Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 02-03-2004 . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - February 3rd, 2004 6:00 P.M. Mem bers Present: Chairman Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgmi, David Rietveld, Council Liaison Glen Posusta Absent: S tafI: Jell O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, Angela Schumann 1. Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M., and declared a quorum, welcoming new Council Liaison Glen Posusta. 2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held January 6. 2004. Chairman hie noted the following changes to the January minutes: Page 1: "January 6th, 2003" to read "January 6t\ 2004". Page 1: "Any development has to stay within that maximum and the standard of 40 units per developable acre" to read "Any development has to stay within that maximum and the standard of 4 units per developable acre". Page 3: Mr. Mike Wigin's address to read "321 Rivervicw Drive, Monticello". Page 7: "Motion made by Dragsten to re-appoint commissioner Rod Dragsten to a successive three year term" to read "Motion was made by Dragsten to re-appoint commissioner David Reitveld to a successive three-year term". A MOTION WAS MADE BY CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 6th, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOTING SAID CHANGES. DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. None. 4. Citizens comments. None. . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 02/03/04 5. Consideration of a request fc)r development stage planned unit development for common signage and a conditional use permit {cx open or outdoor rental as an accessory use in the B-3/Highway Business District. Applicant: Glen Posusta Steve Grittman presented the staiT report, indicating that thc applicant is secking approval ofa Developmcnt Stage PUD to allow a common sign plan for his commercial properiy along Dundas Road, Cedar Street, and TH 25, and a CUP to allow outdoor sale and rental as a pari of the AMAX self-storage facility. The applicant had previously receivcd a concept PUD approval for a larger project, including land to the south of the current project. At that time, the applicant indicated an intent to locate a common sign at the corner of Dundas Road and TH 25. At this time, no additional commercial development is proposed, but the applicant is seeking approval of the sign pOliion of the project. Grittman noted that any future development in thc northwest parcel will require the applicant to request development stage approval. The proposed sign would be located in the northwest corner of the development parccl at Dundas and TH 25. Thc propos cd sign is 2S feet in height, more than the standard 22 feet allowed for this location. However, the applicant would be exchanging thc additional hcight fix a single sign identilying the area - reducing clutter caused by multiple signs. Grittman indicated that this is a reasonable use of the PUD flexibility. The City has approved other signs with a similar set of conditions. Grittman outlined the conditions listed in Exhibit Z. As a part of the proposed PUD, a development contract should be executcd that identifies the future limitations to signage on the site. Wall signage consistent with the zoning ordinance would be permitted without PUD review. Any potential changes to the freestanding signage on the site would requirc an amendment to the PUD. A separate component of the development contract should be the applicant's agreement to removc other frecstanding signage in thc area. This would include thc monument signage and other materials, equipment, and dcbris south of Dundas Road, and relocation of thc step van currently parked at the northeast corner of the Dundas- 2S intersection. A financial security should be made a pari of this agrccment to ensure compliance. The applicant is encouraged to consider two design enhancements to the sign. First, the structural poles would bc more attractive with the addition of stone or decorative block, rather than the exposed stecl posts. Sccond, the sign faces are shown to be white intcrnally illuminated boxes with applied lettcrs and graphics. Staff would recommend that the graphics are "revcrsed out" of a colored or clark background. This design results in a sign that has less glarc and may be more rcadable. -2- Planning Commission Minutes - 02/03/04 . The applicant may maintain up to 2S U-Haul trucks and/or trailers within the limits of the self storage area, and as shown on the provided site plan. Staff believes this limit will not interfere significantly with AMAX functioning. