Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 12-04-2001 . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - December 4, 2001 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Dick Frie, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Robbie Smith, Rod Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint Herbst S tatI: Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, and City Planner Bob Kirmis 1. Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held November 7, 2001. .., -) . 4. 5. Chair hie advised that he would like included in the minutes that he would be absent at the January 2002 meeting. A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTF.:S Of THE REGULAR MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 7, 2001. WITH ADDITION STATED ABOVE. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried with Robbie Smith abstaining. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Robbie Smith commented that the community center was packed on the previous Saturday with many activities and what an asset to the community this center is. Smith added that he would like this comment forwarded to the City Council. Fred Patch provided an update regarding the broadcasting of the Planning Commission meetings and included a memo to the members for their information. Frie added that he would like this in/(H"lmltion in the next City newsletter. Frie also advised that the Planning Commission has been invited to attend the HRA meeting on Wednesday, 12/5/01. All members were planning to be in attendance. Citizens comments. None Continued Public Hearinu - Consideration of a Planned Unit Development concept plan to convert the former St.Henry's Church to a multi111e l~m1ily residential facility. Applicant: TC Builders. Jeff O'Neill advised that aiter the last Planning Commission meeting when this item was tabled, staff met with the developer regarding the parking and other issues raised in the -1- Planning COll1ll1 ission M inutcs - 12/04/01 . stall report. O'Neill noted that staff was trying to work with the developer to get the parking placed on site and the meeting did occur, but the developer stated that financially they could not make it work. Bob Kirmis, NAC, provided the staff report adding that the applicants have supplemented their proposal with more detailed drawings of the garage compIcx that would be located to the south of thc main residential sitc, across 4th Strect on the cxisting church parking lot. Kirmis brietly summarized the staff report. Kirmis addcd that staff does not recommend the PUD, stating that although the applicant has made some changcs to the building design, the addition of sevcral eIcments (including the dormer gables and use of new materials) compromises the architecture of the building and leaves it less compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Moreover, the parking solutions (including the design of the garages) is viewed as incompatible with the lower density residential arca. Staff would recommend that if residential uses are proposed for the site, the units be accommodated with the building without the severe exterior changes, and that parking garages are designed to enhance the neighborhood. rather than irnpose on it. .-1 Rod Dragstcn questioned thc number of garages. asking if it was typical of residential apartments. It was advised that they are required to have 2 spaccs per unit, 1 covered. O'Neill addcd that under a PUD in this neighborhood they would ask for 1 per bedroom. Chair Fric asked about the continued publ ic hearing and the request for re-zoning, stating this was not mentioned in any of the suggested motions in tbe stall report. O'Neill stated that it should be a motion and could either bc separate or as part of the concept plan motion. Chair Frie opened the publie hearing. Don Doran,S 15 Maple Street. addressed the Planning Commission stating that he is not opposed to St. Henry's wishcs to move ahead on a project, bowever having Jived in this neighborhood for quite some time he is concerned with parking on the streets if this project were to be an apartment cornplex. I Ie was also concerned with one parking stall per bedroom not being suITicient. Ilis objection is to the IT-zoning from R2 to R3 and fecls that is not in favor with the neighborhood. Doran noted the areas available in the City zonedR-3 where apartments should be placed. Jeff Gardner, 500 W. 4th St., stated that hc and his wife spent several years in an apartment with working toward a goal of moving into a single family dwelling neighborhood that was safe. He stated that is why they chose the neighborhood they are in and also noted that stability comes with owner/occupied housing and i'eels a transient situation occurs with apartments. I Ie feels that apartments do not belong in single ti.lmily neighborhoods. . Dennis Doran, 506 W. 4th St., stated he has lived in this area for 15 years and he also has lived in apartments previously and feels they are a stepping stone to single family -2- Planning Commission Minutes - 12/04/0 I . housing. lie also felt that the City seems to have an area for apartments already. He noted that he contacted the Wright County SherilT's Dept. to see if it was a lnct that they receivc rnore crime calls at apartment units than single ti.lmily dwellings and it was stated to him that this is correct. He stated his opposition to apartments in this neighborhood. Brad Fyle, 501 W. 3rJ St., stated he also does not care for high residential area re-zoning and would like to see it remain a nice older part of the City. Does not foresee that a PUD would be a plus for this area. Objects to the R-3 zoning as well. Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. The members concurred that they would like to see the church property sold and added their support and willingness to make it happen. The concerns of the members were that the design as proposed does not meet the standards for a PUD with thc intent to be a superior design; lack of parking; parking safety with location being across the street; density too high for this neighborhood with the majority of the members stating their opposition to re-zoning toR-3. Chair Frie also questioned the t~lct that re-zoning to R-3 in this neighborhood would be "spot zoning" and Council Liaison Herbst added that the City Council has tried to stay away from "spot zoning" in the past. . The members were also concerned with placing an apartment unit in this residential ncighborhood stati ng that there arc designated areas in the City for apartment bui Idings. Chair Frie did compliment TC l1uilders on their accomplishment of some of the issues from the last meeting. lie did state however, that he feels the Planning Commission rnay not have made it clear to them regarding the issue of their opposition to parking being placed across the street, and also stated that the garages as presented seem to impose on the neighborhood rather than enhance. Brian Tutt, TC Builders, addressed the commission regarding thcir request for a superior design of the garages and added that they are open to suggestions from the Planning Conul1ission and staff. He also advised that the architect is the same as the one who designed the church, and that the roof line on the ehurch is very straight and therefixe they felt it matched with the garages. Regarding visitor parking, there will be additional spaces as the stalls do not take up the entire parking lot and would acconul1odate visitor parking. It is their preference to have garages onsite as well but they do not have that option. . Wade Klick, applicant, commented that the Planning Commission seems to be focusing on the design, but his question to the Planning Commission and staff was would this concept for apartments be approved. He states he has been looking fiJr direction fllr several months but is confused as to what staff is looking for. He also noted that the Planning Commission had previously approved a concept for townhomes but that this never moved forward. He noted that they are not opposed to "for sale" townhomes as -3- Planning Commission Minutes - 12104/01 . previously approved by the Planning Commission. Brian Tutt asked if the previous proposals involved use of the existing church and Patch statcd that the two previous proposals were for townhouse/arts center, mixed use. The west building was at one time considered for demolition. Richard Carlson noted that there is a vast difference from the previous proposals to this one. Chair frie asked a represcntative from St. Henry's to address this and also give them direction. Tom St. Hillaire, representative from St. Henry's finance committee, stated that the north half was not considered previously, but staff and Planning Commission disagreed with the statement. St. Hillaire stated that staff had previously stated retail/office was not a good idea and were told to come back with residcntial. St. Ilillaire also noted they don't have a problem with the City turning down this proposal, but would like direction. States it would not make a difference to the church rcgarding money, it will be sold either way. St. I-lillaire also asked if the City would like to see the building preserved and also stated they could undo the purchase agreements if necessary. . O'Neill added that the City has been supportive in working with St. Henry's to get the project going. lie advised of the Bluhm and Komerak proposals previously presented. Professional office space was introduced at that time but there was never a retai I concept. l,ater, the residential idea was proposed and City Planner Steve Gritlman was in favor if the architectural aspect could be maintained and there was sensitivity to the area. On-site parking was always considered. St. I lillaire noted that the fine arts concept did not proceed due to a lack of money. The Choir Boys did not opt to go along with the church either, therefore the Komerak project did not go f(lrWard. Robbie Smith stated that the developer/church perhaps should have contacted the residents to see what their feelings were on what they would like to see in that area. Connie Flemming, Edina Realty, approached the Planning Commission and stated they did not have purchase agreements at the time the other applicants came to the Planning Commission with their concept plans. She noted that there have been several people that have approached them but with no purchase agreements or money. . Flemming's concern is that even if the garages could be on the same block as the building, density is still an issue. Herbst added that owner/occupy is the key. Kirmis stated that in the staff report they did not recommended approval, but they would like to offer changes that they would support. Kirmis advised that O'Neill stated density is not a problem, but Kirmis added that it causes a parking deficit and is not visually appealing the way it is proposed. Kirmis otTered some changes such as lowering the number of units, the visual issue with the garages can be adjusted and are minor, units with large windows and high ceilings would also be appealing. States that it is somewhat dangerous for the City to make that stipulation that the units be owner/occupied, but the applicant can specify this. -4- Planning Commission Minutes - 12/04/01 . Tutt asked stall and the residents who were present if it was acceptahle to them if the concept was owner/occupied, and O'Neill added that they could not state that as a condition. Planning Commission again stated density to be an issue. Frie emphasized again that they want to work with the church to get this resolved. He asked Mr. St. Hillaire ahout his comment that this would he sold by February, and for the record he stated that they are willing to "bandage" sell it. Popilek asked that if the Planning Commission were to deny this plan, could the applicant resubmit immediately. It was stated that there is a time lapse of one year before the applicant could come hack with the same concept, hut that they could apply immediately with a different concept. Tutt asked what direction the Planning Commission is suggesting and Frie stated they are looking more at condos/townhomes. Flemming states that they would not like to sell the parking separatc from the church. Carlson added that he sees that the ehureh has already started to divide up the property as they have a purchase agreement with another party on the north half. St. \-Iillaire states that this was a mistake by a previous staff member at St. Hcnry's and it is undoable. . A MOTION WAS MAD[~ BY ROBBIE SMITH TO DENY RE-ZONING OF TilE PROPERTY FROM R-2 TO R-3, WITH THE I,'INDINGS THAT THIS IS NOT CONSISTENT WITI I '1'1 IE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEIGHBORI IOOD AND WOULD BE REGARDED AS SPOT ZONING. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. It was statcd the Planning Commission's dcsirc is to work with the church hut they cannot go forward with a project that would not work in the arca. Thcre was more discussion with Chair Frie questioning the developer if he was receptive to tabling the item and coming back with revised plans. Klick advised of the 3 buildings they have under contract with the church. Herbst added that the numher of units they would allow would be dependant on architectural aspects. Tutt asked that if they did not change the building in any way and they could fit in 29 units, would that be acceptable. Tutt also asked about garage numbers and location. O'Neill added that this is really a new application and not what was on the table for a motion. Flemming added that the applicant has spent a great dcal of time and money on this proposal and questioned if they should put more time/money into it. Patch added that the developer needs to go back to staff with their questions and not to the Planning Commission. I Icrhst added that the developer needs to get a positive response baek from the staH before proceeding. . ^ MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK 'fO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF "filE PUD CONCEPT PLAN, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT, TilE SUPPORT FACILITIES SUCII AS PARKING, AND THE -5- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 12/04/01 ARCIIITECTURAL IMPACTS OF TIlE PROPOSAL, ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE'S INTEN'f FOR THE USE OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. RIClIARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Consideration of calling for a public hearing to adopt amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding single family residential lot and development standards. Applicant: City of Monticello Boh Kirmis, NAC, provided the staff report stating staff is requesting that the Planning Commission call for a public hearing at its January meeting to consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that would address new standards for single family residential development. The City is considering two sets of potential changes: one that would address the standards that relate to the existing R-I District, and a second set that would include the adoption of a new single hlmily district, to be called the R-I A District. For the R-I A District, staff envisions suggesting larger lot dimensional requirements, or stricter building requirements. The latter requirements would likely include regulations relating to the percentage of front building line that can be comprised of garage door exposure, the location ofthc garage relative to the living spaee portion of the strueture (e.g. no more than five feet closer to the street than the house), and requirements for variation in design for neighboring houses. Other standards may be included in the proposed amendment, and planning staff is cheeking with various communities as to the suecess othcrs have had with different categories of standards. The existing R-I District will also he subject to amendment to address issues raised by current single family home areas. The Planning Commissioners were concerned with not haying ample infclrlnation prior to holding a public hearing and Chair Frie added that the Couneil has had much discussion regarding this item and that he feels this would establish regulations f(H upscale housing. Frie also stated that hc has received positive feed hack from residents on these proposed standards. Herbst stated that the Council and the MOAA are also concerned with the current standards. O'Neill addcd that raising the building sizes alone lllay not be enough to raise the standards. They discussed raising building sizes in the R-I, with possibly a higher standard in the R-I A, stating they cannot raise it high enough in the R I-A alone. They also stated that a minimum size requirement may just be in the R-I district. Staff requests that the public hearing be scheduled. Although the Comprehensive Plan amcndlllent is not yet ready for adoption, these types of changes have heen contemplated Ii.lr several years, and would be appropriate to consider at this time. Roy Popilek asked ahout having the amcndmcnt information prior to calling for a public hearing and O'Neill