the table for a future park plan, which could be completed by the Parks Commission. Schumann explained that with this input, staff will put together ordinance language for the next meeting. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 6 OF THE MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION CODE AS RELATED TO PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC USE TO THE MAY 5TH MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0. 7. Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update Request for Proposals — Consideration of Next Steps Schumann stated that when the City Council authorized moving the RFP process forward, the RFPs were sent immediately, with proposals due on April 1St. The City received ten proposals in response to the request. Schumann reported that all ten proposals had been provided to the Commission, along with a rating form for each proposal. It is proposed that an ad -hoc group including all five Planning Commission members, along with two City Council members and one representative from the IEDC and EDA would meet to pare the ten proposals down to three for interview and presentation. Schumann noted that this project may not move forward should the Council decide that it is not a priority project. Dragsten asked if the Planning Commission should wait until the City Council sets this as a priority. Schumann stated that the Council did authorize moving forward and a lot could depend on the budget and merit of the proposals. Schumann noted that with a quorum of the Commission, it would need to be posted as an open meeting. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO HOLD A PUBLIC MEETING TO REVIEW ZONING ORDINANCE PROPOSALS ON TUESDAY THE 21sT AT 4:00 PM. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIOER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0. 8. Community Development Director's Update. Voight inquired why the sign ordinance did not move forward at the last Council meeting. Schumann replied that it was due to scheduling conflicts with Mr. Grittman and Mr. O'Neill. Voight also asked for a status update on the transportation plan. Schumann indicated that due to issues, primarily with a second river crossing, the City Council wanted some additional Information. The City Engineer is working on putting that meeting together. Council just wanted a better footing for that river planning process before formally adopting the transportation plan. Schumann reported that there were only a handful of inquires and some question on reconfiguration. Chrysler is basically in control of those properties and will be responsible. In regard to blight issues on vacant properties, Schumann noted that the City is looking for ways to actively involve developers in getting the process moving. Last year a letter was sent. This year, staff will most likely do the same. Schumann provided the Planning Commission with an overview of development listening session topic areas. Schumann reported that a joint workshop between EDA and City Council to review the TIF management plan was planned and the Planning Commission is welcome to attend. The session will focus on how districts are performing and options for TIF and TIF related flexibility for future projects. Anderson reported that Junk Amnesty would be held on the first Saturday in May. The annual spring sweep for public nuisance will start on the west side of the community and move east. 9. Adjourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4 -0. 2