Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 03-01-2005 . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION TlJESDA Y, MARCH 1st, 2005 6:00 P.M Commissioners Present: Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Sandy Suchy Commissioners Absent: Dick [<'rie Council I.iaison: Glen Posusta Staff Present: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and Angela Schumann 1 . Call to order. Acting Chairman Dragsten called thc mccting to ordcr at 6:00 PM and declared a quorum, noting the absence of Chairman Frie. Commissioner Dragsten also welcomed new Planning Commissioner Sandy Suchy, who was appointed to the seat vacated by Richard Carlson. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesdav, Fcbruarv 1 st, 2005. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO APPROVE TIlE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1 S\ 2005. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Consideration of adding items to the af?enda. NONE. 4. Citizen comments. NONE. 5. Consideration of a lot line adi ustment for two singlc-family residential lots in an R-l Zoning District. Applicant: Stephanie Rossebo O'Neill reviewed the staff report, explaining that the request is to accommodate a lot line shift for a fenceline that had been inadvertently placed over the existing property line. O'Neill reported that the property owners ofthe two parccls were in agreement on the shift of the lot line. O'Neill stated that the resulting lots after the shift will be fully conforming. O'Neill noted that due to shift, the existing 6 foot drainage and utility easements would need to be vacated and reestablished based on the new property line. Six foot drainage and utility . . . Planning Commission Agenda 03/01/05 easements around lots are required as part of the platting process. O'Neill stated that the applicant will be requesting the vacation at the next City Council meeting and has provided a revised survey indicating the proper location of the easement after vacation and relocation. Spartz inquired as to whether proper setbacks were being maintained with the lot shift. O'Neill indicatcd that sctbacks will be met. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND TO TIlE CITY COUNCIL THAT 'llIE LOT LINE SHIFT BE ALLOWED TO CREATE TWO PARCELS AS DESCRIBED BY THE CERfIFICATE OF SURVEY, SUBJECT' TO COUNCIl, APPROV AI, OF THE VACATION OF EXISTING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS AND TIlE SUBMISSION OF A NEW SURVEY ILLUSTRATING PROPER LOCATION OF TIlE REQUIRED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED 6. Public I Iearing - Consideration of a re<'luest for a Conditional Use Permit for Open and Outdoor Storagc in an 1-1 A Zoning District. Applicant: Twin City Die Casting Patch provided the stalf report for the request. Patch explained that opcn and outdoor storage is allowable in the I-IA Zoning District by Conditional Use Permit, subject to those terms prescribed in the zoning code. Patch reviewed the size and function of the storage area, which consists of approximately 1,125 square feet and includes both a covered and uncovered storage area. The covered area will be used to store metal scrap bins, while the outdoor storage area will be used for storages\ such as used palettes. Patch explained that the applicant's plans conform to the terms outlined in the code. Patch indicated that staff is recommending that the storage area be screened with tall evergreens and that the covered storage area be colored to match architectural elements of the existing building. Patch referred to the access road along west line of Twin City Die Casting and explained that this proposed storage area would be exposed to school property. Patch stated that staff recommend approval, subject to provided plans and staff recommendations as noted. Suchy asked if this request would be allowable under the terms of the proposed amendment for open and outdoor storage. Patch confirmed that this request would be allowable by CUP. Dragsten inquired about size ofthe storage area as compared to the building. Patch and Twin City Die Castings representative Don Gunnsten clarified the size of the storage area. - ~ - . Planning Commission Agenda 03/01/05 Oragsten asked if there would still be storage occurring outside. Gunllsten stated with this addition, most storage would be inside or covered. The remaining storage occurring in the uncovered, fenced area would be palettes. Dragstcn opened public hearing. Hearing no comment, Dragsten closed the public hearing. Hilgart asked what the floor of the fenced area would be composed of. Gunnsten stated that the non-covered area would be asphalt. Gunnsten stated that the covered area is currently proposed to be cement. Hilgart inquired why the whole storage area is not enclosed. Gunnsten stated that expense was the primary factor in that decision. Spartz stated that he sought confirmation that all scrap metal, magnesium in particular, would be stored in the enclosed area or inside. Gunnsten confirmed that statement as accurate. Suchy asked about how the City pursues violations or public nuisances in relationship to the approved CUPs for open and outdoor storage. Patch stated if the applicant violates the terms identified in the CUP or code, it is addressed as preseribcd by code. . Patch added that the elevation drawing provided by Twin City Die Casting was a simple schematic. Patch will look for more detail in architectural compatibility with original building in a review of the permit plans. Posusta asked about material types for the fenced area. Gunnsten stated that the fence would be standard chain link with slats in a color similar to the color of building. Posusta asked whether the applicant should provide an alternative style of fencing in the same color as the building. Patch cited that the applicant meets the terms required by the code and noted the recommended evergreens for additional bullering and screening. Posusta inquired whether the 12 foot fence was allowable. Patch stated it would be by permit. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL 'f'0 ALLOW A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO TWIN CITY DLE CASTINGS AT 520 CHELSEA ROAD FOR OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE, SUBJECT TO THE PLANS PROVIDED AND ATTACFfED AND SUBJECT TO TI-lE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF AS NOTED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED. . - :1 - . . . Planning Commission Agenda 03/01/05 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow loading dock doors fronting a public street on a corner lot in ffil 1-2 District. Applicant: Tapper l-loldings, LLC Grittman provided the staff report for the request, explaining that the Conditional Use Permit is required due to the corner lot, on which the loading dock doors face Edmonson, a public street. Grittman stated that Exhibit Z outlines specific conditions related to the request. Grittman noted that the plan provided by the applicant docs show that the screening provided is more than adequate to accomplish intended purpose. Grittman explained that the proposed plan does not reflect adequate parking as outlined in the code. However, the applicant has adequate room to provide the additional parking. Exhibit Z includes a condition that adequate parking is provided. With those notations and others in Exhibit Z, Grittman stated that staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit. Hilgmi asked whether the area shown west of the loading dock area could be used for the additional parking. Grittman stated that the area would be pavement for truck circulation. Grittman stated that it is more likely that the parking will be added elsewhere. Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Dragsten closed the public hearing. Dragsten asked Bill Tapper, applicant, if the addition will be used primarily for storage. Tapper responded that the addition will be leased to a second company for distribution purposes. Dragtsen asked if the company would be adding jobs. Tapper stated that the leasing business employs approximately 40 persons. I Iilgart asked if any retail would be occurring on site, as it would warrant additional parking. Tapper stated both the existing business and the new leasee are wholesale distributors, with a maximum employee count of 75. The plan shows 100 parking spaces. Hilgart inquired whether he is willing to add the spaces as recommended. Tapper confirmed that he could provide the additional parking as his current site has space to do so. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPRO V AL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE LOCAI'ION OF LOADING BERTHS WITHIN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE SUBJECT SITE BASED ON THE COMMENTS FROM THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE MARCH 1, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS. 1. The applicant demonstrate compliance with the City's off-street parking supply requirements through proof of parking or employee counts. To achieve the required parking supply, consideralion should be given to "infilling" the exisling parking 10l to the extent possible. 2. The submitted site plan is revised to illustrate required parking stalls to be devoted to use by the disabled. - "I, - . 3. 4. 5. 6. Planning Commission Agenda 03/01/05 The proposed plantings comply with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. To the extent possible, the proposed building addition match the existing building in terms of design and color. All exterior lighting be directed such that the source ol"the light is not visible from adjacenl properties or rights-or.way. The City Engineer provide comment regarding grading and drainage issues. DRAGSTEN SOUGHT CONfIRMATION THAT TILE APPLICANT HAD SEEN EXHIBrr l. TAPPER CONFIRMED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED AND UNDERSTOOD EXHLBIT Z. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCIIY. MOTION CARRIED. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for replat for Prairie Ponds Second Addition, a three lot commercial subdivision, and a request to rezone Prairie Ponds First and Second Addition from B-3 (Highwav Business) to 8-4 (Regional Business). Applicant: Prairie Pointe, LLC . (Jrittman reviewed thc staff report, noting that thc applicants are seeking a replat of a portion of Prairie Ponds and a rezoning of the entire Prairie Ponds area to B-4, Regional Business. Grittman explained that the replat is requested to crcatc three re-shaped commercial building lots from Lots 3, 4 and 5 of Block 1 of the original Prairie Ponds plat. The replat is intcnded to accommodatc a bank development (on a portion of the proposed Lot 2), with pad developmcnt sites f()f what are currently undesignated uses. Grittman noted that the lot shapes create a driveway route to Decgan A venue NE, which will be uscd by all three commercial lots under a future CUP or PUD design. Grittman statcd that the repIatted lots meet the City's commercial zoning rcquirements. In rcgard to the rezoning rcqucst, Grittman explained that the 8-4 dcsignation is more encompassing than the currcnt B-3 District, which is oriented toward automobile uses and other highway business. The B-4 district is thc City's most comprehensive busincss district. It is also the zoning dcsignation fc)r the adjoining Jefferson Commons commercial projcct, as well as other commercial arcas to the east of Highway 25. Grittman indicated that rezoning to 8-4 would be consistent with the area and with the City's Comprchcnsive Plan, which directs the area for commercial use. . Grittman reported that staiTis recommending approval of both the replat and thc rezoning rcqucst. - s - . . . Planning Commission Agenda 03/0 1/05 Oragsten asked if the primary drive aisle to Lot 1, Block 1, as shown with an access point at Deegan A venue, provides adequate stacking distance to School Boulevard. Grittman stated that it is his undcrstanding that the cngineers have scen the plan as proposed and are comfortable with the shared drive at that location, as it avoids a series of drivcways. Dragsten inquired if surrounding properties are zoned B-4. Grittman responded that to north, the B-3 designation is more common. However, south of School Boulcvard, including Jefferson Commons, the B-4 designation is more common. Brad Larson representing Prairie Pointe, LLC, made himself available for questions from the Commission and public. Oragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Oragsten closed the public hearing. I ,arson noted that one of the concerns addrcssed previously by staff was the need lor confirmation that construction on or near the pipeline easement was acceptable to the petroleum company. Larson confirmed that thc permit has been obtained. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF TIlE REZONING, BASED ON FINDINGS THAT THE BEST LONG-TERM USE OF THE SITE IS FOR REGIONAL COMMERCIAL USES, AND THAT THE B-4 DESIGNATION WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJOINING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, ALSO ZONED B-4. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPAR'fZ. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TI-IE REPLAT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE REPLAT IS BEST SUITED FOR THE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NEEDS OF THE PROPERTY, AND THAT ALL LOTS IN Tl IE REPLAT WILL CONTINUE TO MEET THE CITY'S ZONING REQUIREMENTS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED. 9. Consideration of a sketch plat fiJr Pine West. a proposed fivc-unit residential subdivision in an R-l district. Applicant: West Side Market Grittman provided an overview of the sketch plat, indicating that no formal action is required in a sketch plat review. Instead, the applicant is looking lor feedback from the Commission on the site design and any potential issues associated with the plan. - (i - . Planning Commission Agenda 03/01/05 Grittman explained that the applicants had previously come forward with an application for preliminary plat. At that time, the application was considered incomplete due to general plat requirement deficiencies. Since that time, the applicants expressed their intent to move forward with a request for preliminary plat based on the proposed site plan, at which time planning staff advised them to seek Commission's feedback. In relationship to this pllil, staff had previously expressed coneern about the realignment process for Otter Creek Road as well as the entrances shown onto County Road 75. The access points onto County 75 appear to be unsafe with driveways in their current position. Grittman noted that the applicant has indicated that he had received verbal approval on the access points from the County. Grittman stated that the other issue of note is related to the 5 lots, shown at widths which do not meet basic R-l zoning standards. At the time of preliminary plat, the applicant would also need to seek variances for each to be platted as they are. . Grittman stated that the applicants are looking for Planning Commission's input prior to moving a formal application for plat forward. Specifically, the