Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 04-04-2006MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 4th, 2006 6:00 PM Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, Craig Schibonski, William Sparta, and Sandy Suchy Council Liaison: Glen Posusta Staff. Jeff O'Neill, Angela Schumann and Steve Grittman — NAC 1. Call to order. Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and declared a full quorum of the Commission. 2. Avvroval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday. March 7th. 2006. Schibonski noted a correction to the spelling of Chairman Dragsten's name on the last page. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 7t', 2006. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCHIBONSKI . MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Schibonski requested as item 16 the addition of a discussion regarding the City Council approval of Niagara Falls and Hidden Forest plats. 4. Citizen comments. NONE. 5. Public Hearing — Consideration of a reauest for Conditional Use Permit for a professional office in a B-1 (Neighborhood Business) District. Applicant: Don Hickman Grittman presented the staff report, explaining the proposed use and the intent of the B-1 district. Grittman also noted the primarily residential uses that surround the subject property. Grittman stated that the proposed use meets the zoning ordinance requirements for conditional use permit. Grittman reported that staff had a discussion with the applicant regarding some of the requirements of the ordinance in terms of uses in the B-1 district. One of burdens for this applicant is the need to come through and get a new CUP when the use changes for this property. Grittman suggested that in the future, the City may want to look at amendment to ease that process for small businesses, particularly when burden may be out of proportion to the actual Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06 impact of the use. Grittman indicated that the types of uses such as those proposed by this applicant are appropriate as either permitted or conditional uses in these types of area. Grittman stated that staff recommends approval with the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Dragsten asked the applicant, Don Hickman, to come to the podium for any questions. Spartz commented that after reading the applicants concerns in the application narrative, he is glad that Grittman addressed possible future resolutions to future use issues. Dragsten agreed, stating that we want to keep business in town and not have frustrated business owners. Dragsten asked if Hickman had seen and agreed with the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. Hickman questioned the condition asking for verification of landscaping. Dragsten asked if Hickman had any in place there currently. Hickman replied that he does not. Hickman stated that lighting glare shouldn't be an issue as the lighted canopy won't be used. Hickman also said that parking lot signage will not be a problem. Dragsten stated that he isn't sure the landscaping is needed, as it the site is kept well. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PROFESSIONAL AND COMMERCIAL OFFICE AT 355 EAST BROADWAY WITH THE CONDITIONS AS NOTED IN EXHIBIT Z, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE LOW -INTENSITY COMMERCIAL USE PROPOSED MEETS THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY CODE, IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA, AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE B-1 DISTRICT. 1. Signage for the site consistent with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. 2. The applicant provide the noted information regarding parking space dimensions and availability. A parking layout consistent with standard dimensional requirements for angled parking will be required. 3. Parking lot signage to direct traffic as to the one-way nature of the traffic flow. 4. The applicant verify or provide additional tall shrub plantings to mitigate the impact of the building wall on the west, and the lighting on the east, relative to the neighboring residential uses. 5. Other conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 6. Public Hearine — Consideration of a reauest for Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-in and convenience fast food establishment in a B-4 District. Aivlicant: Tom Holthaus, Grittman reviewed the staff report, referencing the property's location at the northwest comer of School Blvd. and Deegan Avenue. The site currently adjoins a number of other restaurant facilities and is zoned B-4. Grittman noted that the City had recently amended the zoning ordinance to accommodate cross driveways by CUP. The conditional use permit is also needed for the drive -through. Grittman stated that the plan meets all zoning requirements for parking and Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06 setbacks. The proposed sign plan shows a free standing sign and three wall signs. The ordinance iallows one per frontage. As such, Grittman reported that this restaurant would be allowed two wall signs plus the pylon. The applicant will need to remove one wall sign to comply with the code. Staff has discussed with applicants the removal of the sign along the drive through side. With that change, sign plan would also meet ordinance. The other primary request that staff had made was to intensify a portion of landscaping adjacent to the residential neighborhood. Intensifying the screening and landscaping would block headlights from the drive through and minimize noise from order board. Grittman stated that staff had a chance to meet with applicants; the applicant appeared amendable to meeting those conditions at the preliminary level. With those comments, staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit. Spartz asked about the zoning of the comer lot. Grittman indicated that it is commercial, either B-3 or B-4. O'Neill noted the buffer yard ordinance would apply to that lot. Suchy asked about the purpose of the right -in, right -out configuration. Grittman stated that there is a median that prevents left turns out. Traffic has to go back through parking lot and exit on Deegan. Schibonski asked if the median currently exists. Grittman stated that it may not be there, but it is part of the School Boulevard plans. Schibonski inquired if this design is consistent with other combined access points. Grittman stated that this is a standard commercial driveway width, so it should be more than adequate to handle the traffic. Dragsten asked if it is just this lot being finalized, or the whole plat. Grittman explained that this lot is being final platted as part of a separate process. Dragsten asked if the lots are being sized according to what is needed. Girttman confirmed that the developer is final platting the lots as needed by buyers. Dragsten stated that he did not find a materials list and asked if that is something the Commission can get. Grittman stated that the building materials are on one of the sets. The building is proposed to be EFIS with metal wall banding and cap. There are also metal arches over windows, and a ledge stone and stucco front elevation finish. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing and asked Mr. Holthaus to make himself available for questions. Schibonski asked if there was going to be a sidewalk. Grittman stated that there is a pathway in place on the north side of School Boulevard. A sidewalk will extend along Deegan. Schibonski asked that the Deegan Avenue sidewalk be added as a condition. Hilgart clarified that the conditions would be those listed on Exhibit Z, plus the sidewalk. Holthaus asked the Commission to consider allowing the sod to be removed as a condition and replaced with rock. Holthaus stated that sod is harder to clean. He stated that the buffer is a combination of rock with evergreens and lilacs. He noted that the grass would be irrigated. 3 Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06 Grittman stated that his primary concern with ground material is under the trees. Grittman stated if they can maintain the grass in the areas around the building, he has no objection to that. Holthaus stated no other problems with Exhibit Z. Suchy asked if there is outdoor seating. Holthaus confirmed that there would be a patio. Posusta asked about the pathway. Grittman indicated that the existing pathway is asphalt and the proposed sidewalk is concrete. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TACO JOHNS, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS FOUND IN EXHIBIT Z. l . The wall sign on the west side of the building shall be removed. 2. The landscape plan shall be revised to provide additional screening in the northwest corner of the site. Said screening may be accomplished through dense vegetation, a solid fence, or any combination thereof. Proposed sod at landscape buffer shall be removed and replaced with shrubs and/or sock mulch. Sod shall remain around the building. 3. The applicant shall submit sample colors or building photos and verify that materials of the trash enclosure will match those of the principal structure. 4. The volume of the drive -through communication systems shall not be audible from the nearby residential area. A sound/decibel qualification may be required at the time of building permit. 5. Photometric plan is subject to approval by the City Building Official. 6. Site plan shall be revised to include Deegan Avenue sidewalk. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. O'Neill noted that the Commission is welcome to review the access design standards at their convenience. 7. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for a nursing home and medical. health clinic and professional office facility in a PZM (Performance Zone Mixed) District. Applicant: St. Benedict's Senior Community O'Neill reported that the applicant had withdrawn the request. The Commissioners were provided with a comment letter submitted by neighboring property owner Merrill Busch for review. O'Neill stated that no discussion or consideration was required. 0 Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06 8. Public Hearing — Consideration of an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for a Develop_ ment Stage Planned Unit Development for an expansion to the Muller Theater. Applicant: AMCON Grittman discussed request, stating that the applicant is seeking an amendment to the planned unit development, which was put in place when the theater was originally constructed. The amendment is being sought to accommodate a theater expansion. The expansion is slightly less than 10,000 square feet and provides another large theater auditorium, along with additional parking. Grittman explained that a future access driveway will extend to connect with School Blvd. The City and the applicant and property owner are working on the exact terminus of that drive. That doesn't affect the plan or building. Grittman reported that the request meets the zoning requirements for setbacks and parking. The building itself will be similar to the existing structure and the landscaping appears to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Staff is recommending approval with the comments as noted related to the outlet to School Boulevard and final engineering and building review. Dragsten asked if there are any potential problems with access. Grittman stated that there are not. Spartz asked if the expansion area would be accessible from the main theater. Grittman stated that it would be entirely accessed from within. Schibonski asked if they would be removing a watermain. Grittman confirmed. Schibonski asked if they would be adding additional fire safety. Grittman stated that he believes so, that item is subject to final building review. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Suchy indicated that the request seems to be consistent with original approval. Hilgart asked if with the original request, the theater had the option to add four more screens. Matt Knutson with AMCON, and Mike Muller with Muller Theaters addressed the Commission. Muller stated that they have space on other end for 4 screens. They are currently renting those spaces out for retail use. However, the success of the Monticello theater has necessitated the additional theater. Muller stated that adding the theater to the east end wasn't feasible. He stated that eventually, that retail area will be converted to theaters. Dragsten asked about a timeframe for the expansion. Muller stated that he expects to be substantially complete by the end of June, although sooner if possible. Dragsten complimented original addition and asked Muller if he had any problems with the conditions of approval. Muller stated that he had met with City representatives, and is not opposed to putting the road where the City proposes; the City just needs to make sure there is enough room to develop other lots. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD AMENDMENT FOR AMCON/MULLER THEATRE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ADDITION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AS WELL AS THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED OF THE is ORIGINAL PUD. THE RECOMMENDATION IS CONDITIONED ON: Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06 a. The applicant's continuation of work with staff on the westerly driveway design b. Review of the City Engineer for final engineering detail. C. Final lighting plan subject to the review of the Building Official. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 9. Public Hearing — Consideration of reauest for variance from the Monticello Zoning Ordinance reQulatinLr wall and nylon signage and consideration of a request for rezonine from B-3 (Highwav Business) to B-4 (Regional Business) for the prop_ osed Warnert Retail plat. Applicant: Miller Architects and Builders Grittman presented the staff report, stating that at this time, the applicants have requested tabling of the sign variance. He reported that they intend to meet with staff regarding that application at a future time. In terms of the rezoning request, the B-3 district is more tailored to automobile traffic, while the B-4 zoning district is more suited to retail -oriented uses. Grittman stated that Staff is recommending approval due to the proposed use, and recommend tabling action on signage. Spartz asked about any potential issues about changing the zoning now and then seeing something entirely different proposed for the site. Grittman stated that a B-3 or B-4 designation doesn't make a large impact in terms of the site plan. The only issue is whether the tenants would require separate CUPS. Grittman noted that some B-4 uses aren't allowed in B-3 or are conditional uses. Grittman commented that B-3 is an old district, geared to the automobile, setting up areas for gas stations and auto repairs. Due the growth of the community, Highway 25 is really a commercial core, and therefore B-4 is most appropriate designation. Dragsten stated that his that concerns is that the B-4 would potentially impact users in terms of standards. Grittman noted that many items, such as parking, are determined by use, not by zone. Dragsten commented that in that case, when evaluating parking, sites are evaluated based on the most intense use. Grittman stated that most intense standard is retail; it doesn't matter what zone, the use determines the parking. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING FOR THE PROPOSED PLAT OF WARNERT RETAIL, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE B-4 DISTRICT BEST REFLECTS THE LONG TERM LAND USE FOR THIS PROPERTY. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCHIBONSKI. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO TABLE THE HEARING ON THE VARIANCE. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. 0 MOTION CARRIED, SA. Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06 10. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for an interim use permit for the relocation of a billboard within Outlot A, Country Club Manor. Applicant: City of Monticello, O'Neill noted that the Commission had dealt with this issue in the past, as this is the second of the two relocations from the former AVR site. The City has established an interim use permit that has allowed us to move billboards moved by public project. If the City finds an appropriate site, it can accept the lease and then relocate the sign. When the lease runs out, the City can then take the sign down. O'Neill reported that the proposed site is at Outlot A of Country Club Manor, next to the RV site. There are four signs on the property, and this replaces a current sign, for which the lease is expiring. O'Neill noted that the City will have one less sign on the site and avoid damages involved with buying AVR property. O'Neill stated that the Commission and Council are asked to approve the interim use. Suchy asked about costs to install carrier pipes. O'Neill stated that wouldn't apply to this item, it was a carry-over from previous item. Schibonski asked how long the lease is. O'Neill stated that it will mirror what was established with AVR, and the same terms. It was originally a 15 year agreement, with 13 years left. They will get same time duration, extended for the time that the sign was down on the AVR site due to construction. Dragsten asked about first sign. O'Neill responded that sign went to River Street location, near the Xcel ballfields. Dragsten stated that typically when talking about interim uses, they are allowed for a short period of time. He inquired whether the Council has considered this. O'Neill replied that the City had limited options left, referring to state law for damages that would be due to the sign company if the signs are not relocated. The Council could have said we could make it shorter, but would need to pay damages. Posusta stated that since it is on City property, the City has control of it. At the time the property develops, the City could buy out the contract. Posusta commented that a tentative agreement had been reached with AVR. Dragsten stated that he just wanted to note that the City will be setting a precedent for the length of time in an interim use. O'Neill commented that the time is specific to this use. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the pubic hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF GRANT AN INTERIM USE PERMIT ALLOWING RELOCATION OF A SIGN FROM THE AVR SITE TO OUTLOT A OF COUNTRY CLUB MANOR. THE TERM OF THE INTERIM USE PERMIT TO MATCH THE TIME TERMS IDENTIFIED IN THE ORIGINAL LEASE AGREEMENT. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 0 Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06 11. Consideration to approve a resolution of the Citv of Monticello Planning Commission finding that a modification to the redevelopment plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Proi ect No., 1 and a TIF elan for TIF District No. 1-37 conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the city. Applicant: Karlsburger Foods, Inc. Koropchak presented the staff report, stating that the Commission is asked to adopt a resolution indicating that the district conforms to the redevelopment plans for Monticello, through the comprehensive plan. Koropchak reported that the TIF district being created is 2.5 acres in size, for which the City Council did approve the final plat. The buildable lot is 2 acres. Karlsburger Foods will be relocating from Dayton. On a tour of the Dayton facility, Public Works Director John Simola found that this company would have little or no effect on the wastewater capabilities of the City. Koropchak stated that creating a TIF district allows the HRA to collect a portion of taxes in a process set up by state statute. Koropchak stated that the school district and. -County have 30 days to comment; the City has never had any objections from those taxing authorities. Koropchak stated that this district would be an economic district running for 11 years, and collecting increment for 9 years. The company has 16 full-time jobs relocating from Dayton, with an average wage over $21 per hour without benefits. Another 4 full time jobs will be created in Monticello, at over $18 per hour without benefits. The property is zoned I-1 A and is owned by the City. Karlsburger will be responsible to the covenants established for the first 35 acres of the park. Koropchak reported that the HRA will address the plans and elevations. Staff will also review those at the appropriate time. Spartz stated that this company appears to be what the City was looking for in terms of candidates for the park. Schibonski asked if this is only a TIF issue review and is not related to a review of the building. Koropchak answered that the building will be looked at by staff, as it is a permitted use. Koropchak indicated that the Commission is responsible for finding that the use fits the zoning district and comprehensive plan. Dragsten asked about the minimum wage needed to get TIF. Koropchak stated that for the industrial park, the criteria is $16 per hour without benefits. The last two proposals brought forward have been higher than that. Koropchak stated that Karlsburger hopes to close May 1, with the building move happening in October. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND THE TIF PLAN FOR TIF DISTRICT NO 1-37 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 12. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan relating to open space plannine. Applicant: Citv of Monticello O'Neill provided background information regarding this item. O'Neill stated that the amendment is being considered in order to support the future purchase of the YMCA property. The YMCA property Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06 is approximately 1200 acres, and includes the YMCA's Camp Manitou. The site is located west of City, adjacent to the current city limits. It is owned completely by the YMCA. O'Neill reported that a little over one year ago, the YMCA indicated to the City an interest in selling property. The YMCA stated that they were looking at putting capital toward other areas. At that time, the City Council took an interest in the site, looking at the history of this asset as part of the City. Members of the Council stated that they were interested in the acquisition and preservation of this site, believing it important not loose the area to development. A task force was formed to address the issue, including representatives from the City and County. Since that time, the YMCA has completed an appraisal. The task force hasn't gotten into serious negotiations with the YMCA at this point. The task force is working on providing more background info to go the City Council to aid their decision regarding the possible purchase of the site. The background information includes concept plans, financing, and operations. O'Neill stated that the task force's ultimate goal is to preserve the site for public use forever. The comprehensive plan amendment proposed is an early action in working toward acquisition of that property. Grittman stated that the YMCA property is unique in its size, and it is rare to find something this size and this pristine so close to the City limits. The City is asking the Commission to consider the comp plan amendment, which would incorporate the entire YMCA as public open space. Grittman explained that currently, the comp plan designates the majority of the area as open space, but the plan does not necessarily envision pubic ownership. Grittman stated that this comp plan policy would incorporate that intent into the comp plan. It also sets the ground work for further implementation actions. Grittman stated that staff recommends approval. Hilgart asked what the appraisal came in at. Grittman stated that the property owners are not willing to share that information at this time. Hilgart asked about vision for the property. Grittman stated that they are working on that based on factors such as site trips, soil, wetland, and other coverages. Grittman referred to active recreation area and passive park spaces, stating that it is likely that the YMCA Camp space would be designated for active spaces, with other limited areas for active use, such as primitive camping. Grittman indicated that although those would be active, they would be low impact. The majority of the site would remain passive. Hilgart asked if there will be access to the lakes. Grittman stated that there are two places for potential access. It is anticipated that it would non -motorized access. Suchy stated that she feels that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity for the City. She commented staff and the Council for their role. Suchy stated that it is essential to preserve this space, as it will be an enormous benefit to the community in the future. Posusta commented that the City has been working with the County on this potential purchase, for the purposes of financing and operations. O'Neill stated that it is important to have the plan amendment in place, so that when looking at financing techniques, the City can identify that this is part of the City's parks and open space plan. Posusta asked if the City is diminishing negotiating powers by approving this amendment. Grittman 0 responded that he thinks the City is enhancing their position in that regard as it reinforces that the 0 Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06 City's interest in this property is as parkland, the same is true for the County. Grittman stated that the policy doesn't say that it can't be part of County, but that it is integral to the City's park and open space plan. Dragsten stated that his concern is the potential cost of this property. He indicated his concern with adopting this policy is that it would mean that it can't be sold to anything but a public entity. He stated that seems to preclude anything in the open market. Dragsten stated that he doesn't know if he is supportive of that. Posusta stated that the City has control out there anyway. Dragsten commented that the amendment boxes in the area as open space. Grittman replied that this policy just creaks the door open wider for public use of the property. The Commission is not changing the area's designation as open space, but it would be opening the door for the City to acquire the property for public open space. Grittman indicated that as the City goes through the process, the financing becomes more clear. In terms of the uses, the City may decide that certain portions might be better suited for park and open space. In which case, then the City would re -draw your map based on those uses. O'Neill asked Grittman to address the park dedication issue. Grittman referred to dedication requirements by statute, stating that when you take from private land owners, you have to treat everyone equally. Grittman stated that this proposed amendment equalizes the impact between land dedication and cash in lieu of land. This City recently increased the cash dedication fee, and as such, the City needs to change land requirement in relationship to that ordinance. Grittman noted that the increased fee was intended to generate a stream of revenue to purchase the YMCA property. Grittman reported that it is also important to note that the City can't put dedication all off on new development, parkland dedication has to be balanced between existing and projected growth areas. Posusta noted that this policy is also consistent with Councils direction to encourage large parks as opposed to pocket parks. Dragsten stated that it seems to recommend the policy amendment at this time may be putting the cart before the horse, as the target is 1200 