Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout04-11-2000PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 11, 2000 PRESENT: LENNY LEUER, BRUCE WORKMAN, JIM LANE AND TOM SUPEL. ALSO PRESENT: ADMINISTRATOR CLERK PAUL ROBINSON, PLANNING CONSULTANT BILL THIBAULT AND PLANNING AND ZONING ASSISTANT SANDIE LARSON. ABSENT: SUSIE MACKAY, LIZ WEIR AND JERRY BROST 1. Call to Order Chairperson Lenny Leuer called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. 2. Review of Proposed PUD Ordinance Lenny Leuer said that this was a discussion and a public meeting, but not a public hearing. He said that we encouraged any public comments. Page 1 Lenny Leuer said that the document should be consistent with capitals on the word city. Paul Robinson said that he usually capitalizes the word city when it is referring to Medina. Tom Supel wanted to know is architectural review applied in the PUD ordinance as well as in commercial. Bill Thibault said that this ordinance is for the PUD district. He said that some design standards border on architectural features. T. Supel asked about `various prices' in Housing and maybe should prices be mentioned. P. Robinson said that it is purposely general. Jim Lane wanted to know what agriculture uses were implied. B. Thibautl said that on page 3 it is listed in each use - community garden - cooperative farm - he said that the association and developer could decide what is there. He said that in Medina conservation design is starting to come into being. P. Robinson said if the developer could incorporate something like this in the development, they could, but right now it seems unlikely. He said the comment from Ron was to list the uses, but not to define it. 1 L. Leuer said where sanitary sewer is - 50% open space - the option is open for farm use or whatever. J. Lane asked if we envisioned having common horse stables as well. L. Leuer said yes. B. Thibault said in a conservation development there are house, yard and maybe a park - this allows more rustic characteristics - allows more flexibility. Tom Supel asked if this would prohibit an individual from having a garden. B. Thibault said no, unless the covenants prohibit it. Page 2 - L. Leuer talked about woods and the definition - did we back away and just leave preservation. P. Robinson said we did talk about restoration/preservation, but not necessarily in the entire area. There was discussion of conservation - preservation - restoration. L. Kohnen asked if they would not be on an equal level. P. Robinson said maybe in environment heading, but not in all. B. Thibault said he will change it so it implies preservation includes restoration. Mark Anderson, Lundgren Brothers, asked about understory plants - preserve all or can noxious or domination be removed, such as buckthorn. He said we are attempting conservation, but some of what is there is not healthy. Carolyn Smith said that we had talked about understory so it isn't defined out completely - there is some that would not be kept. B. Thibault said we are starting out with the purpose - sub -purpose - these are short statements - details are later on in the ordinance and spelled out better. L. Leuer said we are talking preservation - restoration and conservation. T. Supel asked if SFD was in both PUD area and no duplexes, etc. Both Tom and Jim L. wanted an explanation of why all single family and no twinhomes, etc. 2 John Ferris said that attached houses had come up in the discussion and 70-80 people showed up not liking it, so we took it out. He said there was a public hue and outcry when they heard it, so we backed off. P. Robinson said there is still MR zoning in the city. C. Smith said that it was not an unanimous decision to remove it from the plan - she said people at the meeting thought there was going to be a whole lot more units on the Holasek site than what we were talking about. L. Leuer said that if the council wants to revise it they can, we are not interested in it at the planning commission level. J. Lane said in reading this for the very 1st time he saw not only prohibition of other housing styles, but also design, etc. Bruce Workman said we all thought about it - but it is hard to deal with it here. T. Supel, paragraph B - meets should be deleted in i and iv. The consensus was to delete this. B. Thibault said what if there are 20 areas and you meet some and exceed 5. There was discussion of meets - exceeds - who decides what % is on the bonus. L. Leuer said the committee had the % taken out and then back in. C. Smith said a plan was designed with 25% - it should be 20%. B. Thibault said the attorney reviewed this in a 3+ hour discussion with Loren, the attorney, Paul and himself - it was felt the upper % should be used. C. Smith said she did not think the council would approve 150 units, so it should be 25%. J. Ferris said the amount of the % needs to be discussed tonight - he said he does not see anything wrong with deleting `meets' in i and iv and the underlined portion. T. Supel said he suggests eliminating the list and pick up the underlined sentence - the list is confusing. L. Leuer said put 25% to 20% - he said he is comfortable with leaving the list - take out `meets' in the 3 places that it occurs. 3 M. Anderson said if `meets' is removed how do you exceed #iii. J. Ferris said it would be no problem, each item is looked at - a total package. J. Lane asked if bonus units were defined anywhere. B. Thibault said it is reasonable to know it would be above the 120. L. Leuer is it appropriate to say if the bonus units are sewered units - He said he thought they were unsewered. B. Workman asked what the issue was - bonus should be sewered - we are only talking 24 units max - the total units with bonus would be 144. L. Leuer - page 4 - line 36 - he mentioned the letter from Bancor - they would like to see a % back in - at least 50% of area T. Supel why put in 50% if guide plan shows a different %. B. Thibault said PUD2 comes in at 52% and PUD1 at 69% open. He said we could have a change of language. He said the threshold commonly used is 50 - 60%. B. Workman asked why there was a bonus in PUD1 and not PUD2. P. Robinson said that the density is higher to begin with. L. Leuer said there is more concern with density on the Holasek site than on the Elwell. Consensus was to put back in the 50% in the language under Conservation - preservation on page 4. Page 5 - T. Supel - line 23what is 30' - doesn't it depend on the grade. L. Leuer said no. L. Kohnen said a horizontal grade is measured. There was further discussion on this. Page 6 - L. Leuer - line 15 - doesn't v &vi say the same thing. 