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Chairman Frieinquired whether Mr. Posusta had any concerns rcgarding the six conditions outlined in Exhibit Z. Posusta stated that he is aware of each of them, and with the exception of condition 4, none pose a problem. In reference to condition 4, Posusta indicated that the U-Haul sign design is a standard for the company. Hc indicated it may not be possible to change the design of that particular sign. Fric referred to a similar situation with BP Amoco, by which the City made an exception for the template dcsign. Grittman indieated that there is some flexibility in this recommendation, as thc primary intent is to reduce as much white glarc as possible. Frie inquired whether a PUO has such flexibility that should the applicant kcep the sign at 22 feet, he would be allowed to have more signs. Grittman indicated that the PUO requires the removal of other offsite pylons as a condition of approving the taller sIgn. . Frie asked Posusta if he wished to address stafT concerns outlined in the staff report and whether he was made awarc of the concerns and conditions as outlined. Posusta indicated that he was made aware of conditions and had no concerns other than previously addressed. Oragsten asked staff if other businesses in the area have signs exceeding the ordinance height. Grittman noted that there were signs of varying heights, citing Ford and Ultralube as instances were some are higher and some lower. In some eascs, PUD approval has been given for a taller sign than what was actually built. Carlson suggested that the inability to reverse the color scheme on the U-Haul sign may actually improve visibility due to contrast. Carlson also questioned whether a security requirement was necessary, due to Posusta's position as a Council member. He stated that it would scem that the condition requiring the removal of signs would ncgate thc need for a security. He asked f(Jr other members' input. Carlson also inquired what impact future development on Lot 1, Block I would have on signage needs. Posusta stated that should somcthing develop, a different sign would be created, with one added or subtracted from the current sign. Posusta stated that approval of this sign, in conjunction with another sign delineating Dundas Road, will help to better direct potential customers. . Reitveld expressed concern with the height of the sign. He inquired as to when the most recent sign ordinance was adopted and whether this deviation should be a concern. Grittman statcd that the most recent change in the ordinance was related to -3- Planning Commission Minutes 02/03/04 . shopping centcr standards and did not address significantly the smaller scale projccts. Rcitveld asked whether the commission should address the complete ordinance in terms of standards at another point. Grittman stated that the current ordinance is in essence a sliding scale based on road frontage, location and sign sizc. Fric asked stalTwhat the required security would be. Grittman noted that securities are usually based on the costs associated with the project, in this casc the removal of signs. Fric stated that the security is on record for compliance, although it may seem strange as Posusta is a Council member. Grittman notcd that in most cases, thc conditions are met or the situation is resolved before the security bccomes an issue. The security is common in most communities to avoid code violations. Grittmml indicated that the City will continue to recommend securities in similar situations. O'Neill cited landscaping as anothcr example of a project requiring a bond or security to ensure the process moves forward as required. frie asked if the staff has a guideline for security requircments. Grittman restated that the sccurity is related to whatever is being securcd. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD fOR COMMON SIGNAGE, BASED ON A FINDING THAT TILE EXCHANGE OF ADDITIONAL SIGN I IEIGHT fOR PROHIBITION OF OTHER FREESTANDING SIGNS IN THE PUD MEETS THE INTEN'r OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. MOTION CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS, WITH THE COMMISSION NOTING SAID CONCERNS ON CONDITIONS 2 AND 3. REITVELIJ SECONDED THE MOTION. I. Other than the proposed 25 foot tall sign, no freestanding signage shall be permitted in the PUD property. L The applicant shall remove all other existing signage within thirty days of construction of the proposed pylon sign. 3. The applicant shall provide a financial security guaranteeing removal of the existing signage and the step van. The step van may be parked on the same property as the U-J-1aul rental equipment. 4. The proposed sign should be designed to add additional materials to the structural posts, and ensure that the sign does not create glare onto adjacent property or the public streets and highways. 5. The applicant may maintain up to 25 U-Haul trucks and/or trailers within the limits of the self storage area, and as shown on the attached site plan. 6. Existing and future commercial uses in the pun shall be permitted wall signage consistent with the standards of the zoning ordinance. