Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08-2000 Planning Commission Meeting Packet4 ! I CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS H,. PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, June 8, 2000 7 :00 PM 7:00 I. Call To Order /Approval of Agenda II. Approval of May 22, 2000 Minutes (1) 7:05 IIII. Visitors: This is an opportunity for the public to address the Commission with questions or concerns not on the agenda. Please limit comments W three minutes. N. Public Hearings: None V. New Business: 7:45 Vl. Old Business: A. Public/Institutional District Discussion (2) 8.00 VII. Informational/Update: VIII. Adjournment Upcoming Meetings: July 13, 2000 Regular Meeting - 7 :00 PM Council Representative: June - Commissioner Dwyer July - Commissioner Wasescha Reminder: . Joint Work Session With City Council: June 8, 2000 - 6:00 p.m. ENCLOSURE 1 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, May 22, 2000 — 7:00 PM Call To Order Chair Hedlund called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Commissioners Dahlquist, Dwyer, Vogt. Absent: Commissioner Wasescha. Staff Present: Community Development Director Danielson, City Planner Richards and Planning Intern Hoel. Approval of Agenda _ Commissioner Dahlquist, seconded by Commissioner Vogt, moved to approve the Agenda with the addition of Item C " Council Meeting Change" under Informational/Update. Carried 4 -0. Approval of April 13, 2000 Minutes Commissioner Dahlquist, seconded by Commissioner Vogt, moved to approve the Minutes as presented to the Commission in their May 22, 2000 meeting packets. Carried 4 -0. Visitors There were no visitors to items other than those indicated upon Agenda. Public Hearings A. W.A.T.E. Enterprises, Inc. - Request for Planned Unit Development- General Plan Approval at 5620 and 5640 Memorial Ave. N. City Planner Richards provided a brief history of the request and also provided an overview of his report, highlighting issues of concern noted within the report. Chair Hedlund opened the hearing for public comment. Tim Freeman of Folz, Freeman, Dupay and Associates introduced himself to the Commission as the architect and representative of the applicant. He stated that he was available to answer any questions the Commission may have. There being no other visitors to the public hearing, Commissioner Dahlquist, seconded by Commissioner Vogt moved to close the public hearing. Discussion ensued as to condition number 2 of the Planner's Report relating to cul -de -sac construction requirements and as to Minnesota Department of Transportation request for review of grading and drainage plans. Commissioner Dahlquist, seconded by Commissioner Hedlund moved to recommend approval of the PUD General Plan with language of condition number 2 amended for clarity and condition number 8 added to accommodate Minnesota Department of Transportation request. Recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Association documents providing access and cross easements shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney. Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Page 2 of 4 2. The north and south cul -de -sacs shall be constructed concurrently with the development of the buildings in 2000. If the property to the south, on Lot 4 of Kern Center 2n Addition is not developed concurrently with W.A.T.E. development, the south cul -de -sac should be constructed with an appropriate turn around area, subject to approval of the City Engineer. No parking shall be allowed on the access drives or cul -de -sacs. 3. A final landscape plan shall be submitted, subject to review and approval of the City Arborist. The tree replacement plan and calculations are subject to review and approval of the City Arborist. 4. The signage shall be limited to three two - sided, freestanding monument signs as proposed. Any modifications to the sign plan shall require an amendment to the Planned Unit Development. 5. All light fixtures shall be a full cut -off style fixture with a shielded light source. 6. Expansion of Building C shall be subject to a Planned Unit Development amendment and site plan review process. 7. The utility plan is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer 8. Grading and drainage plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer, the Watershed District, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 9. The overhead doors on all building shall match the color of the structure. 10. A development agreement between the City and applicant shall be subject to review and approval of the City Attorney. B. City Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request - to Include Central Business District Design Guidelines City Planner Richards provided a brief overview of the request and reviewed his report. Chair Hedlund opened the hearing for public comment. David Beaudet, 6400 Lookout Trl. N., Oak Park He i hits questioned if these guidelines were the same as those as previously adopted by the City. Community Development Director Danielson clarified that the guidelines at issue are specifically for the Central Business District and that those currently incorporated within the City Zoning Ordinance are General Design Guidelines. Mr. Beaudet expressed concern that two different sets of guidelines could be misunderstood and could create conflict. Richards and Danielson indicated that the language for the Central Business District Guidelines manages to differentiate the two guidelines and expressed that conflict should be able to be avoided. It was pointed out that the guidelines for the central business district would be better established by being incorporated within the City Zoning Ordinance. Commission discussion ensued as to issues such as no setback requirement in the Central Business District and potential conflict within other districts, how the CBD Design Guidelines relate to the planned unit development criteria and the significance of having two individual sets of design guidelines criteria. Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Page 3 of 4 Chair Hedlund inquired if there were any additional feedback from the audience. Have received no response, Commissioner Dahlquist, seconded by Commissioner Dwyer, moved to close the public hearing. Carried 4 -0. Continued discussion was held as to no setback criteria being established for the area and language proposed for addition to the City Zoning Ordinance. Richards suggested language to effectuate clarity of the purpose and scope of the Central Business District Design Guidelines. Commissioner Dahlquist, seconded by Commissioner Vogt, moved to recommend amendment of the City Zoning Ordinance to include the Central Business District Design Guidelines with language change to clarify guidelines within the scope of the Central Business District. Carried 4 -0. New Business None Old Business: A. Public/Institutional District City Planner Richards provided a brief overview of the request and his report, noting that presently all institutional uses are zoned O, Open Space Conservation District. He noted that with by creating the district proposed, the O, Open Space Conservation District zoning would be amended, creating a new district to provide for public facilities such as schools, colleges, correctional facilities, nursing homes, churches and other related uses. It was also noted that such a zoning change would allow some guidance and control not facilitated by existing zoning. Commission discussion ensued as to rational for including residential areas in draft language, the issue of conditional use permit versus zoning issue, churches and transitioning between neighborhoods, parks being included in the zoning proposed when they are actually open space areas and types of uses in existence that would be encompassed under such a proposed zoning district. General consensus of the Commission was that they would like to see parks separated from this proposed district and that they desire public feedback in the form of a public hearing or other similar manner. InformationalModate : A. Stillwater Area High School Request for Ropes Course CUP Amendment Danielson informed the Commission that City Council has taken action on the conditional use permit amendment request and would be conducting the annual review at a later date. She added that the City Council has asked for feedback from the Commission to be provided to them for their consideration during the review process. Chair Hedlund stated that he felt the term school calendar year is an understood time period. He noted that in all of the documentation and discussion by the school for their request he never heard any reasoning presented to substantiate an increase in course hours. In sum, he noted that he observed no hardship shown at all to substantiate their request. Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2000 Page 4 of 4 Discussion moved onto frustration felt by the Commission that communication from them on matters is not reaching the City Council or it is not reaching them in such a manner that the Commissions standpoint is being understood. Commissioner Vogt noted that he was disappointed that during the time period he served as commission representative to the Council he was not asked by Council or staff for feedback. Commission generally agreed that the City Council should ask for Commission Representative feedback at Council meetings and that addressing the matter of communication is a subject that should be discussed with the Council. B. Planning Commission Ap licants Danielson noted that one application for Planning Commission has been received and that the City Council has extended the deadline for application submittal. Chair Hedlund encouraged members of the community to apply. C. Council Meeting Change Danielson noted the upcoming change of meeting dates for the City Council in June. Discussion of scheduling a work session between the City Council and the Planning Commission was held. It was determined that a joint work session would be scheduled for 6:00 p.m., June 8, 2000 prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Adiournment Commissioner Dahlquist, seconded by Commissioner Vogt, moved to adjourn at 8:20 p.m. Carried 4 -0. Respectfully submitted, ji-t �'-Y-)a n Ju ie A. Hultman Community Development Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission: 1'4 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH • E 2 MEMORANDUM T0: Tom Melena FROM: Jason Lindahl /Scott Richards DATE: June 1, 2000 RE: Oak Park Heights -Parks Zoning District FILE NO: 798.04 - 00.03 BACKGROUND Currently, the City is reviewing the appropriateness of the Open Space Conservation Zoning District. The primary purpose for this district is to provide a transitional zone for undeveloped land until it is zoned to the appropriate category for development. Under the existing ordinance, this district allows the following permitted uses: Farming and Agricultural Related Buildings City Parks Nurseries Single Family Dwellings Day Care Facilities Residential Care Facilities Cellular Telephone Antennas In addition, the Open Space Conservation District allows the following conditional uses: Private and Semi Public Recreational Buildings Utility Buildings Commercial Outdoor Recreation Areas Public Correctional Institutions Public and Private Schools Churches and Synagogues Government Buildings Cemeteries As a result of our analysis, staff recommended that the City amend the Open Space Conservation District and create a new Public / Institutional District. However, within that analysis a new issue came forward; should the City's park and recreation uses be included in the new Public / Institutional District or should they be classified in another distinct district? I* 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 6 1 2- 595 -9636 FAX 6 1 2- 595 -9837 E -MAIL NAC WINTERNET.COM r ISSUE ANALYSIS. Our research found no community with a separate park zoning district. Our office examined all of our 30 plus client communities as well as the League of Minnesota City regarding this matter. Most communities simply designate them as permitted uses within their residential and public institutional districts. There may be a legal issue preventing local governments from creating exclusive park zoning districts. The City should consult with the City Attorney on this issue. Another option to address this issue would be to change the method used to display park and recreational uses on the zoning map. Attached is one example that could be used to highlight park and recreational uses. Staff will provide a few more examples at the meeting. RECOMMENDATION Given our findings, staff cannot make a single definitive recommendation. Rather, our office recommends that the Planning Commission choose from the following four options. 1. Make no changes. Currently, parks are permitted in the Open Space District as well as all of the Residential Districts (i.e. R -1, R -1 A, R -1 B, R -1 C, R -2 R -3, and R-- B). 2. Create a new Public / Institutional District but leave parks in the existing Open Space Conservation District. 3. Add parks to the new Public / Institutional District and remove parks from all other zoning districts. 4. Allow parks only in residential districts. Should the Planning Commission choose not to amend the zoning ordinance, staff could still change the method used to display parks on the City's maps. Attached is an example of one possible method NAC could use to highlight parks on the City's Zoning Map. PC Kris Danielson 0