applicant will need to know whether the variances and the proposed access points would be looked upon favorably. Finally, Commission should address the issue of realignment of Otter Creek Road, which requires a vacation of right of way, acquisition of right of way and the actual improvement project itself in order for the plat to proceed as shown. It was noted that the applicants were not present at this time. Hilgart inquired whether staff knew the reasoning for deviating from the R-2A preliminary plat that had been previously approved for this site. Grittman stated that he did not know. Hilgart stated that there is no existing hardship to warrant the variances. Dragsten asked who would be responsible for aequiring the additional right of way for Otter Creek Road. Grittman stated that the City would be involved in assisting the applicant. The acquisition of the corner would be negotiated with property owner, and it is coneeivable that some compensation would be made to the City for the purchase of the existing right of way. Grittman stated that those details have not been finalized. Posusta stated that he doesn't think the County has a problem with the access points onto County 75 due to the grandfather situation of the two previous access points. Posusta commented that the applicants have tried other ways to develop what is currently a vacant convenience store. Posusta noted that when the applicants proposed a back loaded plan, there was opposition from area residents who wanted to see single family homes on this site. Posusta expressed his desire to remove the current blighted situation. . Dragsten agreed that it is important for the area to redevelop, but noted that the applicants had a previous approval that would have been a good addition. Posusta stated that he believed the applicants did not proceed with that plan as they didn't want opposition from - 7 - . . . Planning Commission Agenda 03/01/05 the neighborhood. Dragsten expressed that his concern with granting of the variances is the neighboring properties. Dragsten indicated that the lot size isn't consistent with thosc parcels. Hilgart stated that he thinks the lot widths should be mct, that the applicant should reduce the lot count to f()LIr. Spartz commented that not knowing what was prcsented previously, she is concerned about the driveways as shown. Suchy indicated that she would prefer that the driveways be behind the houses mld should not access County 75. Suchy also expressed concern about lot dimensions. Suchy stated that the applicants should meet the minimum zoning standards. 10. Public Hearing - Consideration of an ordinance amcndment for building design standards for the R-l A (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Commission Grittman provided an overview of the staffreport, explaining that the R-l A zoning standards had been adopted with the intent of ensuring that the City did not lose prime development areas to modcst cost single-family housing. Grittman stated that the R-IA zoning district was applied to areas that were to bc preserved until the market was able to catch up to provide upscale housing. Grittman noted that at the time the standards were originally presented, they were debated at length. Grittman notcd that these sizes were set up to take advantage of the amenity present and work with it to come up with a more creative plat. The other standards incorporated were finished and foundation square footage requirements. Since the time the ordinance was approved, Grittman reported that the City has becn approached by developers and builders who purchased R-IA land, asking to relax the standards. The primary concern seems to be over the 1400 square foot foundation size. Grittman referred to Hillside Farm, in which the developer received an amendmcnt as the lot sizcs were R-I lots, although the zoning under the PUD standards was R-I A. The City has also been approached by two other developers that have current R -I A plat proposal, investigating the potcntial to relax. The issue in both of those cases has been the foundation requirement, which seems to encourage s.plits. Grittman stated that the intent of the proposed ordinance amendment is to maintain the current R-l A standards, but c10sc the loophole allowing split entry homcs. Hilgart inquired what percentage of Monticello's available land is designated R-I A. Grittman stated that if looking at the existing corporate boundary, perhaps 10% of available land. llowcver, if looking at the new annexation boundary, it would most likely be something significantly less. Dragsten asked how many R-IA areas are currently slated for development. Grittman responded that Carlisle Village, Spirit llills, and the Hillside Farm - H - . Planning Commission Agenda 03/01/05 hybrid are all working in their developments. Dragsten noted that with Carlisle Village, only a portion of the plat was actually final platted into lots. The balance, including the R- 1 A, is on the agenda f()r review this evening. Grittman stated that staff have also had a discussion with the developer of Spirit Hills on their intention to pursue final platting. Dragsten commented that the way he had read the proposed amendment, it required no less than 2000 square f()ot finished 1100r area abovc exterior grade. It also allows for a lookout basement design. Grittman stated that the amendment requires designs to still be subject to 1000 square feet finished at front entry, in combination with finished square footage. Grittman commented that this arrangement accommodates a three-level or four-Icvel design, but not a pure split entry. Dragsten opened the public hearing. . Ron [,ong spoke to the Commission on behalf of Kcyland Homes, builder for lIillside Farm. Long stated that the current average sale price for homes in Hillside Farm is $320,000- $340,000. Long stated that he believes the next set of homes will be in the $350,000 to $425,000 range. Long commented that the issue seems to be the two-story foundation size, Keyland's primary design. Long stated that 2400 square feet above grade, or 1200 square loot flmndation size, seems to be the maximum size bomeowners can alTord. Long statcd that Keyland builds in about 25 different communities; they don't have any other plaees with similar standards. Long stated that most restrictions occur through architectural approvals. Dragsten asked Long Keyland had been able to meet the minimum finished square footage requirement, as amcnded, without issue. Long stated that Keyland has been able to meet the required minimum finished area without problem. Steve Conroy, attorney with Conroy Law Offices, 261 East Broadway, stated that he understands that the homes described meet the needs of average families. Conroy stated that it seems that Monticello already has an abundance of average and entry level housing. Conroy reported that his family had looked extensively for move up f()f housing in Monticello, without success. Conroy stated that he isn't certain that even the proposed amendment would ereate true move-up housing and neighborhoods. Conroy noted that therc are currently no neighborhoods that meet the R-IA standards. Conroy stated that although Keyland provides nice housing, he doesn't know that it is truly R-IA housing. Conroy noted that the price of housing is not what it used to be. For example, Conroy stated that ten years ago, $300,000 was high-end housing. Conroy indicated that the $300,000 price range is not currently high end. Conroy recommended Commission toughen the ordinance. . Mario Cocciarella addressed the Commission representing Maplewood