Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 08-22-2005 . MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION ~ SPECIAL MEETING MONDA Y, AUGUST 22nd, 2005 5:00 P.M Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Sandy Suchy Council Liaison: Glen Posusta Staff: JetlO'Neill, Steve Grittman - NAC, Bret Weiss - WSB & Associates, and Angela Schumann 1 . Call to order. Chairman Fric called the special meeting to order at 5:00 PM and declared a quorum, noting the absence of Commissioner Suchy. 2. Consideration to approve the minutes ofthe regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday, August 2nd, 2005. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ORAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF TUESDAY, AUGUS'f 2"d, 2005. . -' MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Chairman Frie noted that the Upper Midwest Planner's Conference was being held in Minnesota in September. Frie asked O'Neill if all Planning Commissioners could attend. O'Neill noted that there may be some conferences, such as this, which wOllldjllstify a request for the entire Commission to attend. Frie asked O'Neill to check the budget in terms ofthe balance of the Commission attending and report back in September. Dragsten inquired about the status of the public hearing for Landmark Square. O'Neill noted that the applicants did not make their submittal deadline for the special meeting and were comfortable with moving the continued hearing to the September meeting. 4. Citizen comments. NONE. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a Development Stage Planned Unit Development. and Preliminary Plat for Highland Villas (formerly known as Monte Club Villas), a 14.18 acre residential development. Applicant: L & G, LLC . Frie asked inquired whether ifthe Commission takes no action on item five for the preliminary plat and PUD, then the rezone and comp plan amendment as item 6 would not need consideration. O'Neill and Schumann confirmed that the report was written such that the rezone and cOlnp plan amendment should only be considered ifthe Commission recommended approval of the plat and PUD. Planning Commission Minutes 08/22/05 . Chairman Frie inquired whether the item was a public hearing, as it was not noted as such on the agenda. Schumann confirmed that it had been noticed as a public hearing; the item required the pllblic hearing. O'Nei II presented the staff report, stating that it terms of a comparison ofthe development stage plan and plat to the concept plan, the general layout of twenty six units remained in the same configuration, with same general circulation pattern. O'Neill reported that there are two tiers of townhomes, each served by an access road. The development includes private drives featuring a change in elevation with perimeter retaining walls. O'Neill indicated that in order to proceed with the development in this arrangement, there would be a net reduction of material on the site and most of the trecs would be removcd. O'Neill statcd that while the plan layout is consistent with the concept, the construction plans have changcd, most significantly the grading plan. O'Neill reported that staffs primary concerns include thc design ofrctaining walls, thc density of landscaping, and the road width of private drives. In this project, it is important that staff and the Commission have a clear understanding ofthe retaining walls and grading on thc site. In most circumstances whcre project land is relatively flat, the Commission can approve a preliminary plat with a final grading plan to be approvcd by the City Engineer. O'Neill stated that this project is slightly different due to topography, although that option is still available. . From a staff standpoint, O'Neill stated that the due to the nature ofthe development stage PUD and the project sitc's prominence in thc community, staff believes this project warrants more review, particularly relative to adequatc time to review site development plans. O'Neill reported that staff recommends tabling, but that other options have also been providcd to the Commission should they choose. City Engineer Brct Weiss explained that there are significant challenges associated with the sitc. The site, as designed, has an extensive amount of high retaining walls. Weiss noted that although the prl~icct cngineers have madc some changcs to eliminate 20 foot retaining walls, they have cut about 16 feet of hcight from the hill. Weiss statcd that the slopcs are also difficult, at 10%, which whilc different from othcr projccts, is inhcrent to this site. Weiss explained that thc bottom perimeter of the project is wrapped with retaining walls, noting that from an appearance standpoint, the Commission will necd to consider ifthis is acecptable. The cngineering ofthe storm water is also another issue. In response to a question from Posusta regarding thc material of the rctaining walls, Weiss stated that he is unsure about thc material and indicated the City would need to be assured of its structural integrity in terms of resisting pressure. Wciss stated there is a prctty significant mining operation involved with removing the proposed amount of material from the site. There may be othcr options. Weiss stated that he is also conccrncd about Fenning Avcnue and cutting down thc top of that hill. Weiss indicated that cutting the hill down will pose problems for getting this site access. Weiss stated that thc cxcess grading will result in a significant changc to that site. Commission will need to consider what it will look like and how it will function. O'Ncill rcfcrred to the projcct's transition to City parkland and connccting trails. O'Neill cxplained that staff will have to look at the ultimatc locations whcre trail conncctions can be made. Weiss responded that they do havc one good point. The remainder of the site has retaining walls which prevcnt connections. Wciss also explaincd that thc site will sit up above the park in most instanccs. . Posusta stated that they arc sti II showing a sidewalk on south side of Stone Ledgc Cow1. Posusta asked if it was at the architects rcqucst or staffs request that appeared on the plans? Wciss responded that staff