Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 04-18-20060 • MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 18th, 2006 6:00 PM Commissioners Present: Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, Craig Schibonski, William Spartz, and Sandy Suchy Council Liaison Absent: Wayne Mayer Staff: Jeff O'Neill, Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman — NAC, Kimberly Thompson - NAC 1. Call to Order. Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order, noting a full quorum of the Commission. 2. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. As part of the discussion on PUDs, Commissioner Spartz asked O'Neill to address planned unit development projects in progress that may have worked or be working better in terms of ordinance requirements. Sandy Suchy indicated that she has received some public comments she would like to review with staff prior to the meeting's conclusion. 3. Citizen comments. NONE. 4. Consideration to review for discussion the Monticello Zoning Ordinance regulating Planned Unit Developments. O'Neill introduced the discussion by indicating that the Planning Commission and City Council had both recently questioned the merits of the City's PUD ordinance and requirements in relationship to previously approved and newly proposed projects. As such, staff had put together information related to PUD projects and standards for Commission discussion. O'Neill indicated that the goal of the evening's meeting was to review existing PUDs in order to provide the Commissioners with background information for determining what types of criteria would be considered for a "superior" PUD as defined by the code. 0 O'Neill presented a series of slide images of Monticello PUD projects. • Greater Minnesota Housing Proiect — The Drake O'Neill commented that in retrospect, staff would have encouraged the developer/builder to provide more variety in the exterior color of the units. The dimensions of the site did present some constraints, which led to a narrower distance between garage and curb at 20'. Dragsten commented that the project did improve the neighborhood. He noted that the driveway spacing should have been longer to accommodate larger vehicles. Schibonski commented that two stories may work better in these types of situations for visual appeal. Dragsten stated that they had a two-story proposal, but the two story units ended up being relatively plain. Suchy indicated that sidewalks would have been a nice addition. Vine Place O'Neill commented on the roof pitches, railings, and landscaping features which seem to provide character to this PUD. He explained that alley width was a concern at the time. Dragsten stated that in looking at this project overall, it does seem to be tight, perhaps the alley could have been a little wider. Grittman confirmed that the center lane is 24'. O'Neill stated that no additional parking was required due to on -street and driveway parking. Schibonski noted that there was also space also in front of the garage and that the driveways were as wide as the building, not just door. O'Neill stated that the unit square footage and roof pitch were met in terms of code requirements. He noted that standards were set here for distance in terms of fire safety. 5th and Elm O'Neill stated that in this project, the driveway was between the buildings, with thegarage in the back and each drive aisle serving two units. He noted that the developer also did additional landscaping. O'Neill asked the Commissioners how they felt about drives through the front and then serving back, with no curb and gutter. Schibonski stated that it gives a more residential feel. 2 Anderson stated that the sideloaded garages with egress windows become a maintenance issue. Morning Glory O'Neill noted the spartan design on the combined mailboxes. O'Neill stated that staff had discussed this project in terms of the building to building distances. Grittman stated that this project led to a 78' face-to-face standard with 25' drives and a 28' street. Grittman stated that the City standard minimum is a 24' street with 22' driveway, which is what occurred with this project. Schibonski stated that there seems to be a more positive feel of width here as compared to other urban areas. Hilgart stated that it seems as though these units are out of place as you pull up the street. Grittman commented that the amount of pavement in this development, combined with the rock landscaping, makes this a very harsh environment. Prairie West O'Neill referred to the landscaping, combined mailboxes, and benches within this PUD. He indicated that the drive looks wider, but the developer actually put space into driveway and less in the drive, which also created a larger front yard. Dragsten stated that they also set buildings back further. Schibonski noted that there is some extra parking provided. Grittman noted that the developer provided proof of parking to allow for more green space. O'Neill commented that the density is very low. Grittman stated that the dimensions of the property lent itself to a lower density. Grittman explained that the area had been originally