4 B. Thibault said in discussion with attorney - even if there are covenants, a private road agreement is safe - covenants can expire - private road agreement cannot - the attorney wanted a back up devise in case something went wrong. L. Leuer - line 30-31 - measurement of trees - before we defined how far off of the ground it was measured - shouldn't it be defined here also. There was discussion concerning this. B. Thibault said the purpose wasn't to define an entire tree ordinance - he said we could add 4" off the ground. L. Leuer - page 7 - line 15 - why trunk diameter instead of caliper - is it the same - same word should be used in both places - consistency of wording. C. Smith - lines 34-42 - she said she was uncomfortable with the measurements. There was discussion of controlling residential lighting. P. Robinson explained why we did it this way - he said it is difficult controlling residential lighting - our feelings were like what was expressed in the underlined paragraph - street lights are more public - the association and covenants can control the residential lighting. C. Smith said she does not agree. There was discussion of covenants C. Smith - line 46 - can add - attempt not to penetrate beyond the property line. There was further discussion of wording for lighting standards. M. Anderson said in his experience at Foxberry, there is nothing in the covenants regarding lighting - he said they would be happy to do it here - there are many beautiful landscape lights - he said we have had hostile situations in Foxberry. Further discussion of covenants - lighting, etc. P. Robinson said that Pat, (the lighting expert the City has been dealing with) is willing to work on the wording for lighting. L. Kohnen thinks is should be in the covenants, not in the city ordinance. P. Robinson said we will try new language for the PUD ordinance. Page 8 - C. Smith said she likes the language in the street lighting. 5 L. Leuer asked about line 30. P. Robinson said this is technical - he passed out information and explained - language was added. - language was changed also in line 33. Page 9 - L. Leuer line 30 - flexibility in the rear setback? B. Thibault said there might be an issue with a corner lot - seemed like the committee was concerned most with front and side setbacks. J. Lane 0 line 25 - 26 - is that 2500 absolute. P. Robinson said that '/ acre was looked at as the smaller lot. L. Kohnen said usable space is the space inside the setbacks. J. Lane said 2500 square feet is very different in different size lots. B. Workman said the purpose is not to build from setback to setback line. There was further discussion of open space on a lot. T. Supel - height seems confusing - why can't we just set a number. There was discussion and it was concluded that this wording meets our current ordinance on height. There was discussion of why it was in this ordinance as it is not just for here, but all zoning district. Page 10 - L. Leuer - line 43 - strike building. After discussion it was determined to delete all after the 1st sentence, after the word view. Page 11 Page 3 - add all terrain vehicles B. Workman said we want to control the size of storage buildings. M. Anderson said there would not be any. 6 L. Leuer said parked and storage are different. L. Kohnen explain what parking is. There was discussion of line 13 - page 10 - line 3-4 page 11 Define parking vs storage M. Anderson said it would be defined in the covenants. P. Robinson said to put in that there must be provisions in the covenants. Page 11 - add time of storage to be defined in the developers covenants. There was discussion of the conservation with the attorney - said city would end up being the 3rd party in the covenants because of the strict PUD's. L. Leuer questioned line 43 - page 11 - he questioned the word `some'. B. Thibault said he did not want to deviate too much - leave it in. Line 12 - the suggestion was to change the figure to 350' B. Workman said he thought it should be at least 1500' for this ordinance. B. Thibault said the attorney was more comfortable with the distance being 350' like the other city ordinances and have the flexibility to change to a higher figure. J. Ferris said having 1500' here makes sense. The 1500' stays in and will change throughout this ordinance to the 1500'. P. Robinson said there are a couple if issues with the 60 day rule for applications. Lines 18-20, page 12 - delete entirely. Line 22 0 change to read -`the application for concept plan approval' - - - - Page 16 - line 22 - wording to change It was discussed that the 60 day rule would apply twice - 1st there would be 60 days for the concept plan and another 60 days for the zoning change. Page 16 - lines 40 - 42 - L. Kohnen said this needs to be seen for drainage. 7 M. Anderson - page 16 - line 40 - he said all grading plans show the slab of garage floor for the line of demarcation - they do not use blocks - they use poured walls. L. Kohnen said then take out `block of the' and just use foundations. M. Anderson said that they show top of slab, front and rear - 1st floor is typically 18" higher than the garage slab. L. Kohnen said that this has nothing to do with building permits. There was discussion of how the drainage is shown. B. Thibault said he would discuss this with Loren, Paul and Mark for the correct wording. Page 18 - line 25 - P. Robinson said they are still working out development agreement language 3. Set Date for Public Hearing on PUD Ordinance P. Robinson said that the public hearing announcement had not been sent in to the paper in time - There was discussion that if it could get in the paper this week, then the public hearing would be on Tuesday, April 25th and if not, it would be at the regular meeting on May 9th P. Robinson wanted to know who should attend the public hearing. Ron Batty and Bill Thibault will both attend. 4. Minutes of March 14, 2000 MOVED BY BRUCE WORKMAN AND SECONDED BY JIM LANE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED. 5. Planning Commission Representatives for City Council Meetings. May 2nd and June 6th - Jim Lane - May 16th and June 20th - Tom Supel. MOVED BY TOM SUPEL AND SECONDED BY BRUCE WORKMAN TO ADJOURN. MOTION PASSED. Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. PLANNING AND ZONING ASSISTANT DATE 8