Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 01-08-2002 . . . MINUTES RF:GULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday - .January S, 2002 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint llerbst Absent: Chair Dick Fric Staff: Jeff O'NeilL Fred Patch, John Glomski and Steve Grittman I. Call to order. Acting Chair Richard Carlson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held December 4, 2001. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE TIlE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Of DECF:MHER 4. 2001. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Consideration of adding items to the <u!.cnda. Roy Popilek asked staff if Dave Peterson Ford was in compliance with the conditions of their conditional use permit, particularly in regard to their back lot and storage. Fred Patch advised that they were in compliance. Clintl-lerbst asked to add discussion regarding the current Library site, Wells Fargo Bank and the former St. Henry's church site. This was added as item #9. 4. Citizens comments. None. 5. Public Hcaring - Consideration of a rcquest for a conditional use permit allowing expansion and alteration of existinl.!. church in the PZM district. Applicant: 'J'rinity Lutheran Church. Steve Grittman, City Planner, provided the project description for Trinity Lutheran Church who is proposing an expansion of their existing building. The project involves expansion of the existing sanctuary, ortice space, kitchen space and classrooms. The subject site is zoned PM-Z, Performance Mixecl Use Zoning District. Religious - 1- Planning COll1mission Minutes - Ol/OR/02 . institutions are allowed by conditional use permit in this District, subject to thc standards outlincd in Section 6-4[AJ. The site is developed with the existing church and a parsonage. Two single i~lmily homes are located at the corners of Broadway and Linn Streets adjacent to the site. Single Ll.mily uses also exist across the streets from the subject site. Grittman advised that within the PM-Z District, the lot standards applied to the subject site arc to be the same as those that would be applied within a conventional Zoning District. I n this case, those standards are that applied within the R-3 District and under the conditions applied specifically to Churches within that District. Cirittman provided the proposed lot area, lot width and setbacks, adding that thc building expansion is within required setbacks. The existing building encroachcs into the setback required off of Maple Street. However. this setback is not bcing further encroached upon or extended by the building expansion. One other encroachmcnt is the parking lot to the northwest corner of the adjacent residential lots. The eurb in this area should be revised to provide an area that could be landscaped for additional sereening. . Grittman also discusscd aeeess to the property, ofT-street parking, building design, landscaping, lighting, signage, as wcll as grading, drainage and utilities which hc statcd are subjeet to review and approval of the City Engineer. l)ragsten questioned the cut in the northeast corner of the parking lot and Grittman advised that it would bc closed oil Carlson questioned the circulation pattern and if there werc island delineators along the north side and Grittman stated that he felt they were not necessary, also stating that it would reduce their parking supply which they felt was more important. Acting Chair Richard Carlson opened the public hearing. There was no response ihHll the audiencc and the public hearing was then closed. Popi Iek asked staff if there had been any complaints or concerns from the neighbors regarding the expansion and O'Neill advised that there had not been. Carlson asked the applicants if they had scen the conditions for approval and thc applicants advised that they had and were in agreement with them. Dragsten asked about the lighting plan and Grittman stated he had just briel1y reviewed the plan which looked in compliance. fred Patch advised that he would be reviewing the plan prior to issuing the building permit. Nicole Thompson, Station Nineteen Architects, advised that the lighting shown was a combination of existing and new. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF . -2- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 01/08/02 THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT, SUBJECT' '1'0 'THE CONDITIONS LISTED BELOW: I. The curb at the northwest corner of the adjacent residential lots is revised to provide at least a five foot green area to be landscaped to screen the adjacent residential uses. 2. Coniferous plantings are planted along the common lot line with the adjacent residential use to screen the parking areas from view. 3. The easterly curb cut to West River Street is removed and replaced with concrete curb. 4. All grading, drainage and utility issues are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 5. Comments of other City Staff ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of adopting amendments to the Zoning Ordinance relating to single family residential lot and development standards. Annlicant: City of Monticello. Steve Grittman provided the report noting that the City has been experiencing a significant amount of residelltial developlllent over the past few years. including a record number of single LUlli1y plats. One of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide Cor an opportunity for current and new residents to find "step-up" housing within the City. as a part of a ful1 range of housing styles and prices. The bulk of the recent development has consisted of "entry-level" housing, although the price of "entry-level" has risen dramatically. The Comprehensive Plan envisioned that while the bulk of the housing demand in Monticello would initially be in the alTordable market, higher amenity sites would lead to more expensive housing due to both development cost and market opportunity. 