acres. O'Neill stated that this purchase is a plausible consideration for the City. Grittman stated that to the question of whether the City should move forward, part of what the City is trying to do, is to provide a background for acquisition. This policy simply states that this area is good to have part of the City's plan for parkland. Dragsten commented this amendment seems to cut out any private purchase unless the City decides it will be private; this is without understanding of funding. He stated that it is possible that this area could provide upscale housing and still have room for park. O'Neill stated that in working with the County, they can plan for that if that is the ultimate vision. The County and task force want to create as much open space as possible, although there may be edges that fit development. O'Neill stated that the task force's vision has been for preservation as too much development would cause a loss of character for the area. Spartz asked how the City will deal with a request to develop a 100 acre parcel. Grittman responded that at that time, the Planning Commission will need to decide which parts are appropriate for development. Those decisions are better made as part of larger comprehensive plan. Grittman indicated that in negotiating with the developer, considerations made through the comprehensive plan gives the City more advantage and more leverage. 10 Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06 Spartz asked about a timeframe for the process. O'Neill stated that one of the reasons for the amendment is to justify the park dedication fee, which is already in place. The City must justify the fee in terms of land dedication. O'Neill commented that the other concern is that the YMCA is serious about selling and we do not want to lose this opportunity. Schibonski asked if there are other people or agencies who may want to proceed with this effort. O'Neill stated that the DNR was part of the original task force, but they have determined that while it is a great recreational space, the property did not have diversity and size to meet their programs. The DNR encouraged the City to look at state and federal grant programs. There is no state representative on the task force right now, O'Neill reported. Grittman referred an area map, stating that the most ecologically diverse environment in the area is Lake Maria. The YMCA would be more or a recreational area than a preserve. Hilgart inquired if it is the intent that by raising the dedication requirement, everyone pays the fee versus a land dedication. Grittman stated that the City makes the decision on whether to take land or cash in development proposals. Grittman said that the requirement is that the land percentage needs to be roughly equivalent to the cash. O'Neill remarked that the task force is thinking about future generations in the preservation of this space and thinking about the future development of the City. Hilgart stated that the acquisition makes sense in terms of a quality of life perspective on why people would choose Monticello to work or live in. Dragsten inquired if there are other communities that have taken on something like this. Grittman and O'Neill stated that this isn't unusual, many regional park are join ventures between cities and counties or other park entities. Spartz asked if the comp plan amendment makes the subdivision amendment possible. Grittman replied that one supports the other. This item adjusts the comp plan based on a majority of the YMCA property becoming parks and open space. The position of the task force is that all of it should be. Grittman also noted that the land is currently under County regulation which allows development in 40 acre parcels. If that occurred, it would be lost forever as parkland for public use. O'Neill referenced that the City Council would be holding a workshop to discuss the YMCA acquisition prior to the next City Council meeting. The workshop will be a forum for the groundwork of a concept, financial and operations plan. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE YMCA PROPERTY IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE OPEN SPACE PATTERN OF THE COMMUNITY, AND THAT CONVERSION OF THE PROPERTY TO OTHER NON -PARK OR OPEN SPACE USES WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE CITY' S EXPECTATIONS FOR THIS PROPERTY, AS WELL AS COMPROMISE THE CITY' S QUALITY OF LIFE AND GENERAL WELFARE. is MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. 11 Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06 Hilgart stated it is already guided for open space and reiterated that this policy would just be guide it for public open space to justify park dedication. If the City can't afford it, then this is a moot point. Grittman stated that the policy still gives the City leverage as to the type of development that is allowed. Posusta asked if the YMCA property is all in the Orderly Annexation Area. Grittman stated that 80% of the property is in the OAA. Posusta inquired if the City needs approval from township on the balance. Grittman answered that the County's agricultural zoning applies, so the park use designation does not present a problem. Grittman also indicated that the annexation agreement doesn't preclude this action. If the City owns the property, the boundary can extend. Spartz questioned whether this policy is premature. He stated that while he thinks it has merit, he is not sure he is comfortable approving the amendment at this time. Spartz suggested it may be best to table action at this point until more is known about the potential acquisition. O'Neill recommended that the Commission could table action until after the workshop. Suchy asked for a vote on the motion on the table. WITH A VOTE ON THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR, MOTION FAILS 2-2-1, WITH COMMISSIONERS SPARTZ AND DRAGSTEN IN DISSENT, COMMISSIONER SCHIBONSKI ABSTAINING. Grittman stated that technically the motion fails. The Commission can direct that the recommendation go forward to Council, or present another motion. • MOTION BY CHAIRMAN DRAGSTEN THAT THE COMMISSION TABLE FURTHER ACTION ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT UNTIL TRAINING IS COMPLETED AND THE COMMISSION CAN UNDERSTAND THE FULL RAMIFICATIONS OF WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5 -0. 13. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance, Section 11-6-1(A), regulating park dedication requirements. Applicant: Citv of Monticello Grittman stated that the two items are linked, but not inseparable. Grittman reported that the current ordinance requires two alternative ways of measuring dedication from proposed subdivisions. Currently, the land dedication percentage is 10%, or a density calculation based on population. The ordinance requires 1 acre for every 75 residents. Grittman stated that the inclusion of the YCMA as a potential acquisition target increases the City's need to add to dedication requirement. Grittman indicated that the revised numbers based on this inclusion are shown in the proposed amendment. The amendment raises the land percentage from 10% to 18% and the land density ratio from 75 persons to 40 persons. This amendment would compliment the recently approved ordinance increasing the fee per unit in lieu of land dedication. Grittman stated again that the City is required by law to have dedication requirements for cash and land that are equitable. The intent of the ordinance amendment isis to bring the land requirement into conformance with fee. 12 Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06 Hilgart asked how this compares with other cities' rates. Grittman responded that it is a little higher, although some are close at $2800 - $3000. He stated that it is more common to see fees in the $2000 range. Again, the increase is purely to accommodate the expected need to acquire the YMCA. Grittman stated that the $1500 cash fee was lagging in terms of the amount of land the City needed to acquire at a base level in any case. Hilgart asked what happens if the City raises the requirement and then don't buy land. Grittman stared that the intent is to be able to purchase the land. Hilgart asked if the increase will affect the amount of development. Grittman stated that theoretically it could, but it is not so far out of line with other communities that it would halt development. O'Neill noted that present land value has increased, so essentially this increase is just a shifting of revenue, channeling some of what would have been profit to park/community use. Posusta stated that it is already having an impact as Insignia went away and Paumen has expressed some concerns. Grittman responded that Insignia had indicated that their primary issue was the price of the land versus the approvals in land use that they had gotten, not park dedication. Schibonski asked about the $3500 rate. Grittman stated that the rate was adopted separately as part of the fee ordinance. Schibonski asked if it is consistent with surrounding area fees. Grittman stated that it is required to be consistent with the city's goals, not with the surrounding area. He stated that by law, consistency with the City's own goals and needs it what should be measured. Spartz stated that he thinks the comp plan policy amendment and subdivision ordinance item items are related. Dragsten asked if this were to go into effect, would it impact new developments or those who have not gotten final plat approval. Grittman stated that the City would have the discretion on that item. Technically, it would apply it to anyone who has not platted. Dragsten stated that he thinks there should be an increase, that the City is behind in terms of what land values are. He indicated that he doesn't know if this is the right number, but does see the need for an increase Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO recommend approval of the amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance, based on a finding that it will incorporate the YMCA or similar properties, and that the proposed dedication requirement accounts for fair division of the contribution to acquisition of said property from future development and existing development. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. Hilgart stated that by phrasing the recommendation that way, if plans do not move forward to purchase the YMCA, the City still has the funds to acquire a larger regional park. Spartz asked if the need for the proposed increase will be covered in the workshop. O'Neill responded that the concept of park acquisition would be as the number seems to be valuable to get 2/3 of the parkland needed in comparison to the development capacity for the City. 13 Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06 Dragsten agreed, asking if the Commission could recommend that the amendment only impact new applicants. O'Neill stated that the fee program was approved at January 1 st, thereby impacting new applicants as of that date. WITH A VOTE ON THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR, MOTION CARRIED, 4-1, WITH COMMISSIONER SPARTZ IN DISSENT. 