Development, developer of Spirit Hills. Cocciarella stated that Maplewood had started with the townhome section of their project, with the intent that the single family portion would eome later as the market developed fi)f higher end housing. Cocciarella stated that in the next phase of their townhome projeet, all units will be above $200,000. Cocciarella stated that they have tried marketing beyond Monticello for their high-end product. However, they are finding that - ~) - . Planning Commission Agenda 03/01/05 they need to redirect their marketing back into the City. Cocciardla stated that Monticcllo buyers are not ready for the housing that the R-IA standards require. Coccimella stated that in his opinion, the foundation minimums are not reasonable and noted that in some cases, the lay of the land will also dictate what type of house can be built on a given lot. Cocciarella suggested the Commission graduate its standards, commenting that to have $500,000 plus home simply appear by ordinance is unrealistic. Cocciarella stated that if the ordinance stands as is, Maplewood will wait and ask for an extension on their preliminary plat. Cocciarella reported that Maplewood had already lost one builder who was unable to meet the standards. Coccimella also suggested that split entry designs should be allowed in the district, although with some finished square footage minimum. Hearing no further comment, Dragsten closed the public hearing. Hilgart stated asked staff if the ordinance was amended at this time, would Spirit Hills be subject to the amendment. Grittman stated that anything not yet linal platted would be subject to the amended standards. . Hilgart asked Long and Coccimella whether the standards were set at a 1400 square foot minimum foundation size when they had applied for preliminary plat, and if so, did something change between then and now. Cocciarella stated that it is difJicult to project what would happen in the market in relationship to the plats at that time. Cocciarella agreed that when you look at the Monticello housing stock, there isn't a lmge amount of step up anywhere in the community. Cocciarella stated that the trend for larger housing is just happening now as one moves north along 94. Hilgart asked Long if the lowercd minimum at l--lillsideFarm is what is currently being built. Long stated that most homes are in the 1200 to 1300 square loot range. Hilgart asked if buyers are building largcr than the minimum. Long stated that was correct; that price points were not set as their measure of upscale standards. Suchy asked if developers would be receptive to changes in the required foundation square footages based on floor plan. Long agreed that the split cntry loophole should be addressed. ITilgart stated that he still believes that each specific type of house design should have a specific foundation size. Hilgart believes the ordinance should require as large a home as possible. For example, the rambler standard should be bigger and overall, the total square finished square footage should be greater. . Posusta agreed that the ordinance does need to be adjusted based on the speeific type of homc, and possibly incorporate other criteria. For example, Posusta inquircd whcthcr more should be required in terms of briek or othcr fayadc detai I. Posusta stated that City Council has heard there is a need f(Jr a higher value house. The Council has also heard feedback from the school district on housing types that bring children to the district. - 10 - . Planning Commission Agenda 03/01/05 Grittman noted that the element that will most directly affect price is the total finished square footage. Posusta commented that perhaps what was done by covenant in places such as Eastwood Knoll should be outlined in the ordinance. Hilgart stated that creative developers will always be able to find a loophole in the ordinance somewhere. Hilgart stated that he has noticed that two-stories or large walk-out ramblers tend to dominate in mid to upper range home styles. Hilgart commented that the amendment should address that trend. Dragsten confirmed that the way the existing ordinance reads,it seems to encourage splits. Dragsten asked how the proposed amendment impacts the ordinance. Grittman stated that it would allow a rambler, two-story or multi-level. Suchy stated that she talked with a builder, who also felt it was important for the Commission to diiTerentiate between the rambler mId the two-story. . Hi Igart suggested a standard of 1700-1800 square foot foundation size for a rambler. Dragsten stated that a higher standard f(Jr ramblers may encourage a two-story. Hilgart commented that he would look ior a 1200-1300 square foot standard for two-story homes. Drgatsen stated that while the Commission wants to encourage move-up, a realistic minimum is needed and should be eombined with more exterior detail. Coccimella indicated that the codc doesn't need a complete revision, just minor adjustments. Cocciarella noted that in some cases, large ramblers won't work with the widths of some lots. Cocciarella referred to his other developments in neighboring eommunities, where splits cxceed 1600 square feet. He also explained that lots prices in those areas, some as high as $100,000 for I acre lots, dictate the type of housing. Cocciarella stated that the only major issue he sees is the two-story ioundation requirement. Hearing no further comment, Dragsten closed the public hearing. Spartz asked if it made sense to table the amendment item in order to review squme footage and building requirements. Grittman reeommended that ifthc item was tabled, staff would seek direction on the specifics that Commission would like to come back. Hilgart requested that staffprovide information that addressed square f<.)()tage recommendations for each building style. Posusta suggested that Commission should vote on this amendment to close the loophole. Dragsten noted that it would be important to consider a vote carefully, as the Commission wouldn't want to amend the ordinance now, only to amend again soon. . Suchy stated that perhaps by establishing minimums lor each building design, it might be easier for developers mId builders to adhere to. Grittman statcd that thcrc is a countcrbalancc in how dctailcd the ordinance is in order to encouragc varied building styles. - 11 - . . . Planning Commission Agenda 03/01/05 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROV AI, OF THE R- 1 A ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE R-IA DISTRICr IS TO PRESERVE IUGH AMENITY LAND FOR 'fRUE UPPER END HOUSING, AND THAT THE CURRENT LANGUAGE PERMITS HOUSING THA T MAY INTERFERE WITH THAT GOAL. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY Prior to a vote, Dragsten stated that he would rather leave the amendment as written, but he was curious whether Hilgart wanted to leave the clause requiring that at least 1,000 square feet of such area shall be at the smne finished floor elevation as the front entry. There was some discussion amongst the Commissioners as to what the elimination of this language would restrict. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART AMENDED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 'n IE R-l A ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, HASED ON A FINDING THAT TIlE PURPOSE OF THE R-IA DISTRICT IS TO PRESERVE HIGH AMENITY LAND FOR TRUE UPPER END HOUSING, AND THAT THE CURRENT LANGUAGE PERMITS 'lOUSING THAT MAY INTERFERE WITH 'rHAr GOAL, WITH DELETION Of THE CLAUSE STATING: "AT LEAST I ,000 SQUARE FEET OF SUCH AREA SHALL BE AT TIlE SAME FINISl-IED FLOOR ELEVATION AS THE FRONT ENTRY." MOTION SECONDED RY COMMISIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED. Staffis seeking clarification on the intent of Planning Commission's motion on this ordinance prior to approval of these minutes. Commission directed staff to prepare specific square footage recommendations for home types in the R-IA Zoning District. Posusta asked Grittman to review how other cities address these issues within their codes. II. Public Hearing-- Consideration of a request for an amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Development Stage Planned Unit Development and consideration of a revised Preliminary Plat fix Carlisle Village. a 238-unit residential subdivision. Applicant: Shadow Creek Corporation Grittman provided the staff repoli, explaining that this is a new application for replat and amendment to the previously approved Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development. Grittman stated that Carlisle Village, although guided for R-I A development, was previously approved as a PUD consisting of multiple zoning districts. The site consists of 78 acres oftotal development area. Grittman report that a portion of the site has already been final platted as the I SI Addition. In a review of revised preliminary plat documentation related to the conditions of that plat, the City discovered that a portion of land along the - I ~ - . Planning Commission Agenda 03/01/05 southern boundary was not included in the revised plans. The developer reported that due to a surveying error, it was discovered that a portion of the south boundary bclonged to an adjacent propcrty owner. As such, Grittman indicated that the applicant was instructed to redesign the plat. In addition, the developer has requested an amendment to both the R-2 and R-lA portions of the site. Grittman reviewed the issues related to the requests, referring to the staff report. Specifically, Grittman cited that this area was guided for low density development and to be predominately single family. However, by PUD, the Council approved a plan that allowed the developer to average density over the entire project. With the entire site considered as one unit, the developer could accommodate a 3 unit per acre density. Grittman stated that more townhouses and small lot single family were allowed than normal under a more traditional method of calculating density. Grittman noted that the intent behind this approval was specifically to allow for the developer to make a better effort to preserve trees in the R-l A area. For example, the developer was to design the streets and lots to save the most trees. . Grittman stated that the replat proposed maintains the same number of lots, despite the loss of land. Grittman commented that the developer has in most cases met only the minimum standards of the zoning ordinance. Therefore, Grittman explained that while the plat meets the R-l A minimum, it does not exceed the standards as required by the PUD ordinance. Grittman stated that the other significant issue is that the grading plan seems to represent a mass grading effort which changes the grade for a large width of area. Under the original PUD approval, the developer stated that it was their intent to custom grade building sites to preserve trees. Grittman also stated that with lots meeting only the minimums, there is a concern that combined with grading, the developer will not be able to preserve the number of trees they has promised. Grittman noted that the original plat showed lot depths between 150-180 feet. 'I'he current plan shows lot depths as little as 122 feet. Under this plan, the building pads consume almost all of the lot, which Grittman indicated does not lend itself to preserving trees. Grittman referred to the staff sketch pIan, which illustrated an alternate lot arrangement by which a greater amount of tree preservation would occur. Staff is recommending a reduction in lot count based on these factors. In regard to the R-2 portion of the site, the original townhomc builder is no longer involved with the project. The developer has found an alternative builder. Grittman reported that the new builder's town home design requires a deeper footprint, which causes a squeeze for the number of units. Again, Grittman stated that it seems the developer's main goal is to maintain as many units as possible, which results in a loss of spaciousness for the townhome area. Additionally, the ratio of R~ 1 A to non~R-1 A homes seems to be inconsistent with the original approval. Grittman reiterated that the point of a Planned Unit Development is higher quality than the base ordinance standards, especially given density accommodations. . Ci-rittman referred to the examples ofR-2A housing provided by the developer, which had been offered by the applicant as part of original approval. Grittman stated that staff would - I:-{ - . Planning Commission Agenda 03/01/05 request that the applicant confirm that those examples are still consistent with what their builders will be building. Grittman noted that the designs presented encourage Hush or recessed garages, two-story or story and a half designs. finally, Grittman stated that the applicffilt, staif and some members of Council met prior to this Commission meeting Grittman explained that as a result of that meeting, an alternative Exhibit Z had been prepared, reflecting what the developer's preferred conditions of approval would be. Grittrnan stated that staff are recommending approval contingent on the conditions as outlined in the staff report and staff list of conditions. These conditions include a reduction in lot and town home unit count in order to maximize tree preservation; retaining original intended densities; and the reconfirmation of R-2A building standards. Spartz inquired about drainage on site and pond pumping. O'Neill stated that the developer, the developer's engineer, and the City engineer have worked to address the drainage issues. The developer has also provided funds to pay for a lift station. That facility hasn't been built yet, as the City is waiting for the deep trunk line project to proceed along Ditch 33. O'Neill reported that the pond pumping will continue until that point. . Hilgart asked Grittman what the biggest diiTerences are between the replat and the original. Grittman stated that the most significant issues are lot and town home density in relationship to loss of land and the request for reductions in R-l A standards. Hilgart asked how many units would be lost under the negotiated conditions. Grittman stated that it would most likely vary from three to six units. Dragsten opened the public hearing. Brad Kitzman, 8608 Troy Marquette Drive and John Kautza, 8548 Troy Marquette Drive addressed the Commission regarding problems with drainage as a result of the Carlisle Village development. Kitzman and Kautza presented pictures of the area, including their lots, referring to the grading plan and the amount of run-oiT water on their lots. They inquired if Planning Commission had a plan to address their concerns. . O'Neill stated that according to the project engineer, the grading plan is designed so that water will drain properly into the designated retention ponds. Kautza and Kitzman expressed their doubts about the accuracy of that plan and requested further research into drainage in the area. Dragsten clarified f()f Kautza and Kitzman that the project is not completed. As such, plans show that proper grading at completion of the project will allow water to flow properly. Kautza asked who was legally responsible if drainage doesn't work as required. Dragsten