'rhis objective has gone largely unfulfilled, as even wooded properties and hillside "view" properties have seen some relatively uninspired housing construction. Some projeets, promoted by their developers as step up housing on prime sites, have evolved from step- up to entry level projects by permitting small houses and almost no amenities. The concern that this raises for the City is that as the market matures and more expensive housing hecOlnes financially feasible for larger developments, the prime sites for such housing will have already been consumed hy earlier, lower cost projects. At staff level, this discussion has led to a set of sometimes competing objectives. The City's inli'astructure bonding requires some level of growth. and the industrial developmcnt efforts suggest that restricting affordable housing growth would interfere -3- Planning COI11l11 ission Minutes - 0] /08/02 . with the ability to attract a competitive labor supply to the community. However, doing nothing with the zoning allowances in the single hllnily district areas would appear to accommodate the uninterrupted consumption of prime residential land by affordable housing options, to the detriment of the City's housing goals of providing for a full range of housing choice, including upper end neighborhoods. Staffs proposed solution to this issue is a tiered approach to single family zoning, including the creation of two new single family districts and modifications to the current R-l District. Through a combination of standards relating to subdivision design, housing construction and design, and selective zoning district application, it is believed that the City will be able to accomplish each of its housing goals. This task is accompanied by the concurrent update to the Comprehensive Plan and the future land use plan. The City will expect to apply each of its new districts in a manner that will: 1. Preserve high-amenity sites for more valuable housing, at the tinle that the market decides that such housing is ripe for development (sooner or later). ) Maintain the City's intcrest in accOlmnodating afTordable housing opportunities f(x new development. 3. Provide for redevelopmcnt in the original plat areas and other older subdivisions. 4. Ensure that new housing (whether "affordable" or more expensivc) is designed to be architecturally attractivc and a size that encourages long- tenn neighborhood stability and value. . R-I District. The components of the proposal include three zoning districts in placc of the current R-l District, as shown in the chart below. R-IA Single family District. This District would be located in areas specifically identified as high amenity sites. Tree cover, significant views. water front or views. or other valuable natural features may cause an area to qualify for R-IA designation. This new district would establish an averaging approach to its increased lot requirements, as noted in the chart below. The averaging approach for the lot size is intended to provide a built-in l1exibility to permit the developcr to design a subdivision that takes the natural features into account. Because the R-I A District will be applied in areas that by definition have natural features to preserve, the City will also make these standards a basis of the plat review- developers will bc required to identify the valuable fcatures of the site, then demonstrate that their project meets the preservation objcctives of the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinance. As suggested previously, it is acknowledged that the market for higher end residential housing is limitcd in scope at the current time. Developcrs who intend to mcet this lllarkct would have a designated supply ofland. Ifonly a small number of these . -4- Planning Commission Minutes - 01/08/02 developments are proposed, the ordinance will serve to preserve those prime areas until the market can catch up. . ]{-2A District. The current R-2 District provides for two-family homes and townhouses at densities of around seven to eight units per acre. Stafl proposes the establishment of a new district to permit the opportunity to construct small-lot single f~llnily homes as well. There has been a recent market trend in single family development on small parcels. Permitting this type of subdivision would facilitate an affordable single family option at densities similar to townhouse projects. These subdivisions have taken the form of both townhouse associations and traditional neighborhoods. An integral part of this zoning amendment would be the addition of design and architectural standards for housing developed in this district. While most townhouse projects would require Planned Unit Development review due to the base lot/common property arrangement, a small-lot single family subdivision could be developed without PUD on public streets. ^ part of this concept would permit traditional neighborhood design with some significant departures from the City's typical setback requirements. The R-2A District is intended to transfer development cost in the affordable range from lot development to building construction, since staff has found that "affordable" subdivisions of small houses on larger lots have not led to additions and upgrades in those areas. . EXall1ples of building and architectural standards would be minimum levels of brick and/or stone, size requirements that ensure larger homes on the small lots, limits on garage front exposure, and enhanced landscaping requirements for both individual lots and developments in general. General Standards. The f(Jllowing table provides a comparative view of the zoning- related standards for each of the districts: Lot area I,ot width House size Garage sIze R-IA 16,000 s.L avg. * 90 feet, avg. R-I 12,000 sf 80 feet R-2A 7,500 s.f. avg.* 45 feet, min. 2,000 s.f. finished 700 s. f. 1,200 s.f. finished + 450 s.f. 1,200 s.r. finished 450 s.L . Roof pitch rront setback Side setback Rear setback * Average standards will also incorporate minimum quantities and standards 6/12 5/12 5/12 35 feet, avg.* 30 feet, avg. * 10 feet, min. 6 ft. (garage) & ] 5 ft. 30 feet usable 6ft. (garage) & 15ft. 30 feet usable 6 n. both sides 10 feet min. -5- . . Planning Commission Minutes - 01/08/02 The R-I A District will also have additional requirements for specific architectural details, ineluding the following: . Minimunl facade material coverage of at least 20% brick or stone, or 10% with all stucco (instead ofIap siding). No more than 40% of the facade of any structurc may be comprised of garage door. No garage portion of any structure may be more than fivc feet closcr to the strcet than the principal residential portion. Minimum foundation size fix 1,400 square fcet, in addition to the finished spacc requirement, to avoid small, totally finished houses that marginally meet the other requirements. . . . In addition to the zoning standards, there will be subdivision rcview standards that will apply to all new subdivisions. These include the following: . Intcrnalized ponding with street frontage, designed and landscaped to work as an opcn space amenity for the development in addition to its storm water control function. Subdivision design that identifies natural amenities of the site, and positively demonstrates preservation of those amenities. Additional depth to lots that back up to undesirable features, including lnajor roadways or negative views, including significant landscaping and bcrming in those spaces. Creation of naturalized woodland spaces where appropriate, such as the edges of development areas, or as a part of the open space system created by ponding and pathway areas. Additional landscape treatment along designated pathway routes. . . . . These requirements would be established as the minimum standards for any residential subdivision. Planned Unit Development projects would be required to demonstrate dcsign that starts with thesc minimums, then adds amenities to justify pun llexibility. A part or this process is intended to reduce the rcliance on PUD gcnerally by adding some tlexibility in building setbacks. The concept would build additional standards into all subdivision design, not just those that require PUD. In summary, the proposed changes would add a significant level of subdivision design standards to all residential projeets. The purpose is to raise the levcl of quality that is "built-in" to the community's residential devclopment, and to insist on higher standards regardless of density. Because the highest levcl of thc housing market may be present only in slnall amounts, an acknowledged result of these changes will be to preserve certain areas that are identified as having highcr natural amenities for future development. The R-2A District will accommodate smaller lots, but will rcquire that the homes will be as large as those in the City's standard single hll11ily areas. . O'Neill advised that they did review thcse proposcd amenchnents with engineering, especially regarding the setbacks, and they were in agrcement. Grittman stated thesc -6- Planning Comlllission Minutes - 01/08/02 . amendments would mainly apply to newly annexed areas as the Im~jority of the boundaries of the town are already platted. Cirittman advised that it is very possible that the city would not zone anything at this time as R2-A; this may come in as an application that the city would review and decide if it would apply. O'Neill advised that perhaps the Planning Commission would like to continue the public hearing to the February meeting and instruct statl to schedule an open house involving developers and builders. Smith added that he liked the standards in the R-IA district, but was curious as to the reason for upping the standards in the R-I district. Cirittman advised that staff had hoped to slightly increase the standards, also giving developers some flexibility in trade tlW the increased building standards. Grittman added that the houses that are currently being built seem to be on the smaller side. Smith noted that thcse standards would have worked well in the Wildwood Ridge subdivision, starting out with the R-I standards and, moving up the hill, incorporate the R -I A standards. . Dragsten lelt raising the minimum squarc footage of houses to 1,200 seemcd excessivc, and felt 1,000 sq. ft. might be better, adding that the square footagc on an 80 ft. lot may be too SInai!. Dragstcn also 1elt that garage and house pitches should be 6/12 throughout the City. O'Neill also noted that they bmnped up the standards in the R-1 district so that they could have provisions in the R-2 district f(u affordable housing, with smaller lots and larger homes. Dragsten felt that there might be more retirement ages in the R-2A, but Cirittnlan stated that there seems to be a trend for larger homes on smaller lots. Popilek added that he appreciated all the work staff and planning have put into these proposed amendments. Acting Chair Richard Carlson opened the public hearing. John Kautza, resident in the Wildwood Ridge Addition, approached the planning commission and sta1Tasking if they would consider requiring houses built in this neighborhood to be required to have the same designs such as brick fronts. He noted a home in the neighborhood which has a cedar front and looks very much out of place next to the homes all with brick fronts. lie also noted some homes coming in with 4/12 roof pitches and doesn't see this as fitting into the neighborhood. lie stated he feels that this really lessens the values of the other homes in this neighborhood. Also added that the entrance to the subdivision is not looking very nice and would like to see these standards in place as soon as possible. There was no further response from the audicnee and Acting Chair Carlson then closed the public hearing. . O"Neill asked Grittman about outdoor storage in the R-2A district. Grittman noted that under the proposed building standards he requircd detached garages to have the sal11e bui Iding materials as the house, including the roof pitch. O'Neill also asked about storage of R V s, boats, ete., in that district and Grittman stated he refrained from that idea and stayed with district design standards. Carlson states in the future this may be more of a problenl. Fred Patch stated also that storage is a tough issue to deal with. -7- Planning Commission Minutes - 01/08/02 . They discussed the 6 n setbacks and the problem it may create with RV's, boats, etc. and where to park them. Grittman noted that they have had good success in other cities. Smith asked about existing lots and could they incorporate these standards, and stall stated they could as 1~lr as the standards in the R-l district being upgraded, however they would not re-zone an existing lot that has not been built on yet. They noted again that the proposed districts are for new developments and newly annexed areas. Popilek was concerned about the slnaller lots, feeling that the houses would seem jamlned together, and also how should the city control not having such a large area of R- 2A. Grittman advised that they would zone by development, also adding that there is an area in Maple Grove which incorporated the smaller lots with larger homes and while they do have a larger density, they have very nice subdivisions. Popilck was also concerned with the 6 fl10t setbacks and storage. Ci-rittman stated that the expectation would be that it would be impossible to store an R V or boat in an R-2A district. O'Neill stated they would appreciate direction from the Planning Commission to call feu a workshop/open house which could either be as part of a Planning Commission meeting or separate. The members agreed that it would be good to conduct the workshop. O'Neill advised that they would hold the workshop/open house Wednesday, January 23r", from 4 pm - 6pm. . A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO AUTI-IORI7E STAFF TO CONDUCT AN OPEN HOUSE, CALLING FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 231w FROM 4:00 PM TO 6:00 PM. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO CONTINUE TilE PUBLIC IIEARINCi- TO crllE FEBRUARY 5, 2002 MEETING REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO TIlE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL LOT AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 7. Consideration of accepting ioint parking plan in the CCD district. Applicant: Barry Fluth/Masters 5th Avenue. Jeff O'Neill advised that this is not a conditional use permit request, but that staff is seeking guidance li'ol11 the Planning COl11mission on how to react to requests for proposals that ask for less than required parking. lIe noted that there is no provision in place stating this. He also noted that the purpose of the Planning Conunission is also to f<:)l'\vard on to the City Council to decide distribution of the parking deficit expense, noting that the City Council has already stated their approval to pay t<:)r the deficit. . John Cilo111Ski provided the stalf report, advising that Barry Fluth has proposed a redevelopment project on Block 36, the existing Amoco site, which includes a restaurant, some ofl~ce space, and some residential units on the second floor. Glomski stated that -8- Planning Conunission Minutes - 01/08/02 . meeting the parking requirements is often an issue when redeveloping the downtown district. Mr. Fluth, with support of city staft~ has joined Mr. Hammond, Mr. Koppy and Mr. Paulson in making this ajoint parking project. The ordinance gives the city the discretion of allowing property owners the opportunity to supply parking at a rate that is 60% of the requirement of the ordinance, provided that the owner grants an casement allowing the general public Ji-ee use of the stalls. The number of parking stalls required under the ordinance (using the 60%) for all parcels together is 79. The proposed parking plan provides for 60 parking stalls, 19 stalls short of the required amount. It is proposed that the deficiency be offset via a contribution of $1,450 per stall which equals $27,550. Stafl supports this project, with the deficiency in parking, tl)r the following reasons: · although as a whole the project doesn't meet the parking requirements, the proposed and existing uses (restaurant office/retail, residential) should mix well as far as needing parking at different periods of the day. a parking study done approximately 6 months ago by staff shows that there is an ample amount of on and off street municipal parking within a two block area. Parking stall deficiency is ofl-set by a $27,550 contribution to the parking fund in the CCD district. . Brad Johnson, Lotus Realty representing the applicant. provided a review of the project. He also noted that they arc prepared to purchase and demol ish the Amoco station