Loading...
02-13-2001 PC MIN - SPECIAL . . . SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2001 Members Present: Chair Mesich, Commissioners Baker, Chambers, Johnson, Pederson and Ropp. Commissioner Schuster arrived at 6:35 p.m. Members Absent: None Staff Present: Michele McPherson, Director of Planning; Scott Harlicker, Senior Planner; Debbie Huebner, Recording Secretary 1. Call Meetina To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission was called to order Of 6:30 p.m. by Chair Mesich. -:jJ{# 2. Consider 2/13/01 Plannina Co~mission Aaenda COMMISSIONER PEDERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 13, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDITION: - ITEM 4.2. - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING DEFINITIONS FOR GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, OFFICES AND FACILITIES. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 3.1. Reauest for Preliminary Plat Approval (Twin Lakes Townhomes 2nd Addition), Public Hearina - Case No. P 01-04 Reauest for Conditional Use Permit for Site Plan - Twin Lakes T own homes 2nd Addition, Public Hearina - Case No. CU 01-04 3.2. Staff report by Michele McPherson. Phoenix Enterprises has requested preliminary plat approval for Phase two of the Twin Lake Townhomes project, consisting of 46 twin home townhomes. Ms. McPherson explained that the original plat (Twin Lake Townhomes) has been modified, since the developer was unable to acquire additional land within the center of the development. The developer did, however, acquire Outlot J of Trott Brook Farms. The applicant is requesting approval of a revised site plan for Twin Lake Townhomes which includes a new access onto County Road No. 13 and connected streets between the two phases of the project. Ms. McPherson reviewed existing site conditions, setbacks, roads, parking and landscaping. She noted that wetland issues will be reviewed by the tech panel and the Army Corps of Engineers. Ms. McPherson discussed the City Engineer's recommendations regarding sanitary sewer and water, grading and drainage, and the proposed retaining walls. The Park and Recreation Commission recommended cash for park dedication. Ms. McPherson stated that staff recommends approval of the request and reviewed the 13 conditions as outlined in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2001 Page 2 . Chair Mesich as what that property was zoned. Ms. McPherson stated that the property is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development). Chair Mesich asked if staff had any concerns regarding issues such as snowplowing of the private roads and cut-through traffic. Ms. McPherson stated that no issues were raised during staff review of the plat. and that they felt the layout of the streets discourages cut- through traffic. She noted that the City Council has reserved the right to removed the connection at County Road 13 if and when 193rd is extended to connect with Tyler Street. Commissioner Ropp asked how high the proposed retaining walls would be. Daryl Thompson, representing the developer, Phoenix Enterprises, stated that they are working on a new topographical map to determine where retaining walls may be needed and how high they will be. Ms. McPherson stated that based on the contours shown on the current grading plan, the retaining wall on the north side of the plat would be approximately 8 feet and the other one adjacent to the street would be 6 feet. Mr. Thompson noted that the walls would be require engineered design and fencing. Chair Mesich opened the public hearing. There being no further comments from the public, Chair Mesich closed the public hearing. The Commissioners and staff discussed a possible future extension of 193rd Avenue. Ms. McPherson explained the City Council's decision not to cul-de-sac County Road 13 (Line Avenue) as originally proposed. . Commissioner Schuster asked if the entrance to the plat would be gated. Mr. Thompson stated that it would not be gated. Commissioner Schuster asked who would be responsible for maintenance. Ms. McPherson stated that the homeowners' association would be responsible for maintenance. Commissioner Schuster asked how wide the private streets are. Mr. Thompson stated that the streets are 30 feet wide (28' face-to-face) with parking on one side. Chair Mesich asked how the density of this PUD compares to the density of R3 zoning. Ms. McPherson stated that she did not have the exact figures, but that the density was less than if the property would have been zoned R3, and that the R3 zoning requirements do not fit this type of townhome development. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY PHOENIX ENTERPRISES FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL (TWIN LAKE TOWN HOMES 2ND ADDITION), CASE NO. P 01-04, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. CU 01-04, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BE PREPARED AND EXECUTED OUTLINING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL. 2. THAT THE DEVELOPER PROVIDE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION DOCUMENTS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT. . 3. THAT AN ACCESS PERMIT BE OBTAINED FROM SHERBURNE COUNTY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED ACCESS TO COUNTY ROAD NO. 13 PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2001 Page 3 4. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FEES BE PAID IN THE AMOUNT REQUIRED BY THE CITY AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT, PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING WITH SHERBURNE COUNTY. 5. PARK DEDICATION AND TRAIL FEES IN THE AMOUNT REQUIRED BY THE CITY AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT BE PAID PRIOR TO RELEASING THE PLAT FOR RECORDING WITH SHERBURNE COUNTY. 