planned as single family. Timber Ridge Grittman noted that in this development the main street is 30' wide. Dragsten confirmed that they are private streets. O'Neill commented that the garage forward look is dominant. Grittman stated that with garage forward design, the City should consider requiring garage windows and increasing the amount of landscaping at street front. In that way, the view goes to landscaping rather than the garage. O'Neill noted that landscaping in this project is minimal and was accepted at that level. O'Neill stated that the open space between the buildings is a wasteland or unused at this point. Grittman indicated that those areas provide open space, but 3 there is no exposure to the street. O'Neill clarified that it wouldn't be considered an amenity. Grittman stated that the areas are essentially storm ponding, but they are hiding behind units rather than landscaping it and creating an amenity. Grittman noted that the City requires 1 space per 3 units in additional parking. Grittman stated that on street parking is not so visually obtrusive as bays. Schibonski asked about design review. Grittman stated that there are no architectural minimums specifically for PUD. Schumann explained that the proposed or existsing zoning district ordinance provides the base minimums. O'Neill asked if the Commission would like some additional design criteria. Suchy, Spartz and Dragsten agreed that they would. O'Neill explained that many times, design is a negotiated exchange, a subjective decision. Grittman stated that some standards that the City considers amenities are also subjective, referring to Prairie West's visual appeal but low-pitched roofline. CottaLm Charm O'Neill asked Grittman about other cities' use of PUD. How do they determine "superior" development, is it structured or subjective? Grittman stated that it varies based on what the City thinks it wants out of its PUD. Lakeville is very 40 structured in its requirements. The majority are much more subjective. Some have specific standards about specific things, most commonly open space, and then vary other standards. • O'Neill commented on the amenities in this project, including the brick, window banding, shakes, columns, rooflines, and recessed garages. This development also uses a lock box mailbox. O'Neill noted that they got closer to the required setback for the garage, but flexed the house setback. Grittman stated that this concept is much more reflective of traditional home design with the house forward and recessed garages. It is much more of a neighborhood oriented design. Riverwalk (Hans Hagen) O'Neill noted the use of brick and landscaping elements to add appeal to this project. He referenced the tight transition between properties and explained that the project utilized a one-way drive with parking in front of garages. Again, design elements include front porches with columns and steep pitched rooflir -- Grittman stated that setbacks were as low as 8 feet. 4 Sunset Ponds O'Neill stated that the developer used PUD to allow narrower lots and also some townhomes. The narrower R-2A lots were intended to create a neighborhood style district. Instead, what the City got were suburban splits on narrower lots. O'Neill stated that the R-2A design is supposed to be recessed, side -loaded or rear -loaded garages and homes with front curb appeal. Anderson noted that these units are two story slabs. O'Neill commented that when the basic split -entry home plans came in, the City forced garage windows in the front and side. O'Neill stated that we were given a plan set and then at development stage, the developer came back through and getting political heat, the City acquiesced to a watered-down version. Schibonski stated that developers should present their designs upfront and if they have something that doesn't meet their presented styles, they should have to come back through the Commission. Dragsten noted that in Sunset Ponds, the developer passed the project off to a builder, resulting in a switch in product. O'Neill noted that has happened in at least three circumstances. O'Neill stated that in more recent projects, staff had talked about requiring the developer to putting together a booklet of home designs, landscaping, maintenance, covenants, so that when they go to building permit, the building department has everything they need to complete a proper review. O'Neill referred to the townhome area, where some of the units have no variation in roofline and no break-up of the wall plane. Hilgart stated that patios would have helped. O'Neill noted that all of their plans showed walk -outs on these units, so staff forced that issue on the units remaining to be built. Grittman noted that many of the single family and townhome units have a lack of focus on the entry. Essentially, they look like a box with no entrance. O'Neill stated that the landscaping in R-2A areas of Sunset Ponds is woefully inadequate at this time, but there is a landscaping bond in place to protect what is expected. Grittman stated that setting expectations on the front end is crucial. Grittman also noted there should also be 30 feet of usable rear yard, in most, if not all, cases. RivernM Townhomes O'Neill stated that in this project, there is space in between driveways, as the property line runs between the units. Dragsten noted this project has no homeowners association. Schibonski asked if the City should consider what can to be placed outside between certain hours. O'Neill noted that had come up before the Council, but the Council didn't take any action due to split opinions.. 