within the next] 0 to 20 days and begin construction. Clint Herbst, Council Liaison, advised that when the City Council heard the proposal previously and werc in favor, it was ie)!' a different project and not the one bcing prcsented now. Alter seeing the proposed project the Planning Commission had concerns on garage spaces for the rental units and it was noted by Johnson that there arc 6 garages, but they would assign parking for the other 2 rentals. This was a concern of the Planning Commission due to the restaurant and deli being locatcd there as well. O'Neill asked what part they felt thc planning department had played in keeping them enthused with revitalizing the downtown area and he said that staff had directcd the applicant to the Amoco site and the l-IRA and city are assisting in paying for the parking. . Smith asked about the parking lot behind the adjacent block which is in neecl of repair, stating that this may be used /<:)r more parking as well and it should be looked at first. Herbst advised that the EDA has been working with the property owners to improve the parking lot. Carlson asked Grittmal1 about entrances/exits, noting there would be only two. Herbst stated his eoncern with the appl icant not having a rormal agreement with the property owners regarding easements, noting there could be problems in the future with parking arrangements if no f<:)rmal agreement was in plaee. Johnson stated that they have been in contact with all property owners, stating also that this project would only benefit -9- . . . Planning COIlHnissiOIl Agenda - 01/08/02 the other properties, and also that irthe Smith property was going to expand their project, they would need to come to Fluth first. Herbst stated they arc in favor of the project, but he stated again that there is a potential problem with parking on the Smith property. Popilek added that overall the project is great. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMrrH TO SUPPORT A JOINT PARKING PROJECT WITH '1'1 IE 19 STALL DEFICIENCY, BASED ON TI-IE rOL,LOWING CONDITIONS: · Joint parking agreement established and signed by all property owners. · The feasibility of internalizing the trash enclosure be looked at by developer and city staff. · Project is consistent with the requirements of the CCD district. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. Barry Pluth stated his appreciation with city staft~ HRA, and the Planning Commission for their support and assistance on this project. 1L Consideration orCalling for A Public Hearing on Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. ./eff O'Neill provided a briefreport noting that stafT did bring this to the City Council previously, and that the Planning Commission is asked to review the latest inf(wrnation regarding the process of updating the comprehensive plan and consider calling for a public hearing on amending the plan. O'Neill stated that at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission a draft of the amended Land Use Guide plan was reviewed, accepted and f()Jwarded to the City Council. Similarly, the City Council accepted the plan and directed staff to obtain input from TOlll Salkowski (County Planner and MOAA Zoning Administrator). It was the view of staff that Salkowski was in the best position to provide input necessary to create a plan that would likely be supported by the Township and County officials. The meeting with Salkowski was held on Friday, January 4th and Salkowski stated he felt they should include input from the Township as well. O'Neill added that they would like to get infi.lrlllation out to the Township and MOAA residents so that they are aware of what the City is looking at in it's Comprehensive Plan. Clint I lerbst concurred and Popilek added that anything the City can do to keep the Township informed would be good for the City. O'Neill added that staff would set a meeting for an open house and advise the Planning Commission of that date. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC I n~ARING ON AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SCIIEDULED FOR MARCIl 5,2002. ROD DRACiSTEN SECONDED TI-IE MOTION. Motion carried unanilllously. -I o~ . . . Planning Commission Agenda ~ 01/08/02 9. Discussion regardinQ the Library, Wells Fargo Bank and the former St. I lenrv's church. Clint Herbst advised that Wells Fargo may be interested in expanding their current facility and may be in favor of swapping the Library building which is owned by the City, for the Marquette building. Another idea was to take the money from the sale of the l.ibrary and reloeate it to the rormer SL Henry site. Herbst noted a third alternative which was to locate the Library at the current City I lall and the City Hall would move to the Marquette Bank building, although that may cause problems with reeords being stored at that building while meetings would still be held at the current site, etc. Also noted was that this would take the Marquette Bank site off the tax rolls. The Planning Commission mcmbers felt the Library would fit well at thc old St. Henry's site. They also noted that there is an interested party for the old St.Henry's site so this may .bc a mute point. I Icrbst stated that there would possibly be a public outcry if the City were to re-do the current City Hall with it being as new as it is. O'Neill stated that Wells Fargo is very interested in purchasing the Library property and it could be very profitable for the City. Herbst advised that he wanted to get the Planning Commission's feelings on these ideas. 10. Adjourn. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:40 PM. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. ~< ~lj, ./ -11-