stated that it would be given to them in advance in their agenda packets. O'Neill adcled -6- . . . Planning Comm ission Minutes - 12/04/01 that there are developments in the works where they would like to have these standards in place. Popilek stated he would prefer to have the information to review prior to a public hearing, stating he would like to have some knowledge prior to the public hearing. O'Neill noted that the City has already received a preliminary plat this week that will require this information and that is the reason for calling for the public hearing in January. They also discussed larger lot sizes as a possibility. Rod Dragsten added that with the new application, stafr can rcquest certain requirements be done regarding topography. lIe feels staff could work with the developer when the application is filed and request certain specifics at that time. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE '1'0 TABLE ACTION ON A PUBLIC HEARING, PENDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED TI IE MOTION. Motion carried unaninlously. L Consideration of a conceptual land use plan proposal as a part of the Comprchensive Plan Update. Applicant: City of Monticello. JctT O'Neill presented the staff report. lie added that this topic eame fj'Olll conversations with City Council and staff at a workshop held on September 61h. Pursuant to the workshop, stalf had prepared a conceptual future land use plan fl.lr a large area surrounding the City of Monticello. StalIhas inlcmnally duhbed this map the 2050 year plan in that it contemplates land development and growth for the near term and growth well beyond both the foreseeable future and beyond the design capabilities of the City's current utility services. The 2050 ycar designation is not meant to predict an actual time frame, merely to allude to a map that is outside of the City's usual planning horizons of 20 or 40 years. The plan incorporatcs the previous orderly annexation area, and also includcs large areas to the south that have not been part of any prior land use planning. The areas to the South and West that have always been in the MOAA as "Residential" have been analyzed in more detail accounting for wetland, power lines and other features resulting in the beginning or a master plan for the area. Staff has envisioned that this map would help the City plan for impacts of very long term growth, irrespective of the time table. The idea behind this map is that the City can develop a rcasonable set of growth management assumptions together with a vision that may be several decades away, but within the fc.lreseeable future, we can consider devclopment patterns that will lead us toward that cnd, presumably with some adjustments along thc way. In devcloping this preliminary plan, we anticipate and hope for estahlishment of a framework fl.)\' decision making that will include township residents. This plan therefore -7- . . . Planning COll1ll1ission M inlltes - 12/04/01 once approved on a preliminary basis by the Planning Commission and City Council, will be a starting point for discussions with township residents and county officials. Our hope would be to develop a unitled plan and developmcnt of a mechanism assuring its implementation. O'Neill provided the criteria that is used to define the plan with an explanation of the ideas. lie also advised that the biggest change is the inclusion of the future growth area on the map. Will also be getting input from the Township prior to updating the comprehensive plan. Herbst added that there is a problem with sewer capacity and this needs to be addrcsscd. O'Neill advised that it would be bypassed with more potential for moving East. O'Neill asked that members review the information, advising that this then would go to the City Council for flmnal review and brought to the township, looking at a february/March time-line. I Ie also added that the plats that arc being submitted include the type of housing that the City is looking for. Richard Carlson asked if the County or City can dictate whether residents have to hook up to City Water/Sewer and it was advised that they could. The City Council would also have to dictate whether they want a reserve set aside for services in the future, as in the area of Mississippi Dr. O'Neill stated that the public hearing would occur after the City Council rcviews it and it may have comments/changes to it from the Council. It was noted that no action was nccessary. Herbst added that Chair frie previously had issues with industrial land located by the residential areas and golf courses. frie stated this is still an issue. 8. Planning Commission members Richard Carlson and Roy Popilek UD for re- appointment. Considcration of recommendation to the Citv Council on re- appointmcnt. O'Neill advised that terms filled by Carlson and Popilek expire this year. If they are interested in continuing to serve in such fine fashion, they should let their interest be known and the Planning Commission should then f()rward a recommendation to thc City Council. Chair Frie stated that he highly recommends both Carlson and Popilck fiJr re-appointment and the members concurred. Both Carlson and Popilek were in favor of serving another tenn. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE RECOMMENDJNG APPOINTMENT Of RICI lARD CARI,SON AND ROY POPILEK TO NEW FOUR YEAR TERMS TO TI IE PLANNING COMMISSION. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE M<JrION. Motion carried unanimously. -8- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 12/04/0 I 9. Adiournment. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:15 PM. ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. (jjf ~~ _I"".."..... ",.,"_ cor er -9-