did not request two connections. O'Neill statcd that they haven't look at the 2 Planning Commission Minutes 08/22/05 . topography to determine the final connection point, although the cul-de-sae is the best point from staffs perspective. Posusta stated there may be a problem with that connection as there may be no place to put snow. Project engineer John Bogart commented that there a variety of options and that an association will maintain and clean the sidewalk. Posusta asked about the 90,000 cubic yards of material that is proposed to be moved off-site. Bogart responded that they will be tnoving it off site and that they are still in preliminary planning phase. They are adjusting the grading plan to see where the balance point is between the cost of moving dirt and the height and cost of retaining walls. Bogart reported that other areas need the dirt, and they have explored the option of selling it to those places. Posusta stated that his other concern is what the material of the retaining walls will be. Spartz asked the applicants to clarify the actual size of plantings on the landscape plan, as they are shown as "existing". Spartz noted that this causes some confusion as a majority oftrees are proposed to be removed. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. . Butch Lindenfelser, 7973 Jelger Avenue, appl icat1t and property owner, read a brief letter to the Commission, reviewing the project's goals. Lindendelser stated that the project is designed as a PU D with numerous amenities. The development would be association maintained, but with the advantage of owner control. All homes would be walk-outs with landscaping and irrigation, flower garden and picnic area, and wired technology. The association by-laws are mandatory. Lindefelser indicated that as property owners, he and his sister had decided to develop the property. They had spent six months researching the type of product to sell. Lindenfelser reported that 50% ofthe proposed units have been orally reserved, with the majority of future residents from the area. Lindentelser stated that his second goal was to contract locally for services, including architectural, lending, marketing, construction, etc. Lindenfelser stated that they would be holding a neighborhood meeting with adjacent residents of Monticello Township, Spirit Hills, and Cardinal Hills. They would present the product, the many amenities, and the proposed schedule at that time. He stated that the goal is to begin construction in September with models available in 2006. Lindenfelser stated that he is asking for approval of the project as submitted. Project cngineer John Bogart, Bogart Pederson and Associates, addressed the Commission. Hc explained that as staff had noted, this is a unique project within the Monticello area and that it is important to get it right. He noted that they are working within a tight timeframe and they are changing things as quickly as possible to accommodate the comments ofstatl~ neighbors and the County. Having said that, Bogart explained that the look of the project will stay the same. Bogart stated that there will be retaining walls, although the exact height isn't known at this time. They are also removing a significant amount of dirt from the site. Bogart stated that they are removing the dirt in order to make the connection with Fenning. Bogart stated that a number of the points lnade by Weiss and WSB engineers in their comment letter have been addressed in a response letter. Bogart explained that at this point, this is a preliminary development plan and it is equivalent to a preliminary plat. Bogart stated that he has spoken with Maplcwood Development and adjacent property owner Ken Schultz. They have an agreement in principal to remove additional dirt in order to provide full basement walk-outs. . Bogart referenced the retaining walls, stating that they are working with a local contractor on the product. Bogart stated that he believes they are attractive. As far as sidewalk, Bogart indicated that they are willing to work with the City on the final alignment. They are also working with the landscape architects to make that determination. Bogart confirmed that snow removal would be 3 Planning Commission Minutes 08/22/05 completed by the association. . Frie inquired about the amount of landscaping on site. Skip Sorenson, project architect, indicated that they would be spending about $15,000 per lot on landscaping. Sorenson reported that landscaping would be extensive. Sorenson, of Pope Architects, provided an update on the retaining walls. Sorenson stated that a soils engineer had reviewed the entire site and found it was sand. As such, the soils engineer also indicated that the walls proposed can handle the pressure. They are trying to do walls in heights of 8 feet. By doing so, these walls will withstand lateral pressure. Sorenson stated that they would landseape all elements of the wall with both deciduous and evergreens plantings. The assoeiation will be responsible for maintaining those plantings. Sorcnson referred to the "pocket park", stating that it would feature a heavily landscaped perennial garden. The units will also have a number of ornamental trees as well as Sugar and Norway Maples. Sorenson said that the boulevard will include tree plantings at a minimum of 3" diameter, provided by a nursery in town. Sorenson explained that all residents would have completely sodded and irrigated lawn with border landscaping on all sides. Sorenson stated that the intent is to forest the site as much as possible. Sorenson commented on the design of the units, stating that they are intended to provide single floor living, customized to the buyer's wishes. Each unit will have a three ear garage with decorative carriage doors. The unit exterior will be cottage-style with hardi-plank siding in various colors. Sorenson reported that the square footage on the first floor is 2000 square feet, with potential to finish 1700 on lower level. . Spartz asked Sorenson to address the "existing" notation on the landscaping plan. Sorenson stated that they would not be existing trees, although wherever they can retain existing trees, they will try to do so. Sorenson stated