Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 01-02-2001 . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - .January 2,2001 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Dick Frie. Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek. Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten Absent: Council Liaison Clint Herbst Staff: Jeff O'Neill. Fred Patch. Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer 1. Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. noting the absence of Council Liaison Herbst for the second consecutive meeting. 2. Approval of minutes of the ret!ular meeting held Decemher 5. 2000. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITII TO APPROVE TI-IE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MI.YTlNG OF DECEMBER 5. 2000. WITH THE CORRECTION TO TIlE MOTION ON ITEM SIX. Motion carried unanimously. , .) . Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Rod Dragsten wished to add discussion regarding MCP. This was placed as itern 9. along with an update by JelT CYNeill from the Design Advisory Team. 4. Citizens comments. None 5. Consideration of a Concert Staj!e PUD for a 77 unit townhouse I1roiect in Klein Fanns Estates 2nd Addition. Al1l1licant: Eagle Crest Northwest. Steve Grittman. City Planner. provided the starr report regarding this proposed townhouse project which contains 31 units of side-by~side townhouse units in 8 building clusters - 7 cluskrs or 4 units each and one thn:1.: unit building. A central privatI.: street serves all of the units. The western portion or the project would contain 36 units in nine "quadraminium" buildings. Because of the restricted area. one of these western-most buildings will not fit as designed. The west side also has a conflict with the bulTer yard requirements tl1r rl.:sidential areas adjacent to existing industrial development. Steve discussed soml.: options which were similar to the east side. Grittman also stated an additional consickration for the project should be the inclusion of small clusters of visitor parking throughout the development. - 1- Planning Commission Minutes ~ 01/02/01 . With narrow privatc streets. there would be se\Trely limited opportunity fl1r non-residents to park when visiting the neighborhood. The project would require landscaping and amenities consistent with the intent of the PUD ordinance. Grittman advised of the substantial amount of front-yard landscaping required for the townhouse project adjacent to the cast. including both f()lll1dation plantings and in common areas. For a project which is designed with straight private streets and linear building locations. sitc amcnities should be greatly increascd to mitigatc the rclatively monotonous sight lines. Front yard landscaping should be intensified significantly. Other elements could also be considered. including fencing or other structural items. and consideration f(Jr pcdestrian access. such as a sidewalk along the privatc street. The garage front design of the ramblcr units makes the streetscape views an issue. Also. the public's view of this project will be of thc hacks of most of the units li'om I:armstead Drive. Special attention should be given to the dcsign of this area, such as perimeter shrub planting and other elemcnts. Bccause this wiJl be rear yard space for the residents. a design which provides a feeling of private open space. but avoids a continuous six-foot fence along the street should be considered. . Grittman also noted that none of the units wcre shown with porch additions or patio spaccs. however. these eleml:nts are often sought by residents either in the initial construction phase or later. The project designers should show how these spaces will bc addressed. with attention to thc public views of the site, thc private use of the space. and thc purpt1se of PUD design. Chair rric opened the Public I Icaring. Bill Gleason and John Gleason. 3031 Fernbrook Lane, Plymouth. of Eagle Crest Northwest. addrcssed the members advising that all houses do have patios on thc back and a similar project they are in the process of building which is across the street fronl this project in Klein Farms Estates 3rd Addition. Patios arc a standard f()r them and are typically II x 10. slab on gradcs. no step, making them handicapped accessible. Cileasons also advised that there would have to be some type of privacy fence where units are adjacent to each other. They also c1ari tied that thcre are ti'ont porches on the townhomes and rront porches continuing down the sides on the quads. 8ill Gleason noted the biggcst issue would be to eliminate a portion of the buildings, which they are receptive to but running into a problem with the road being too tight. They pointed out that there was only a problem with one unit where they could not maintain thc 40' green space. They adviscd that they initially just put in the minimums for landscaping according to the requircments givcn them. Gleasons stated they install 16' drives to give more green space. They also noted that the quads arc designed more for seniors, the other area is a little larger two~story which is more of a starter family home. All homes arc f(lr-sale property. . Sharlayne Brinkman of 4672 Farmstead Drive, which is directly across the street from this project. addressed the members and the Glcasons rl:garding some concerns she has in terms -2- Planning Commission Minutes - 01/02/01 . of aesthetics and the possibility of increased traffic. Bill Gleason stated that it has been their impression that traffic would actually be less than with single family homes. Brinkman also asked the price range of these units which they stated to be approximately $145,000 for the two bedrooms and $149,900 for the three bedroonl. It was also advised that screened patios would be l~lCing Farmstead Drive, and advised that there are 30' setbacks which actually places them approximately 45' li'om the road. Gleason also stated that if fencing were installed it would be decorative versus privacy fencing. These units would be part of an association which would maintain them. Brinktnan's concern was that these units would turn into rentals and then not be taken care of which in turn would decrease the value of her home. Gleason stated that although they do not restrict buyers frOtn purchasing and then renting out, the price is signitlcant enough to deter them from that and they have not had any problems previously. . Fred Patch. Building Oftlcial, advised that he had a call from a resident on Eagle Court with concerns such as width of the streets for emergency vehicles, house numbers that are visible to the road, sunlcient strcet lighting on the main boulevard. sufficient off-street parking and landscaping that had not yet been completed which Patch assured