6. THAT THE CITY ENGINEER'S COMMENTS BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SITE PLAN. 7. THAT ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS BE IRRIGATED. 8. THAT THE WETLAND FILLING BE APPROVED PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT AND COMPLY WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL. 9. THAT THE DEVELOPER OBTAIN WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE UTILITY TO GRADE IN THE GAS LINE EASEMENT. 10. THAT ANY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SIGNS BE SHOWN ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THAT A SIGN PERMIT BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY SIGNS. 11. THAT THE PRIVATE ROAD BE RESTRICTED TO PARKING ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET WITH SIGNS INDICATING NO PARKING. 12. THAT ANY TREES ON OR OFF SITE NEAR THE LIMITS OF GRADING THAT ARE TO BE PROTECTED BE FENCED WITH A SNOW FENCE PRIOR TO TREE REMOVAL OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AT THE DRIP LINE TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO TREES BE INADVERTENT GRADING, EROSION, SOIL COMPACTION AND STORAGE OF DEBRIS OR EQUIPMENT IN THE TREES. 13. THAT THE RETAINING WALLS BE STRUCTURALLY ENGINEERED AND FENCED. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 3.3. Reauest bv Citv of Elk River for Ordinance Amendment to Amend Sections of the Cluster Ordinance, Public Hearina - Case No. OA 01-01 Staff report by Scott Harlicker. The Commission is asked to review and discuss possible modifications to cluster ordinance regarding "leap frog" development, quality of open space, architectural theme, front yard setbacks. density bonus calculations, accessory structures in open space, and suitability of property for open space development. Mr. Harlicker noted that staff will incorporate the Commission's comments into a formal ordinance amendment to be presented to them at the February 27,2001 Planning Commission meeting. Chair Mesich asked if the Police or Fire Departments have expressed any concern with the location of some of the outlying cluster developments. Mr. Harlicker stated that the City Administrator has expressed some concern, but that no comments have been received from the Police or Fire Department Planning Commission Minutes February 13,2001 Page 4 . representatives during staff review of the cluster subdivisions. Chair Mesich suggested scaling the density bonuses in "tiers" or "rings", based on distance from the central core of the City. Commissioner Chambers agreed with this concept. Commissioner Schuster felt that the cluster ordinance is preserving open space, which was the goal. but that it is not happening where the City wanted it to happen. Chair Mesich stated that he is concerned that developers are allowed to build more homes on smaller lots on the dry land, and that the wetlands that are being dedicated as open space could not have been built on anyway. He asked what percentage of the open space is required to be buildable in Sherburne County's open space ordinance. Ms. McPherson stated that 35% of the open space is required to be "high and dry". Chair Mesich asked if access to the plat must be via a paved street. Ms. McPherson stated that accommodations to pave gravel streets have been recommended. Chair Mesich asked if the issue of paving Jarvis Street has been addressed. Ms. McPherson stated that the City has run into difficulties with Burns Township, but that the issue will be revisited in the spring. Commissioner Chambers felt that the establishment of an architectural theme needs to be more specific in order to allow density bonuses. Ms. McPherson suggested that applicants be required to provide some type of detail when submitting their application for a cluster subdivision. . Commissioner Chambers suggested establishing criteria for the lay of the land in order to qualify for a cluster development, in order to obtain better quality open space. Chair Mesich stated that in the original "pure" clusters, the land trust would only look at good land that was high and dry, with some hills and trees. Chair Mesich felt that when driving through the A 1 district, the area should retain an agricultural look, even with the cluster subdivisions. Mr. Harlicker asked if the Commission would like to see an additional 10% density bonus for increased buildable open space, beyond the ordinance requirements. Chair Mesich asked for input from the public at this time. George Sanford, developer, stated that Sherburne County limits the amount of wetlands they will accept as open space. He felt it makes sense to allow a density bonus if additional buildable open space is given. Mr. Harlicker asked the Commission if they felt tightening up the existing ordinance or increasing the density bonus for additional buildable open space would help prevent the "leap frog" effect. Commissioner Baker stated he did not feel either would help. Discussion followed regarding providing emergency services to these high density outlying areas. Commissioner Pederson stated that if the fire and police are not concerned, this issue is a moot point. Commissioners Ropp and Johnson agreed. . Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2001 Page 5 . Commissioner Ropp stated that since "leap frog" development is already happening in the City, he questioned if there was any deterrent to keep it from continuing. Commissioner Chambers felt that high quality cluster developments were possible, such as a development comprised of horse owners with a large community stable. Chair Mesich stated that a high end ($1 million dollar homes) cluster of this type was done in Chanhassen and the lots are not selling. Ms. McPherson stated that this concept could be successful and felt the developers of the Chanhassen cluster may have over-reached their market. Commissioner Schuster stated that placing restrictions on clusters in the A 1 district may lessen the number of times this concept is used, but it will not prevent leap- frogging from occurring. Chair Mesich supported the County's concept of requiring 35% of the open space to be buildable, and an extra 10 percent bonus for dedicating additional buildable open space. . Mr. Harlicker asked the Commission if they felt an architectural theme should be mandatory or if it should remain a density bonus incentive. Commissioner Pederson felt an architectural theme should be a bonus, provided certain parameters are met, such as street lighting, definition of general features and landscaping. Chair Mesich suggested a central gathering space could be included in the architectural theme. Commissioner Pederson suggested that if a developer goes above the minimum standards, an additional bonus could be offered. Chair Mesich felt that requiring more buildable open space may potentially lead to establishing a gathering space. Discussion following regarding the concept of allowing smaller lot sizes. Mr. Sanford felt that having city-size lots works against the rural setting. Ms. McPherson suggested putting a cap on the maximum lot size in the A 1 district (Le., 1 acre or Y2 acre). Chair Mesich and Commissioner Schuster supported lowering the minimum lot size to create more open space. Commissioner Ropp questioned why they would establish a maximum lot size, rather than a minimum lot size. Mr. Harlicker explained that the ordinance already requires a minimum lot size (11,000 square feet). Mr. Sanford stated that he felt a nice home could be built on a half acre lot. The Commissioners felt that by decreasing the lot size developers would be able to increase the number of lots, by taking advantage of the density bonus for dedicating additional buildable open space. Various options for cluster design were discussed by the Commission. Ms. McPherson stated that she felt it was the developer's responsibility to design a plat by using their talents and resources, and that the City would not want to arbitrarily design subdivisions for the developers. The Commissioners supported the following amendments to the open space subdivision ordinance: . Density Bonus - Allow an additional 5% density bonus for a 10% increase in buildable open space, over the required 50%. Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2001 Page 6 . Architectural Theme - Require developer to submit a written narrative, requiring certain minimum features be included for a 2 1f2 percent increase, and an additional 2 1f2 percent increase for features over and above the minimum. Maximum/Minimum Lot Sizes - Keep the minimum at 11,000 square feet: establish a maximum lot size of 1f2 acre. Commissioner Schuster suggested that language be included to require open space be contiguous to an adjacent plat, and suggested that it may be desirable have the open space of one cluster abut the open space of another. Mr. Harlicker suggested that a policy could be provided to "Strongly encourage" that the open space of a proposed cluster development abut the open space of an existing development. The Commissioners discussed the possibility of reducing the front yard setback to 20 feet in order to have flexibility in design and also to preserve trees. Ms. McPherson noted that flexibility would need to be written into the ordinance in order to avoid the need for variances. Chair Mesich opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the public, Chair Mesich closed the public hearing. . COMMISSIONER PEDERSON MOVED TO CONTINUE THE REQUEST BY CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE CLUSTER SUBDIVISION AND TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON FEBRUARY 27, 2001. COMMISSIONER BAKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 4.1. Concept Review of West Oaks, Case No. P 01-03 George Sanford, developer, was present to review a proposed town home development (West Oaks) to be located south of Highway 10, west of Waco Street and north of Pinewood Golf Course. The number of units has been reduced from 190 to 178, which would represent a density of approximately 5.4 units per acre. Mr. Sanford reviewed the proposed location of sidewalks and open space. He explained that there would be a berm constructed on their property along the northern boundary of the golf course with tree plantings. Mr. Sanford stated that they would be designing the units with as many side-loaded garages as possible. Chair Mesich stated that this item will be formally presented to the Planning Commission at their February 27,2001 meeting. 4.2. Definitions for Government Buildinas, Offices and Facilities . Michele McPherson reviewed proposed language changes to the definitions for government buildings and facilities and government offices. The Commissioners agreed to remove the reference to "courthouse" and "jails" in the government offices definition and to add "courthouse" to the definition for government buildings and facilities. Also, they agreed that government buildings and facilities should be a conditional use in the R 1 zoning districts and that government offices would be a permitted use. . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2001 Page 7 5. Adiournment There being no further business. COMMISSIONER BAKER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER PEDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted. ;(f!ef~d xia6/~ Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary