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-