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF 'ff-IE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR SALI';S, RENTAL AND -4- Planning Commission Minutes 02/03/04 . DISPLA Y, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE SrrE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS TYPE OF LAND USE, AND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MET THE CONDITIONS APPROPRIATE FOR THE USE AND 'llIE LOCA'II0N. TIllS MOTION WOULD BE CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITlI THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z. MOTION SECONDED BY CARLSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Consideration of a request for development stage PUD for a town home development and preliminary plat of Hunters Crossing residential subdivision. Applicant: Bison DevcloPlnent/Sylvia Development Grittman provided the staff report, indicating that Sylvia Development and Bison Development, Inc. have requested Development Stage PUD and Preliminary Plat approval of a 257 unit residential development located south of Cobblestone Court and east of County Road 117. l-he development consists of 171 single family lots and 86 townhome units upon a site approximately 94 acres in size. . Grittman indicated that the overall development density is 2.7 units per gross acre, excluding the power line easement. Based only on the buildable acreage in the plat, the density is approximately 3.4 units per acre, still within the City's definition of low density. Applicants have worked with staff over last several months to refine the proposed plan. Some of the issues that have been addressed include the street system and the location of the proposed public park. Stall and developers have also discussed how the project relates to surrounding land uses - current and future. Grittman indicated that staff has a number of recommendations outlined in Exhibit Z. A comment letter Iiom the City Engineer is also included as pali of the recommendations. Grittman stated that he had met with developer briefly yesterday to discuss and resolve some of the conditional issues. Grittll1an discussed the plan in terms of the conditions outlined in Exhbit Z. The applicant was requested to clarify the rezoning request and address the need for the R- 2A designation. The developer opted not to pursue small single family lots (detached), leaving the largc majority of the development R-l and R-2 in the remainder as part of development stage PU D. . In terms of the Park Drive cul-de-sac, staff is recommending that it be enlarged (to have an 80 foot radius) to allow the placement of a central ized landscape median. Grittman noted that in general, public works discourages cuI de sacs, but when necessary, requires them to be larger with a center island for more efficient plowing purposes. -5- Planning Commission Minutes-- 02/03/04 . It is also recommendcd that applicants revise the plat to meet lot width requirements so that 40 percent of all single family lots are at least 80 feet in width. Currently, the plan meets the area rcquirements, but not 40% requirement. Additionally, the plat needs to eliminate lot lines that are not pcrpendicular to the street. This allows for buildable widths sufficient to satisfy the ordinance. The applicant is also rcquestcd to identify the locations of path recommendations along north boundary of plat Klein Farms, along Edmonson Avenue and along the proposed rcconstruction of Fallon Avenue. Grittman indicated that thc City requires sidewalks along all streets meeting a certain level of traffic. Within this development, all streets, with the exccption of the cul-dc-sac, rcquire sidewalks. Regarding thc six-plex townhomes, the City standard is that town homes have no more than two common walls. Thc six-plex units do not mect this standard and are instead "multi-family" dwcllings, which are not permissible in low-density areas. ThcreI()re, it is recommended that the unit become quads or twinhomes to meet the standard. Grittman indicated that this condition is not a density issue. Condition 9 recommends that exterior building materials be changed by adding contrasting materials and articulation to the rear building walls, which have exposurc to Edmonson A venue. Grittman notes that a PUD designation allows a trade in density fiJr site appeal. . Dcvelopers arc asked to submit a revised landscape plan, adding a significant number of trecs, and including both cultured and naturalizcd landscape areas. Included in this plan should be an appropriatc landscaping treatment of the ponding areas with both shrubs and grasses that will thrivc in thc wet-dry conditions. For condition 12, Grittman referred the commission to the comment lettcr provided by thc City Enginccr regarding grading, drainage and utility issues. Grittman noted that conditions 10 and 13 are standard to plats and PU Ds and are subject to attorney rcview. Condition 14 regarding phasing provides the City with a proposed inventory schedule and provides information on where access points may occur during phases. Urittman noted that preliminary plat approval is contingent upon the land area encompassing the development being annexed. . With the conditions noted, Grittman recommended approval. Grittman indicated that he had also spoken with the City Engineer and stated that itis possible to allow applicants to proceed as they have demonstrated intent to meet conditions. However, staff will need a full Set of preliminary plat documents that meet the outlined conditions before going to final plat. -6- Planning Commission Minutes - 02/03/04 . Dragstcn inquired whether all streets within the development