stated that engineers from both the City and the development company are hired to complete plans, reviews and inspections. - II - . Planning Commission Agenda 03/0 I /05 Patch noted that Chris Kaye, 8462 Troy Marquette Drive, had also been present earlier and asked Patch to convey similar concerns about improper drainage. Patch recommended that the concerns be forwarded to the City Engineer for a written response. O'Neill re-stated that he had specifically asked questions regarding drainage in this area of the project's engineer, who illustrated via the grades on the grading plan how drainage would occur. In that regard, O'Neill indicated that the City's engineers and inspectors will need to make sure it is done correctly. Patch asked when Kautza took the photographs. Kautza stated that they had been taken one month previous; in the time since then, the water has gone down. Staff clarified for Kitzman that it is illegal for any excess drainage as a result of development to flow onto adjacent properties. . Posusta stated that the devcloper of Carlisle Village knows what the elevations are in the area. Additionally, this specific issue was addressed in the recent mecting with the developer. Posusta reported that the developer had assured staff and those present that the elevations of the detention pond are twclve feet or more below adjacent property. Posusta stated that until the development is completed, adjacent residents may have standing water. Kautza stated that he has never had standing water before this development. Posusta stated that the developer has a right to do with his property what he likes, unless it negatively or illegally affects other property owners. O'Neill stated that the City does have significant deposits to ensure that the project is accomplished as it should bc. Dragstcn notcd for thc record that this issue would be taken up with thc cnginecrs and stated his appreciation for resident comments. Lucinda Gardner addressed the Commission as developer of Carlisle Village. Gardner stated that shc has been made aware of water issues and stated that both the City engineer and theirs are working on the issue. Gardner addresscd thc comments relayed by Grittman, affirming that she asked for a meeting with staff and Council representatives after she received the staif report. Gardner confirmed that the previous project engineers made the error on south property line which has resulted in the replat. Gardner stated that while the new lots are shorter in depth, tree preservation was always kcpt in mind. Gardner stated that they had provided staff with a revised tree preservation plan, which indicated that thcy would bc kccping the samc number of trecs, if not more. Gardner stated that the fact that the lots changed shape did not affect the tree preservation. Gardner responded to the comment on mass grading, stating that the grading is not any diffcrcnt than what was originally proposed. They will be grading all of the pads at one timc. However, they will fence off tree preservation areas. Gardner stated that if the developcr and builders think that they can build on shallow lots, they should be allowed to, as long as thcy still meet standards and preserve trees. . In rcgard to the townhomes, Gardner reported that the ncw builder agrced to make rcqucstcd changes to roof clevations. Gardner stated that she understood this to be the main area of -1:1- . Planning Commission Agenda 03/Ol/O5 concern. In regard to the unit count, they have determined that they have a building where they could eliminate one, possibly two units. Gardner indicated that the actual layout of the townhome area is the same; the unit style is just deeper. Gardner made herself available for further questions. Hilgart sked if the dcveloper could purchase the land that was lost. Gardner stated that it had not heen possihle to do so. Hilgart asked if there was an average for lot sizes that the developer was to meet. Grittman stated that they do meet averaging requirements as required hy the base ordinance. . O'Neill spokc about the townhome design, reviewing the new proposed plan versus original. SpecifIcally, O'Neill referred to the break up of the roof line on the original, along with the detailing to the front of building. O'Neill pointed out that the new proposed units are actually larger. Patch referred to original design, stating that the new townhomes do not seem to show the same roof pitch and elevation changes. Patch noted that the restrictive covenants supplied by the developcr would hegin to describe what stalTwould be looking for. Patch explained that in terms of design considerations, window and door placement are equally important. Patch askcd Commission to incorporate as many words as possible in settings its approvals, as it is helpful for building permit packages. Patch stated that the more specific the requirements, the less subjective his job is in reviewing for conformance. Patch corrected that the restrictive covenants supplied hy the developer were for the R-IA area, but stated that he would be looking for the same level of detail in townhome or small lot approvals. Posusta commended the developer for taking steps to move in the right direction. Hilgart stated that he is concerned about the lots decreasing in size. He asked how the developer can lose land but still preserve trees. Hilgart stated that it seems largcr lots would save more trees. Therefore, he stated that he would lean toward the elimination of lots. Grittman stated that the developcr had convinced those present at the recent staff/devcloper meeting that the same type of home would be built, despite the smaller lots. Grittman stated that perhaps having more large homes, rather than less due to fewer lots, impacted the thinking on that condition. Posusta confirmed that statement was accuratc. O'Neill stated that during the recent meeting, he had asked the developer about tree loss. Gardner stated at that time that they had specifically looked at tree preservation when drawing lots shifts. Gardner confirmed that they want higher lot prices, which reconfirms their home sizes and tree prescrvation goal. . lIilgart asked the developer if the builder originally slated for the R-2 area pulled out due to building requirements. Gardner stated that the builder did not think they were not going to be able to sell townhomes in that price range. The R-IA lots were part oftheir package, as well. llilgart asked ifthc buildcr had a prohlem with the R-IA standards. Gardner stated - I Ii - . Planning Commission Agenda 03/01/05 that they did not to her knowledge. Gardner stated that she would agree with Coeciarella on the minor changes to the ordinance, as rcflected in her request. Hilgart asked if the split levels currently built in the first phase meet the ordinance. Gardner confirmed that they do. Gardner also reported that aU lots in the first phase are sold; that most of their builders are waiting to find out whether they can build two story or split homes per the PUD amendment. Suchy stated that she is concerned with the townhome complex. Suchy commented that the whole idea of the R-IA area is large lots. This seems to be in conflict with the tight town home area. Suchy stated that she thought more green space should be provided. Gardner stated that the plan presented is not a deviation from what was previously approved in terms of the number of units. Garnder also noted that as the townhomes will be visible from the rear, they have made signifIcant improvements to that face. O'Neill stated that with the deeper townhome design, the open space does get pinched. Stafl believcd that a compromise was to take out units, not complete buildings. . Dragsten sought clarification that the total number of lots has not changed for the R-l A area. Gardner stated that was correct. Dragsten asked if the number of townhomes had changed. Gardner replied that it remained the same, although they had agreed in the recent mecting to remove 1 or 2 units. Gardner remarked that the road design also remains the same. Dragsten asked if the developer would concede to not build any additional split entry homes in the balance ofthe devleopment. Gardner confirmcd that had been negotiated with stafT. Oragsten stated that his concern is that once developer is gone it may be very difficult to maintain the high building standards. Dragsten asked how the City can control the development of the plat. Grittman stated that the project is controlled by the dcvelopment agreement, which should contain all of the information from thc approval. Gardner also explained that Patch has requested the developer stamp plans before delivery to the building inspector, as a further measure to ensure the developer has reviewed each plan for conformance to the approval. Dragsten askcd Patch ifhe would be able to take care of aU ofthcse details as they come through thc building department. Patch stated that it is a lot of work and that the flcxibility of PUDs can make that work even more intense. However, hc noted that the department will work to make certain that ifit doesn't mcet standards, the permit doesn't go out. Patch requestcd that staff~ Commission, and Council address when and how a PUD designation should be used. . Steve Conroy addressed the Commission as the attorney reprcsenting Scott Wolters, the adjoining property to the south. Conroy stated that his elient would support eliminating some of the lots along the southern boundary, as recommended by staff. Conroy related that Wolters also has concerns about his eventual development. Woltcrs has indicated that he wants to develop an upscale development. Without the larger lots as shown on the first plat, Conroy stated that Wolters feels it negatively impact the value of his property. Posusta asked if the Wolters property has trees. Conroy stated that it docs. Spartz inquired how - 17 - . Planning Commission Agenda 03/01105 large the Wolters parcel is. Conroy replied that it is 40 acres adjoining, although he may have more. Posusta asked whether the Wolters property was included in the MOAA. O'Neill responded that it is. Conroy stated that in his opinion as a consumer, buyers of large homes also seek large lots. Hearing no further comment, Dragsten closed public hearing. Suchy stated that she agreed with Conroy in that larger homes should be sited on larger lots. Dragsten pointed out that the developer and builders will have to live by the terms ofthc PUD approval. Spartz noted that he has general concerns about water drainage that he would like to see resolved. l-filgart asked thc developcr to reconfirm the prcsented standards for the R-2A scction. Gardner said that the builder in this section is the same builder as originally proposed; they will follow the same designs as originally proposed. O'Neill clarified that the homcs will need to be equal to or bettcr than what was supplied and meet the R-2A code. If they don't meet those standards, thcy will bc sent back to the builder. . Posusta asked ifthere would be restrictive covcnants on the entire development. Gardner indicated that thc R-IA arca would bc under covcnant. The R-2A would not, as shc fclt that area was covered by the ordinance. Gardner reportcd that the town home area will have a homeowncr's association. Posusta inquired how the developcr felt about the previously recommendcd ordiancc amendment allowing no splits. (Jardner stated that based conversations with staft~ they will not build any splits outside of the 1 Sl addition in the R-IA area. Hilgart askcd O'Neill if Public Works has looked at the design for the revised plan. O'Neill stated that the City Engineer didn't comment specifically on the drainage issues mentioned. . O'Neill noted that most comments from staiTwere relativc to general setback and site design. Staff still argues that by taking out strategic units, more open space could be achievcd. Posusta stated that the removal of some units would be desirable to maintain site lines. Hilga11 asked ifPosusta had a number of units in mind. Posusta stated that pcrhaps six was an appropriate number. Gardner responded, stating that there are only a couple of units closer together than before. Gardner resated that they show the same number of units; the depth of the ncw design creates thc spacing issue. Gardncr stated that she is willing to go back and have the units no closer than previous. Hilgart stated that he is willing to leave the numbcr of units eliminated up to staff. O'Neill suggested that Planning Commissioners ask the devcloper to create the same geomctric picturc as originally approved in terms of open space and site lines. Suchy concurred. The Commission directcd staiT to add to exhibit Z to have staff work with developcr on the unit count, amending condition number 5 - HI- . on the Exhibit Z dated February 28, 2005. Planning Commission Agenda 03/01/05 Dragsten directed staff to provide an update on grading and drainage at next month's meeting. Decision 1: Replat for Carlisle Village MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROV At, OF TIlE REPI ,AT, BASED ON THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS NOTED WITH A CHANGE TO CONDITION FIVE REGARDING THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO BE REMOVED, BASED ON A FINDING THAT WITH THE LIS'TED CONDITIONS, THE PROJECT WILL MEE'r THE INTENT OF THE CITY WITH REGARD TO R-IA, R-2A, R-2, AND PUD DEVELOPMENT. MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. SUCHY AND SPARTZ DISSENTING. Prior to a vote, Dragsten inquired what Suchy and Spartz's reasoning was for the dissenting vote. . Spartz stated that his concern is still grading and drainage and about the lot sizes. Spartz stated that he believes that staffs recommendation should stand to eliminate some lots. Suchy agreed. Hilgart stated that it is difficult for him to make that recommendation, as the plat meets the minimum standard. Dragstcn agreed, stating that it seems the dcveloper is following the previous plat. Posusta clarified that the difference in this request is due to the fact that the developer lost land. Patch noted to Commission that the plat might mect base standards, but it docs not exceed them as required by pun. Patch also asked that the Commission consider whcther it is satisfactory in terms of tree preservation. Posusta asked for the width ofthc lots on south side. Grittman stated that they arc approximatcly 90 feet. Dragsten askcd how large the widths were originally. Grittman stated that they were perhaps 75-85 feet. Posusta asked if Spartz and Suchy would be appeased if lots were removed. Spartz stated that Lots 12, Block 5, and Lot 2 or 7 of Block 6 should be removed. Spartz also requested that a condition regarding the resolution of drainage issues be included. WITH NO VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS MOTION, . - 1 () - . . 3. 4. 5, 6, 7. 8. 9. 