14. Consideration to review an update on simmae as related to temporary sign ordinance.. Schumann reported that Commissioner Suchy would be moving forward on a task force organized to address the issue. Schumann also entered into the record a letter regarding temporary signage from Lynn Dahl -Fleming. O'Neill referred to the temporary sign ordinance discussion held by the Commission previously. The Commission gave their direction on this item regarding 40 days. O'Neill noted that we cannot distinguish between the two. The constitution does not give the City the ability to distinguish content. O'Neill stated that the task force will be looking at options to create centralized reader boards as an alternative to help eliminate the proliferation of these signs. Suchy stated that she had talked with other communities and those she checked with did not monitored non-profit temporary signage. Anderson reported that the Building Department has been enforcing the temporary sign ordinance. Anderson stated that he appreciated the direction as everyone gets treated the same, and have the right to come before the Council to ask for something different.. 15. Consideration of information regarding the 2006 Monticello Comprehensive Plan update. O'Neill reported that the City Council will be interviewing four potential comprehensive plan proposers tomorrow (April 5t') from 4-8 PM. He stated that the Planning Commission is integral to process and is welcome to attend. 16. Hidden Forest/Niagara Falls Schibonski stated that changes had been made to the Hidden Forest and Niagara Falls plats and inquired whether, due to those changes, it needed to come back to the Planning Commission. Schibonski explained that the plan the Planning Commission had reviewed came before the Council for a separate review as it wasn't possible for the plat to be designed that way. O'Neill stated that essentially the plat is still the same. The pathways, boardwalk, and park are also still there, they are just in a different form with less open water. O'Neill stated that the issue with the open water had come up after the Planning Commission had approved it. He noted that the City Council has the option to send it back to the Commission for further review. Staff had brought the revision to the City Council prior to actual preliminary plat approval to get feedback on the revision. At that time, Council did not elect to send it back to the Commission. The Council elected to request that modifications be made to make most of the amenities, and go back to Parks Commission to negotiate any other needed changes in light of the revision to the water. O'Neill stated that it isn't out of order or unusual for a plan to change before it goes to Council. The Council has not yet approved 14 Planning Commission Minutes 04/04/06 • either Hidden Forest or Niagara Falls at the preliminary plat stage. As such, the Planning Commissions till has an opportunity to express their opinion to the Council. Dragsten asked if O'Neill has a map of what the revised proposal. O'Neill explained that he did not; but essentially they are now proposing a channel and small pocket of open water. Staff has asked if the developer can redirect the channel to run along the wetland perimeter so that the open water is more visible. The developer originally stated that they didn't think they could excavate more of the pond, however they will get that clarified so that they can create bigger pockets. Dragsten clarified that the changes are to the site's waterflow. O'Neill confirmed. O'Neill stated that it wasn't a bait and switch proposal, it was that when the wetland engineering was completed, it was discovered that the site was too low to accomplish what they want to do. The site still has capacity and will have wetland characteristics. O'Neill commented that the properties adjoining the wetland are zoned R-1 A, which requires upper end homes. Grittman stated that there is a chance the change in water features may affect the home values. Dragsten stated that it would have been better if it had come back as the Commissioner is concerned about maintaining the type of housing product. Schibonski stated that in the future, it should at least be recommended that it come back. Grittman stated that the ordinance is set up to allow Council to make that decision. Schumann commented that staff has generally used substantive changes to the plat as a measurement of when additional or secondary review by the Commission is needed. Suchy stated that the change does concern her in terms of the type of housing. O'Neill noted that there was recently a PUD proposal that was rejected by Council. In the discussion, it was bought up that the City Council would like to filter PUD plans better. The problem is that staff do not necessarily know what the Council and Commission consider a "superior" PUD product. That is something the Commission and Council have to decide. O'Neill indicated that they would be organizing a meeting to discuss a policy on PUD criteria. Dragsten and Schibonski volunteered to serve as representatives. Posusta commented that in the PUD O'Neill referred to, the developer followed all required criteria and the Commission passed the plan. The majority of Council believe there should be changed in the ordinance for standards in PUDs. The Council will be looking at this plan again after revisions. Posusta stated that the Council didn't feel it needed to come back to the Commission for review. 17. Adioum. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 15