arc public. Grittman stated that all streets within the single family area arc public. One street through the townhome area is also public. Moving the intersection has been recommended to comply with City standards for that street. Grittman eXplained that no homeowner's association is required in R- I. However, lots surrounding islands require some form of association for maintenance. Dragsten inquired whether townhomes can be located so closc to power lines. Grittman stated that they just need to bc located ofT of the easements. Dragstcn also inquired whether there was enough stacking room in townhome driveways. Grittman stated that the City recommends that private streets and adjacent driveways measure 80 feet. It does not appear that they meet this. I lowever, visitor parking is provided (m-street. Carlson asked whether perhaps the private street alignment proposed by the developer served as a divider betwecn townhome and single family areas. Grittman stated that although the alignment would accomplish that goal, staff believes the intersection wi II be better if not off-sct, as it will allow traffic to use Edmonson as collector route more easily. Grittman mentioned othcr options for realignmcnt to the developer. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. . Jay Roos, Bison Development Company, stated that he and project engineer Ken Adolf of Schoell & Madsen Engineering would be addressing staff comments. Roos explained that they were uncomfortable with the number of comments coming into the meeting and normally prefer to address concerns before requesting preliminary plat approval. Roos stated that in many cases, the concerns expressed by the City Engineer are typical and subject to easy change. In most cases, they are adjusted bctween the preliminary and final plats. Roos noted developer's error in accomplishing 80' lot width. By adjusting eascments, lot lines that arc not perpendicular to thc strect. and eliminating an odd shape lot, 80 foot lot widths will be achieved throughout 40% of the development. Roos indicated that the townhome portion of the project would be a second or third phase and street alignment and exterior finishes in that area might be better addressed at that time, cspecially relatcd to choosing finishes in context of adjacent neighborhoods. f lowever, it is fcasible to adjust street alignment for the preliminary plat. Roos indicated that acUustments in the single family area will cause a loss of some townhomes, which will create space for the staffs proposed alignment. . Roos bricf1y reviewed the conditions listed in Exhibit Z in terms of resolving staff concerns. As R-2A is no longcr needcd, condition I is resolved. Roos stated that a redcsign of cui-dc-sac to include a center island is not desired by the developer as this creatcs a larger radius and challengcs setback requirements, which in turn eliminates -7- Planning Commission Minutes -- 02/03/04 . lots. Roos believes that it would be purely an amenity island that doesn't scrve a purpose. I Ie also noted that there would bc only one adjacent lot for maintenance purposes. He requested that requirement be eliminated. Roos noted that his previous statements addressed condition 3 and 4 and that conditions 5-7 and 10 would be addressed in the revised plan. Roos did question whether the Spirit Hills development had a similar designation and was allowed six-plexes. (Please see page 10 for City staff comments on this matter.) Roos prefers not to lose these units. As far as the annexation approval, Roos recognized the process and understands that construction cannot begin until resolved. However, he doesn't feel it advantageous to hold off approving the preliminary plat as the mediation process could go faster than expected. . Frie asked whether the entire proposed development area was outside of the City. O'Neill stated that none of the area lies within the current boundaries of the City. Frie asked Roos for an estimated price of the townhomes and inquired whether thc single family housing being proposed would meet "middle ground" housing standards. Roger Hakonson, Bison Development, answered Frie's question, stating that inside townhome units, which are less expensive, begin at $185,000. The single family housing, depending on amount oflots lost in the revision process, would start at $225,000. Roos clarified that in the single family area, Bison/Sylvia Development would be the developer only, not builder. Roos stated that it is their intent to create as many expensive lots and lot combinations as possible. Roos indicated that the City Engineer has concerns regarding the creation of walk-out lots due to the flat nature of land. Hilgart inquired what the square f()otage oftownhomes would be? Roos stated that the units were approximately 1200 square feet. O'Neill commented that the Parks Commission had reviewed the plan and is coml()[table with overall layout of the plan. O'Neill exprcssed that with regard to engineering comments, this would perhaps not be the time to discuss standards, but rather address City Engineer's specific concerns. Frie asked when those standards should be