10. . Planning Commission Agenda 03/01105 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REPLA T, BASED ON THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z, DATED fEBRUARY 28, 2005, AS AMENDED BELOW, BASED ON A FINDING THAf WITH TIlE LISTED CONDITIONS, THE PROJECT WILL MEET THE INTENT OF TI-IE CITY WITt-I REGARD TO R-IA, R-2A, R-2, AND PUD DEVELOPMENT. ]. Building plans for R-2A and R-2 homes must be equal to or improved versions of the originally approved plans. For the R-2 district, this includes varied rooflines and improved material variation_ For the R-2A district, this includes emphasized front entry areas, recessed, side-loaded or dc- emphasized garage doors. 2. Building plans for R-I A homes must meet or exceed the amended R-] A building standards specific to this development as follows: · No split entry homes in the R-I A area outside of the 1 st Addition. · Two-story and modified two-story residential dwellings must meet: o A minimum finished first floor size of 1200 square feet; o A minimum of2300 square leet finished area o Full basements · Rambler residential dwellings must meet: o A minimum main 11001' size of 1600 square feet; o A minimum 01'2000 square foot total I1nished area · Other lot and bui Iding requirements are as identified within the R-l A District Zoning Ordinance_ Verify the participation of the Davidson property owners in the plat. Abide by the tree preservation program established at the time of the original plat and PlJD approval, as well as the other conditions ofthat project approval. Eliminate 2 units li'om the townhouse layout to increase spaciousness and comply with the attached - detached unit ratio. Provide detai led landscape plans for each zoning district area that abide by the zoning requirements for each district. Provide revised plan sets for all plans re11ecling the I1nally approved preliminary plat with conditions met prior to submission of final plat application. Compliance with the recommendations of the City Engineer in their report dated February 16,2005. The applicant enter into an amended Development Agreement reflecting the conditions of approval. Provide verification oflhe resolution of grading and drainage issues as noted. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED WITH COMMISSIONER IIILGART DISSENTING. - ~o- . . . Planning Commission Agenda 03/01/05 Hilgart stated that as the lots had been madc wider, it may be that more trees are saved along the hack. Hilgart noted that pending the elimination oftownhome units, the single family to townhome ration may be off is lots are rcmoved. Decision 2: Amcndment to the Carlisle Village Planned Unit Development to allow alternative townhouse designs in the R-2 portion ofthc project. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL Of THE PUD AMENDMENT, BASED ON A F]NDING THAT THE CHANGES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL AND RESULT IN A HIGHER LEVEL OF BUILDING AND SUBDIVISION DESIGN PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S PUD ORDTNANCE. TIllS APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE CONDITIONED ON REMOVAL OF UNITS AS NOTED FROM THE PROPOSED PLANS TO TNCREASE BUILDING SPACING AROUND THE LOOP STREET. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED. Decision 3: Amendmcnt to the Carlisle Village Planned Unit Devclopment to allow changes in building size requirements for the R-IA area. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT AS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z, DATED FEBRUARY 28, 2005, WITH TilE ADDITIONAL STANDARD THAT MODIFIED TWO STORIES WILL REQUIRE A 1,400 SQUARE FOOT FOUNDATION, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE R-IA REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT WELL-SUITED TO DEVELOPMENT IN TI-IIS AREA. SPARTZ CLARIFIED THAT THE MOTION WAS CONSISTENT WITH TIlE AMENDMENT TO R-1A STANDARDS PASSED THAT EVENING. STAFF CONFIRMED. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. ]2. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request f<Jr a Conditional Use Permit for a Development Stage Plmmed Unit Deve]opment (PUD) and Preliminary Plat for Poplar Hill, a residential subdivision consisting of 228 singlefamilv units, 180 townhome units and 300 apartment units; and a request for Rezone from A-O (Agrieu]ture-Open Space) to R-IA, R-l and R-2A (Single-t~Hnily Residential), R-3 (Medium Density Residential) and PZR (Performance Zone-Residential). Applicant: Insignia Development (i-rittman reported that staff request tabling of the item in order to complete a more throughout review of the project. - 21 - . . . Planning Commission Agenda 03/01/05 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC I-IEARING ON THE REQUEST. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED. 13. Public Hearing - Consideration of an anlendment to the Zoning Ordinance regulating relocation oflawful non-conforming billboard si gns. Applicant: City of Monticello Grittman requested that this item be conti nued until further notice. Mo-rION BY COMMISIONER HILGART TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC IIEARING ON THE REQUEST. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED. 14. Consideration of a sketch plat for Pine Wcst, a proposed five-unit residential subdivision in an R-l district. Applicant: West Side Market West A second review of the request was completed in order to provide information directly to the applicant, who was now present. Tom Holthaus, representing West Side Market, madc himself available for comments. Posusta suggested that the Commission review a plat map to compare thc adjaecnt lot sizes. Hilgart inquired what type of homes that West Side was proposing to build. Holthaus stated that they would he similar to existing homes, most likely split level. I-lilgart asked what the area was guided for. Grittman stated that the applicant was encouraged to develop the property as R-2A as the district encourages more traditional homes. Hilgart asked the applicant ifit would be possible to run a road across the back of the property, even if the County stated that thc access points onto County 75 were acceptable. l-lolthaus stated that such an arrangement would need an association agreement, which they were not in favor of. l-lolthaus reported that Assistant County Engineer Virgil Hawkins had given verbal approval of the access points. Posusta noted that the Ii fth lot shown couldn't be completed until Otter Creek was realigned. Dragsten stated that supports the shared driveways, although not necessarily the access points. Dragsten inquired who was responsible for acquiring the additional land to make the realignment projcct work. Holthaus stated that the previous Mayor had indicted that the City would acquire the land. At that time, the Mayor had also suggested that perhaps the land could be donated to this project, as it wasn't going to benefit anyone else. Dragsten noted that the lots shown are not SO feet wide. He noted that a majority of lots in that area are 80 or wider and that he would look fIX size consistency in that area. - ~2 - . . . Planning Commission Agenda 03/01/05 Holthaus stated that a four lot project isn't feasible for a return on investment. Hotlahus also stated that a road through the back is not a likely solution. Suchy indicated that as this project will occur at one of main entrance points to the City, she would be looking for a project made a positive impact in terms of design. 15. Discussion Item - Heritage Development AllAR and Planning Process Orittman reviewed a brief outline and timeline for the Heritage Development project, an 890 acre development proposed for northwest Monticello. Grittman stated that the Commission would be hearing much more on the development and would be involved in the planning process. 16. Adjourn MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SP ART'Z. M(JrION CARRIED. f& ( /Ii 'J)}vUUV----- Rec~r' - ~:-l -