5 Spirit Hills Tonwhomes O'Neill referenced the amount of detail on the buildings, indicating that there are lots of windows in the units, decks and porches, and extensive landscaping, which make the units interesting to look at. He also noted the tuck -under garages. Grittman noted that this development met the 78' building to building standard. Schibonski stated that he got feedback that the garages were too small. Grittman stated that since the time these were approved, the City has adopted a larger standard. Suchy commented that the development has a real community feel. Grittman and O'Neill noted that they spent a lot of time with the developer on this project. There was some concern about the back-to-back units in that all the light in the units comes in the front. Grittman stated that there is a lot of break up in the wall and roof plane and a lot of glass in these units. Suchy asked about the feel inside. Anderson stated that they have an open floor plan that opens the interior to light. Schibonski stated that he likes this project better than most shown. Dragsten asked if this project is built out. Anderson stated that it is not. 0 Carlisle Village Schumann commented that City staff has worked hard with the builder in the R- SA areas to meet the landscaping requirements in the code. Suchy commented that going into the development, the smaller homes are first, with the larger homes are all in the back. Grittman noted that staff fought very hard for a lower density and the City conceded to the developer and let them put a higher density and townhouses in. This is a struggle that staff have had in trying to enforce standards, which showed in this development. O'Neill stated that the developer starts out ambitious and then their efforts steadily erode. Grittman stated that the south was supposed to be R-1 A with R-1 on the north portion. However, the City allowed the developer to average a 3 unit per acre density over the whole site. Suchy asked about the averaging, stating that it seems to cause a lot of problems. Grittman stated that the averaging of lot areas and widths allows for more flexibility in setbacks and lot arrangement. He indicated individual lot averaging wasn't the problem, it was averaging of the density as a whole. O'Neill noted that many of the R-2A homes in Carlisle do comply with what was intended for that zoning. The focus is on the house, and features a porch and includes a recessed garage. Grittman indicated that sometimes, the City focuses 2 too much on the size of the house and not the detail or amenities. Anderson stated that some of the R-2As actually have more square footage than many R-1 or even R-1A. He explained it is because these units go front to back. Some are at 1335 square feet on each level. R-1A homes in Carlisle have maybe 1100 or 1200 square feet. Schumann commented on the tree preservation plan for the R-1 A area, suggesting that in the future, the City look at clustering and capitalizing on open space to protect natural amenities. Grittman noted that lot width isn't necessarily the answer to saving more trees. It is possible to do, the City just has to ensure the right process which is most often custom -graded lots. He indicated that the City and developer can't worry about making all the lots walk -outs. The developer also has to manage where materials are stored and how access is controlled. O'Neill commented that there is one remaining area with a lot of tree cover, the Gallagher property. They are asking for annexation. We want to make sure that we get whatever ordinances we need in place, as this may be the last chance to save or incorporate them properly. Hilgart stated that there is no reason to have a PUD in an R-1A area. Hilgart asked if staff finds more problems with larger developers. O'Neill stated that it has been mixed, but we have been doing better. He stated that what is tougher is the locals with connections who are able to apply political pressure. Eagle Crest O'Neill noted that this project has a relatively uninteresting streetscape, limited by site constraints. Suchy suggested requirements to vary the style of the townhomes, to make projects more attractive. 5. Plannina-Related Comments Suchy asked staff to respond to some questions she had received regarding the City's planning process. O'Neill and Schumann discussed recent strategies developed to improve the flow of the process, including holding a pre -design meeting with all potential project developers and a new development guidebook. They also described how a typical planning application flows through the planning cycle. 7 6. Adi oum. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 0 •