him that there is a bond in place for landscaping. This development is also one of Eagle Crest Northwest's. John Gleason addressed these concerns and Fred Patch stated they are all in compliance. It was also noted that house numbers were not requested by the City but they would like to put them in anyvvay. Eagle Crest also stated that mailboxes would be installed in accordance \vith the City postmaster's requirements. Chair Frie closed the public hearing. There was further discussion among the members regarding play/park areas (which O'Neill stated this area was included with Pioneer Park), suUlcient parking, more extensive landscaping, streetscapes. snow removaL buffer between the industrial park area such as bunns and plantings which Grittman stated burms are acceptablc but density of plantings would be more desirable. O'Neill also stated a desire for possibly a pathway/sidewalk along the north side of Farmstead Drive to get people ofT the street and onto the path to the parks and schools. Eagle Crest Northwest statcd a desired time frame for this project would be by this spring and that this would all depend on how much tinle it will take to re-do their plans and meet with staff. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TilE CONCEPT PUD PLAN. WITI I DIRECTION TO TIlE OEVI:LOPFR TO INCORPORATE THI~ COMMENTS OF STAFF ANO TilE PI ,ANNING COMMISSION INTO THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLANS. MOTION BASED ON TI IE FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITI-I TI IE COMPREI IENSIVE PLAN. Motion carried unanimously. -3- . . . 6. Planning Commission Minutes.. 01/02/01 Consideration of an amendrnent to the zOJlim~ ordinance reeardine accessory buildin!2:s in residential districts. Applicant: Citv of Monticello. Steve Grittman provided the staff report noting that staff and Planning Commission recently discussed the consideration of amendments to the City's accessory building size regulations. A draft ordinance which would replace the section of the zoning ordinance which currently states as follows was provided: 4. No detached accessory bui Iding shall exceed ten percent (10%) of the rear yard or one thousand (1,000) square feet in floor area. whichever is less. The amendment would include both attached and detached accessory space within the 10% I 1,000 square foot maximum, add a requirement that the accessory space may not be larger than the building footprint of the principal use, and create a CUP process for having larger accessory space than the limits. As noted previously. the current regulations address detached space only. but have no "circuit breaker" to aJ10w larger buildings. and creates an absolute cap of 1,500 square feet. In some instances. larger buildings may be appropriate. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Hearing no response. the hearing was closed. It was felt by the majority of the members that 1.000 sq. n. was too small and this may create an over-abundance of conditional use permit applications for larger units. They also stated they \vO\.lId prefer to be more generous regarding space rather than have storagelparking along sides of garages and houses. They discussed the possibility of 1,200 sq. ft. which Cirittman stated it is diflicult to get more than 1.000 sq. n. on a single L1l11ily lot and if someone were to build a two car size unit in the rear yard it would consume approximately 1 13 of the yard. (Jriwnan also advised that most neighborhoods have rear yards facing each other and it would be more pleasing to see green space versus buildings. Fred Patch stated that in reality, the dcmand for garages larger than 1.000 sq. n. happen approximately one every other year. The Inembers agreed to changing the ordinance to 1,200 square feet. A MOTION WAS MAD!,: BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAl. OF THI': PROPOSED ORDINANCI': AMENDMI.:NT WITII CHANGES AS STATED ABOVE. MOTION BASED ON TH1.: FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Motion carried unanimously. 7. V crbal update by Fred Patch regardin~ the TDS Telecom improvements. Fred Patch. Building OfficiaL stated that according to John Simola, Public Works Director. the work performed was for maintenance purposes. Schluender provided Public Works with the appropriate inf"()!")11ation prior to this work which included demolition of the existing parking lot. installation of a single catch basin and connection to the City storm sewer. No -4- . . . Planning COIn 111 ission M inutcs - 0 I /02/0] building penn its were required. Regarding zoning, this is a non-conl<JfI11ing use with bituminous curbs. and it was stated that any use lawfully existing may not be enlarged but may be continued. Patch stated that the parking lot was not expanded but only maintained in accordance with the ordinance. (Jrittman also advised that non-confl.)[)11ities can be maintained. 8. Discussion regardinQ Planning Commission member terms. Jeff O'Neill advised the members that the action taken at last month's meeting was not necessary as the City Council had actually taken action the previous year which resulted in there being no terms up this year. 9. Update regarding MCP and the Design Advisory Team. Rod Dragsten suggested that with MCP closing their otlice and holding their annual meeting next month, perhaps the Planning Commission would like to bring recomlnendations to this meeting. O'Neill stated that MCP initially helped develop the plan as an arm of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission really should be included in taking the lead at this point. He also noted that it is crucial that Planning Comrnission and City Council members be present at this annual meeting. Some of the members also felt that with the current City Council's Jack ofsupporL perhaps the MCP gcts sidetracked. Also stated was the situation with the community center and MCPs involvement there secms to be conllicts regarding some of the City Council rnembers. They also felt it was more burnout and with no support from the Council it became difficult. O'Neill advised that the intention of the City Council at the very beginning was not to continue funding the MCP at 5m'l). It was always the goal to limit City participation to 2m'll or so. He said that he thought the City Council does continue to support Mep. just not at the earlier funding levels. It was stated thcre may be a time when the Planning Commission necds to give a rccornmendation to the City Council regarding keeping MCP up and going. They stated it would be good to have as many members present as possiblc at their annual meeting. 10. Adjourn. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO ADJOURN THE MEl':TING AT 8:45 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. ~4vnJ0 -5-