that for some reason, the actual sizes planned did not transfer to landscape plan. Mary Lou Psyk, stated that if it was built as a hill, why would the City allow it to be graded down. Bogart answered that he would like to keep it as much of a hill as possible. Bogart stated that the primary issue is Fenning Avenue and the access issue. As it is, they are trying to keep as much height as possible. Bogart indicated that he believes they are at their best compromise, without creating safety issues. lIe noted that if we do not provide for a landing or bench for people to safely stop, then we could perhaps achieve higher heights. Psyk asked for clarification about the project size, as the most recent notice stated the project was 14 acres and the first notices said 10. Bogart and O'Neill confirmed it to be 10 acres. Perrault stated his concern about what the project would ultimately look like. Perrault questioned any trce preservation, given the removal of that much ditto He also noted safety concerns. . Frie asked about the County's role to this point with Fenning Avenue. Bogart stated that it is currently a City and Township road, but it has been identified in long-term County plans to be upgraded. He stated that they will look again at grading plans to accommodate the lowering of Fenning. Frie asked if the County can come along later and change plans. Weiss stated that the County doesn't have any rights to the road at this point, the City is asking the developers to design the road to make it work with the County's proposed standards. 4 Planning Commission Minutes 08/22/05 . Posusta stated that the City is already doing this down by the school. He inquired whether lowering the speed would change the curve. Bogart stated that they could address that in final design. Weiss stated that while no one likes to take the hill down, there may not be a physical way to develop the site without doing so, other than coming in from a different location. Frie asked Bogart to address the engineer's comment letter. Citing the number of comments, he inquired whether the City was ready for this project with so many questions. Bogart explained that they had received the comments on Friday afternoon and had worked to provide their response, which they had just given Weiss. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Hilgart asked about staffs recommendation in response to Stone Ledge Court street width. Marge Free, engineer with Bogart Pederson, stated that the width had been addressed and adjusted. Hilgart asked if they would go to the September meeting for final plat if approved by the Council this evening. O'Neill confirmed this schedule. . Frie asked staff if they would have an opportunity to review the project engineer's response letter before going to Council. Weiss stated that he had looked through it briefly and noted that they can work through those issues. lIowever, Weiss restated that it is critical for the Commission to have a good understanding of what the site will look like at completion. Weiss stated it is impOltant, so that it looks like what the Commission though it would look like in terms ofthe cutting ofthe hill and retaining walls. Weiss stated that as long as Commission understands that, the engineering details can be worked through. O'Neill noted the lack of detail present on the landscaping plan, eXplaining that it has an impact on how it will look. Frie asked Sorenson to respond to those concerns. Sorenson stated that the developer, architects and landscape architects are sensitive to this. He noted that it would be landscaped on all tiers. There would be a fence will be on top of the wall, it will be ornamental and will be submitted to staff for review and approval. Sorenson also stated that each lot is featured to maximize the views, as such, trees are located at each corner. Both shade trees and ornamental trees would be used in front. Sorenson restated that there would be an extensive amount of landscaping in this project; three times the normal amount of any project in this community. Frie commented that as this is a higher quality project, it is important that the retaining wall not look imposing. Frie asked Grittman's opinion on this item. Grittman replied that while the product may be acceptable, the concern was that the level of detail required by the PUO was not provided. The finish plan set needs to describe exactly what grading, landscaping, etc. is going to look like. Grittman stated that the concern isn't necessarily ovcr ultimate quality, as that determination can't be made without final plans. . Oragsten indicated that he likes the project overall. However, he noted that there arc 40 engineering itcms to be resolved, questions on the landscaping plans, space for visitor parking, and other concerns. He noted that in a project like this, it is a concern to allow it to move on a fast track, in such a high visibility area, when in two weeks, these issues could be resolved. If those questions were answered at that time, Oragsten indicated he could see it proceeding. Frie asked if the special meeting is to possibly get the project recommended with conditions to the Counci I. Frie wanted to make certain that the City hadn't pressured the appl icant to a 5 Planning Commission Minutes 08/22/05 . special meeting when the September meeting would have been adequate. Bogart answered that much of the pressure is internal. Bogart referred to the delays for when working through the park questions. He indicated that he had originally intended to have the project complete this fall. Bogart stated that they still want to get started this fall, to get the dirt work done on site and the erosion control in place. Spartz agreed with Dragsten that although the conceptual layout is good, several issues needed to be addressed. These included difficulty dealing with the grading of the site. Spartz stated that he is not sure if there is a good way to deal with this at the time. He indicated that he is also concerned about the grade ofthe yards and the drainage. Spartz stated that sometimes fast tracking can hinder resolution of items like these. Spartz noted that this is a prime piece of real estate and it will