addressed. O'Neill indicated that significant issues remain and that the Planning Commission may wish to consider tabling the item until input of engineer is provided. Ken Adolf, SchocH & Madsen Engineers, addressed the commission regarding the comments provided by the City Engineer. He stated that the comments were extensive and seemed to be at a review level exceeding preliminary plat detail. He stated that adjustments on these recommendations may be somewhat counterproductive, because if the plan changes to meet other conditions, all related engineering changes. . Adolf noted that a majority of the comments arc relatively minor and don't affect the design. They will be accommodated on the final plat and construction plans. Adolf did address what he determined as the most significant issue - storm water. The concern is of particular note to the City Engineer in areas where back yards have been -8- Planning Commission Minutes - 02/03/04 . excavated to create lot variety. Adolf indicated that they would oversize the storm sewer or create depressions in back yards to store water, or use a combination of both methods. He stated that they would work with staff to develop solutions on drainage. He said that the alternative is to create flat lots, which doesn't ereate lot and housing style variety. O'Neill stated that the engincering comments were needed speeifically beeause the plan may change signifieantly aftcr those comments. It is important to get this level of detail so that the eommission understands that the final plan may be different from original preliminary. With regards to drainage, O'Neill strongly recommended that an overland outlet or some type of emergency water escape be provided. Adolf indicated that he thought this eould be aecomplished through drainage easements and back yard storage. O'Neill stated that although the City Engineer would be flexible, he would probably not accept a plan without overland outcts. . Frie expressed that when the eommission sees a large number of conditions, they question consideration. He noted that enough adjustments had already been made to ehange Grittman' s reeommendation from tabling to approval with conditions. Frie inquired why the City Engineer hasn't been given the same opportunity to review proposed adjustments? Grittman noted that engineering concerns may be more complieated than planning. Grittman also stated staff's desire to complete as thorough a review as possible and present that review to thc eommission. This avoids having the preliminary plat approved by thc Planning Commission from changing completely when it moves to final plat stage. Adolf once again stated that most engineering items will be relatively simple to fix with plan revisions. O'Neill jndieated that with all of these notations, the commission can move it forward. Frie clarified that if the plan moves forward, it would be contingent on the conditions bcing met. Roos noted that existing site eonditions (street stubs, power line casements, street alignments, water How) dictate that even with significant ehanges to aeeommodate rear yard drainage issues, the plan layout will not change greatly. He indicated a desire to keep the proccss moving forward. . Franklin Dcnn addressed the commission as an abutting property owner and as Chair of the Monticello Township Board of Supervisors. Denn indicated that the township is still the road authority for 851h and Fallon Avenue and does not forcsee any changcs in the road authority. ] Ic indicatcd that the County prefcrs not to have driveway access onto major public roads. Denn also stated that he has concerns about drainage onto his property. In particular, he is coneerned about the low area in the vieinity of Block 18 and 851h Street. Currently, the drainage flows from northwest to southeast and he noted nothing on the plans relative to Block 18 that would take care of draining watcr. Frie noted that condition number] 2 specifically emphasizes drainage issues and indicated that Schoell & Madsen need to work with the City Engineer to resolve -9- Planning Commission Minutes 02/03/04 . those issues. Frie stated that the drainage issue would definitely be considered in the way the motion is recommended. frie asked Denn ifhc could clarify where the annexation stands as far as this property is concerned. Denn indicated that it waS difficult to determine at this point. O'Neill commented that the mediation process was currcntly underway and a resolution could come relatively soon or not until November. Adolfaddresscd Denn's drainage conccrns, indicating that the City Engineer has reviewcd drainagc related to this arca and has addcd a storm sewer picking up low arcas in the southeast corner and directing watcr into a pond system. Grittman noted that the gcneral drainage is from nOlih to south and will bc altered to south-north. O'Neill stated that part of the City's requirement of the developer was to provide topographic information f()[ arcas surrounding this development, including Denn's property. Hcaring no further comments, Chairman fric closed the public hearing. . Hilgart inquircd what the density designation is for Spirit Hills. O'Neill clarified that it is mid-density. llunters Crossing is low-density, so therc is no inconsistcncy. Hilgart asked Roos if the elimination of the odd-shaped lot is sufficient to accommodate the 40% lot width requirement. Adolf indicated that it would, in conjunction with widening of eascment. . Dragsten asked if adjacent property owncrs maintain thc "tear-drop" cul-de-sacs? Roos indicated that these arc intended to be amenities to encourage higher value housing. I Ie indicated that maintenance can be a problem in these areas and that their inclusion in thc final design will depend on final agreemcnt with City Engineer. O'Neill notcd that in other arcas, thesc are designated as outlots and assigned to a property owner. These arrangemcnts appear to be working well. In regards to thc full cul-de-sac, O'Neill stated that Public Works initially wanted to remove the cul-de-sac and makc street go through. Staff felt the island would be preferred to dcveloper. Roos indicated that the cul-dcs-sac illustratcd on thc proposed plan is in accordance with the current ordinancc. O'Ncill stated that although this is true, the result of such as design is more maintenance and no benefit to surrounding properties. Posusta inquircd how a cul-de-sac with an island is lower maintenance when it requires more curb and gutter? O'Neill stated that John Simola, Public Works, would be bettcr able to respond to cfficiencies. Posusta is concerncd that the staff s proposed design for thc cui-dc-sac may not fit this neighborhood. Carlson qucstioned when cul-de-sac design standards had changed. Grittman answered that the standards had not changcd, but thc issue has becomc that thc size of the cul-de-sac design (with a minimum turning radius) requircs Public Works to push a vehicle around and around to get all snow out. This situation has resultcd in the City Engineer and Public Works seeking to removc the majority of proposcd cul-dc-sacs, with developers in contrast. -10- Planning Commission Minutes - 02/03/04 . The planning staff proposes that the islands accommodate cul-de-sac design, while providing a landscaping benefit and allowing for more efficient plowing maintenance. Grittman stated that City ordinance actually states that cul-de-sacs aren't allowed unless there is no other way to move a street through. However, planning tries to balance out providing desirable lots with maintenance. Frie asked if the islands serve any other purpose than aesthetics? O'Neill stated that the larger radius allows for more snow storage and more frontage for each lot. Posusta indicated that the island may encourage a more expensive house, and in turn higher tax revenue. However, Posusta stated that this particular scenario may be diITerent. O'Neill stated that Public Works would actually prefer the road to go through. Dragsten asked if Public Works could do one pass and leave snow in the middle. Grittman explained that Public Works may see that as unsafe. Frie asked Roos to respond to putting the road through. Roos stated that a third access point would be frowned on by the County. . Posusta asked the developer whether the park in the southwest corner was something they planned for the development or whether it was required by staIf? Roos said that in the early stages of planning, a larger community park was desired by staff The developer's original concept plan did not include any park. O'Neill stated that the Parks Commission had tried to find a place for an active play field. The Commission couldn't find an adequate spot, so they determined that one-half of the park dedication requirement (5 acres) should be land, and cash required for other half. Posusta asked if the dedication was a requirement of city. O'Neill explained that one of the Parks Commission's objectives is to provide neighborhood parks. Posusta noted that Pioneer Park is located nearby and the area across street from the proposed park may be more conducive to park. Also, in talking with the Parks Department, he questioned why there are little parks all over the community. O'Neill indicated that the Parks Commission did look at the area across the street and considered twin parks. He also noted that higher density neighborhoods need a separate park. It was also decided that the dedicated funds (1/2 of the park dedication requirements) be applied to the construction/purchase of the large community park. Posusta asked if a neighborhood park makes sense on a 55 m.p.h. road. O'Neill noted that once in the City, the speed limit will change and that the park will be laid out to address street traffic. 'I'here will also be a sidewalk around the perimeter of the park, keeping pedestrians off the road. . frie suggested the Parks Commission look at balancing geographic loeations and the types ofpark in order to provide a balaneed mixture. O'Neill pointed out that 94 acres and 250 homes creates a nced for a neighborhood park. Pioneer Park met the needs of Klein Farms, anothcr was needed for this development. Frie indicated that he would rather they had requested more land for the large park. O'Neill explained that a larger park at that location would pull people into a non-centralized park site. The Parks Commission would rather have it in a more centralized area and reiterated that recent dedications have been made to allocate funds to largcr community parks. O'Neill suggested that the Parks Commission Chair address the Planning Commission at a future meeting. -11- . . 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. . Planning Commission Minutes - 02/03/04 Hilgart asked O'Neill for his pcrception on how close the revised plan would be the next time the commission meets? O'Neill indicatcd that it would be relatively close, but that he will rely on the City Planner and Engineer's feedback. Improved backyard drainage will be a major goal. As far as the cuI-dc-sac, O'Neill said that the commission may want to defer to City staII for a review. A MOTION WAS MADE BY FRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TI--tE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD FOR HUNTER'S CROSSING, BASED ON THE COMMENTS FROM THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE FEBRUARY 3, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS, AND ON ADDITIONAL COMMENTS PROVIDED BY PLANNER STEVE GRITTMAN AFTER A SECOND MEETING WITII DEVELOPERS AND ENGINEER. MOTION BASED ON NUMBERS 2, 8, AND 12 OF CONDITIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z BEING RESOLVED BY TIlE CITY ENGINEER AND STAFF AND THE DEVELOPERS OF HUNTER'S CROSSING. MOTION SECONDED BY DRAGSTEN. 1. The applieant clarify the rezoning request and address the need for the R-2^ designation. 2. The turnaround area of the Park Drive cul-de-sac be enlarged (to have an 80 foot radius) to allow the placement of a centralized landscape median. This issue should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer. The applicant revise the plat to meet the lot width requirements that 40 percent of all single family lots are at least 80 feet in width. The plat should be revised to eliminate side lot lines that arc not perpendicular to the street right of way. The applicant, identify pathway locations consistent with the recommendations of the City Engineer. Verify pathway location along the proposed reconstruction profIle of Fallon A venue and 85th Street. Sidewalks should be added to one side of all streets, with the exception of the cul-de-sacs. The two six unit townhome buildings be eliminated and no building within the townhome portion of the plat exceed four units. Building materials should be changed by adding contrasting materials and articulation to the rear building walls on the town homes. A property owner's association be created for the townhome area of the project addressing maintenance responsibilities for common areas, covenants etc. The by-laws for such association shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. ^ landscape plan should be revised to add a signifIcant number of trees, and include both cultured and naturalized landscape areas. Included in this plan should be an appropriate landscaping treatment of the ponding areas with both shrubs and grasses that will thrive in the wet-dry conditions. 12. The City Engineer provide comments regarding grading, drainage and utility issues. -12- . . . Planning Commission Minutes 02/03/04 13. The applicant enter into a development agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities required by it. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAGS TEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HUNTER'S CROSSING, BASED ON 'lliE COMMENTS FROM THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE FEBRUARY 3, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND THE CONDrrIONS LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z WITH 2,8 AND 12 AS ITEMS TO BE RESOLVED. MOTION SECONDED BY REITVELD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. Consideration of a rC<..luest for a conditional usc permit for the expansion of a religious institution in thc P-S/Public-Semi-Public District. Applicant: Rcsurrection Lutheran Church Chairman Frie opened thc public hearing. I Iearing no furthcr comment, Chairman Frie closed thc public hearing. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DRAGSTEN CONTINUE TIlE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE REQUEST TO TilE MARCI--:l2ND MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SUBJECT TO SUBMISSION OF A COMPLETE APPLICATION. HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. Consideration of calling for a public hearing on comprehensive plan and/or ordinance amendmcnts regulating attached housing development in areas guidcd for low density development. Chairman Frie opencd the public hearing. Hearing no furthcr comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. O'Neill provided the sta1Treport, stating that staff is seeking direction in terms of how low-density areas are treated in relationship to the guide plan. Thus far, stall has used a guidelinc of allowing 1 town home for cvery 2 single family homes in low density areas. O'Ncill referred to the testimony on this subjcct providcd at the last meeting Planning Commission mecting. O'Ncill inquircd whethcr the commission would consider rcquiring larger townhomes to encouragc family units. O'Ncill also stated -13- Planning Commission Minutes - 02/03/04 . that the City has identified designated areas specifically for townhomes at a ratio higher than 3 units per acre. Frie asked for the commission's input in regard to standards. hic asked Hilgart whether he felt larger townhousc size would encourage family residence. Hilgart answered that it may in part, but that it would also keep values up. He stated that 1200 square feet seems relatively small. Hilgart stated that he isn't questioning town homes or their use, but thinks they should be comparable to surrounding houses. He suggested confining smaller townhomes to mixed-use or higher density areas. Frie stated that any type of guideline that helps resolve community concerns should be addressed. Hilgart stated that he believes low-density area ratios be lowered from 2 to 3 homes for each townhome. Grittman indicated that R-IA areas already meet that ratio. O'Neill noted that the Planning Commission had the option to count townhouses as attached or detached lc)r density issues. He also noted that when looking at ratios, the commission should make sure that small lot single-family is not considered as part of the ratio. Dragsten suggested that the ratio should perhaps apply to site size. Any development 20 acres or less should require a specific ratio. He indicated that developers do not want to do small devclopments due to inefficiencies, so smaller sites will take care of themselves. Dragsten agreed that a minimum size requirement may be an option. . O'Neill asked whether the commission wanted to require townhomes to meet single~ L1l11ily standards. Grittman stated that very few townhouses meet that standard, most arc in the 1300-1400 square foot range, which suits the buyer. Frie indicated that he strongly supports a 3: I ratio and as do others with whom he has had conversations on this topic. (Ie noted that a possible moratorium has also come up. He wondered whether this decision would be best made before annexation. Carlson asked Frie why he recommended a 3: 1 ratio. Frie suggested that it may satisfy the housing balance issue. Carlson indicated that the commission should be cognizant of the comments regarding l1exibility made at the last meeting. Frie indicated that he would rather have a 3: I ratio required in the annexation area. O'Neill noted that there would still be areas designated as mid-density within the annexation area. O'Neill referred to building permit statistics over last 5 years, which illustrated that 20% of permits issued are for townhomcs, while 80% are single family. However, an inventory of all proposed lots does shift supply towards townhomes. If development continucs according to that trend, there may be an oversupply of townhomes. O'Neill stated that there are approximately 411 single family lots and 211 townhome units on the books for next year. This number does not include Timber Ridge's 150 townhomes. . -14- Planning Commission Minutes m. 02/03/04 . Frie stated that it seems that single family homes are selling much more quickly than townhomes. Grittman stated that if the City can provide adequate areas for land uses in all areas, the market will fill in the spaces. Grittman suggested specifying areas of density, but not specific zoning within those areas. Grittman indicated that a mature city will end up with a ratio or between 2-3 single family homes to 1 townhome. Carlson reminded the commission that the current ratio guideline is 2: 1 and that is the actual ratio represented in thc community. He also noted that at the last Planning Commission meeting, 5 persons spoke about flexibility. lIe asked for Grittman's reaction on requiring a square footage minimum. Grittman would be reluctant to recommend an increase in square footage beyond what is currently required. O'Neill asked Grittman whethcr he thinks larger townhomes will provide the desired demographic. Grittman stated that all the studies seem to show that families want single family homes. As sueh, O'Neill suggested that it may be better to change ratio and not square footage. Reitvcld indicated that he sees no problem with current townhome size ffild sees adjusting the ratio to 3:1 as a better solution, in eonjunction with creating more R-1A areas. Chairman Frie asked for Council member Posusta's comments. Posusta indicated he is opposed to a moratorium. . MOTIC)N HILGART TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE NECESSARY COMPREI IENSIVE PLAN AND/OR ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS FOR THE REGULATION OF ATTACHED HOUSING IN LOW DENSITY AREAS, SUCH AMENDMEN"rS TO INCLUDE AN ATTACHED TO DETACI lED HOUSING RATIO OF 3: 1. MOTION SECONDED BY FRIE. MOTION BY FRfE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE PUBLIC HEARING DURING THE APRIL PLANNING COMMISSION MEE"rJNG. MOTION SECONDED BY HILGART. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. Adjourn A MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 9:00 PM WAS MADE BY TO RETIVELD. DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. . -15-