Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 08-25-2003 (Special Meeting) . . . MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - August 25, 2003 5:30 p.m. Members Present: Rod Dragsten, Richard Carlson, Dick Frie, I,oyd Hillgart, Dave Rcitveld. Council Liaison: Brian Stumpf was unable to attend due to confl ict with City Budget meeti ng. Staff Present: Steve Grittman and Jeff O'Neill 1. Public Hearing: Consideration of a request for Concept Subdivision and Rezoning. Applicant: Sylvia Development/Bison Development. (NAC/JO) Steve Grittman reported that the applicants are seeking the initial approvals for a 282 unit residential development on 94 acres of land, north of 85th Street NE and east of County llighway 1] 7 (Edmondson Avenue NE). The Planning Commission had tabled action on the request at its original August 5th meeting. Grittman summarized his report from the previous meeting noting that: "The area is guided for I,ow Density Residential development. This designation directs, in practice, a predominantly single family residential pattern, dominated by R-] zoning subdivisions. The plan distinguished areas directed for Low Density Residential from those identified for Low Density Residential- R-l A, a "Very Low Density" designation that was intended to take advantage of identifiable site amenities (trees, views, etc.). The basic Low Density designation was placed on land had limited natural amenities, with the expectation that neighborhoods in these areas would be developed in a similar fashion to those which already exist, such as the Klein Farms or Groveland areas. The plan made several accommodations fiJr the increased residential requirements made by the newly created R-l A designation. Another new zoning category was created, providing for "detached townhomes" - the R-2A district. This district was established to accommodate the growing market demand fl.)!' townhome-style living but in smaller, detached units. For the traditional R-l neighborhoods, other accommodations included averaging of lot size and widths to provide greater design flexibility for developers. It was hoped that this tlexibility would allow developers to create neighborhoods that provided a greater diversity of housing opportunity within the R-l district. An outgrowth of the planning activities that resulted in the above changes inclucled an interest in permitting a limited amount oftownhome development in the Low Density R- Special Planning COlnlllission Minutes - 08/25/03 . 1 planning areas. Two baseline reference points were established, each dcsigned to ensure that the dominant land use pattcrn remained the R-I neighborhood. The first was an overall 3 unit per gross acre maximum density. The second was a maximum ratio of R-I single t~lmily to townhouse units of 2: 1. In this proposal, the applicant is seeking to exceed the 2: 1 ratio. The attached and detached town homes total approxi mately one half of the proposed units. Staff noted this issue in the original report. The applicant has suggested that they use a "PUD" designation to substitute the proposed unit mix for thc 2: 1 ratio, using the rationale that the detached townhouses could be counted as detached single t~lmily units, rather than as townhouses. In a subsequent drawing, the applicants support their request by showing that they could achieve the same unit count (282) by revising the lot lines and climinating their version of the detached townhomes, apparently meeting the City's ratios and density standards. . Planning starT's revicw is that the alternative illustration provided by the applicants is consistent with our understanding ofthe intcnt of the recent planning and zoning changes. The purpose of the changes was to allow some higher density design within the low density areas, but with limits that ensure that the typical R-I single 1amily pattern remains the dominant land use. There arc areas within the community that are designated for higher density development, however, the applicant's property is not one of those. As an additional note, the request that a PU D approach be taken to accommodate the applicant's request raiscs separate concerns. Planned Unit Devclopment is intendcd to result in a tangibly superior design, which justifies thc flexibility granted by the PUD. The planning and zoning changes were made to spccifically identify those areas where flexibility was acceptahle through the averaging techniqucs and the introduction of townhouse-style housing. The applieant suggests that under their original proposal, the remaining R-l neighborhoods would have lot sizes that are larger than the new alternative. Planning staff is unconvinced that the small increases in lot size would result in signi ficant improvements to the sizc, style, or value of housing in these neighborhoods. There would be no change in general plat layout nor any obvious amenities that would rcsult in the tangible justification for PUD. I n summary, planni ng staff would support the aIternati vc option as provided by the developer as being consistent with the City's planning goals fl.J[ this arca. It should be noted that we have not had the opportunity to conduct a thorough review of the proposal, howevcr,it appears to address a l1Ulllber oCthe original design issues cited in the initial staff report with some notable exceptions. The second issue of concern relates to the provision of a ncighborhood park space within the boundaries of this plat. The Parks Commission has requested a park of approximately . 2 . Special Planning COlllll1ission Minutes - 08/25/03 five acres be located within this space to provide for neighborhood play and tot-lot spaee based on a concern that nearby parks are not close enough to provide this opportunity f()r small children in this development (including Pioneer Pari\" the future park in Featherstone, or the school eomplex). The park dedication requirement f()l" this plat is approxilllately 9.4 aeres. The additional dedication requirement not taken in land would be eaptured as fees, which would then be used to help acquire a regional community playfield complex in some other location. The Parks Commission recommends that the neighborhood park f()r this project be located along the southern boundary of the site to maxilllize its exposure and access to 85th Street and its distance from Pioneer Park to the north. " Developer Bob Schmidt noted that they wanted to come in with something unique. We have had success with detached townhomes. These townhomes are 110t a lesser priced unit. In St Michael they have units that exceed $250,000. lie went on to say that his goal was to have a product that was a bit more upscale. Jay Roos noted that the patio home proposal resulted in lots with a slightly larger width and on average an addition 1,000 square feet per lot. I Ie noted that the wider lots would allow larger homes to be constructed on these lots. . Dave Rietveld ask if there is a method for assuring the city that the larger lots under the patio hOlne layout would yield larger homes. Jay Roos noted that the larger lots provide the tlexibility lor larger homes. O'Neill noted that the R-l rules would apply and that the City could not be guaranteed that larger homes would be built on the larger lots. The location of the park was reviewed. It was noted that the five acre park could be placed in the Southeast corner of the site according to the wishes of the Parks Commission. A sketch plan was presented which showed the park location. It was noted by Roos that 14 lots were replaced with the park land. Dick Frie eXplained that one reason for establishing the 2-1 ratio was to provide fix housing stock lor fi.m1ilies. This goal stcmmed in part from concerns regarding housing Inix that werc expressed by the School District School District. The School District requested that the City maintain an inventory of single family housing thus eqeouraging student population growth. Counting patio homes as a single I~llllily home would not be consistcnt with the original purpose for establishing the 2-1 ratio. After discussion, motion by Dave Rictvcld and seconded by Richard Carlson to reconnnend approval of the developer supplied alternative zoning pattern, based on findings that the alternative plan more closely corresponds to the direction in the City's Land Use Plan. Motion includcs thc rcquirement that detached town homes (or Patio Ilomes) be eounted as townhomes when calculating the 2-1 single family to two family . ., _1 . Special Planning Comrnission Minutes - 08/25/03 ratio. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Lloyd Ililgart and seconded by Rod Dragsten to recommend tentative approval of the Concept Stage PUD t(n the town home areas, based on findings that the plans arc consistent with the City's zoning regulations and the approval is conditioned on compliance with the staff reports from planning and engineering. Development stage and preliminary plat documents should reflect the 2-1 ratio of single t~lmily to two family housing with detached townhomes defined as two family homes. COlnplete concept approval contingent on further engineering and planning review. The next stage of the PUD process to include both Concept and Development stage approval. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further discussion, meeting was a~journed. ()~CJ~ --~~------ Jeff O'Neill, Deputy City Administrator . . 4