be important to get the details worked out. llogart agreed that this is the highest profile site in Monticello and that all are interested in seeing project done right. Bogart commented that although they are talking about fast- traeking, they believe they are on the right track. He noted that they need the ability to start moving forward. Sorenson noted that one oftI1e things will make this a good project is the pre-solds. . Frie stated that they are not debating whether this will be a good project, but instead that initially, the level of detail is not present with the presented plans. Frie noted that in pushing PUD plans prior to complete detail, the City often ends up with project that don't meet its standards. Frie stated that the Commission is totally supportive of project itself. Frie stated that he fully understands where the applicant is coming from in terms oftinleframe. As such, he asked if they could convince the Commission that tabling the item in order to resolve the details that seem to be missing would dent their procedure. Bogart responded that many detai Is noted are inconsequential. Dragsten stated many are not. Bogart explained that some need to be gone through, but many tend to be technical details. Frie asked O'Neill and Grittman if adequate detail has been provided in the applicant's responses such that issues can be resolved. O'Neill responded that staff and the applicant can work out details, but the main question is lushness of landscaping and whether Commission is comfortable with what has been described tonight. Weiss stated that he doesn't have a problem with working with Bogart on the issues identified in the engineer's letter. Weiss noted that he is concerned about grading it all this fall as restoring it all this fall may be problematic. They also need to work through the road design issues with Wright County. Grittman reiterated his concern about the inadequate landscape plan. Grittman noted that the plan presented is conceptual in nature. This PUD should be gauged on its amenities, which will depend on landscaping. Grittman stated that while the architecture looks nice, the City needs more information on details, such as the fence. Grittman stated that assuming that Commission is comfortable with staff making those types of decisions, they can choose to recommend it as such. . Posusta asked precipitated the name change. The developer did not provide a elear answer. Posusta commented that perhaps the neighbors would find that taking out a restaurant and bar and changing it to single family to be advantageous. Posusta stated that the Commission should also keep in mind that the developer isn't going anywhere. He indicated that as a 6 Planning Commission Minutes 08/22/05 . local, the developer is concerned about the project's perception and Posusta stated that he doesn't think he'll "muck" it up. Sorenson stated that they will come back to the Commission with a landscape plan before work is commenced, subject to the Commission's final approval and recommendation. Sorenson assured the Commission that the project will be brought into a human scale and heavily landscaped. Frie noted that this location is a focal point and is Monticello's signature spot. Commission would like to be proud of having recommended approval. Frie asked Sorenson if, based on how Council acts on these items, the developer would provide the landscape plan for the September meeting. Sorenson confirmed. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 26 UNITS AS PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER, BASED ON A FINDING THA T THE DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTS A SUPERIOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT THAT IS CONSISTENT WITI-I THE GOALS OF THE CITY, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: . I. Normal park dedication requirements 2. The applicant provide more detailed information relating to landscaping, wall construction, and other specifics, 3. The street width is incrcased to accommodate on-street parking in thc northern section. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. Dragsten inquired what the process would be ifthe landscape plan is brought back, and the Commission doesn't like it. Sorenson stated that Commission could condition their recommendation based on both the review and approval of the landscape plan. CHAIRMAN FRIE AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE STATEMENT "WHICH WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR -fIIEIR APPROVAL AT -rIlE SEPTEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. " Dragsten stated that it need to be clear to the developer that what is shown on the plans is what will be required to happen. AMENDED MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 6. Public I-rearing - Consideration of a request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning ti"0111 A-O to R-l for Highland Villas (formerlv known as Monte Club Villas), a 1 n.n acre residential development. Applicant: L & G, LLC . O'Neill reviewed the staffrepOlt, explaining the comprehensive plan had indicated the area of the Monte Club to be commercial, is it was assumed that the Monte Club would remain indefinitely. The existing Lise is commercial. The rezone is necessary, as all land which 7 Planning Commission Minutes 08/22/05 . comes into the City is annexed first as Agriculture-Open Space. O'Neill reported that as the plans presented indicate an R-l density, that zoning designation is appropriate. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no further eomments, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. No comments from the Commission MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE COMPREIIENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND THE REZONING TO R-l, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATION ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES, AND WILL REDUCE THE DEMAND FOR SERVICES FROM THE EXISTING LAND USE PLAN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED. 7. Adiourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN AT 6:40 PM. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED. . SecretaI' . 8