Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-06-13 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Thursday,June 13,2024 Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance: Chair Van Denburgh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed new Commissioner JB.Nelson. Present: Commissioners Husby,Kremer,Nelson and Van Dyke; City Administrator Rife and City Planner Richards, and Ed Terhaar, Stantec Engineering. Absent: City Councilmember Liaison Representative Liljegren. II. Approval of Agenda: Commissioner Kremer, seconded by Commissioner Van Dyke moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Carried 5 - 0. III. Approval of May 9, 2024 Meeting Minutes: Commissioner Kremer,seconded by Commissioner Van Dyke,moved to approve the Minutes as with typographical correction on page 2, removing the letter d from the word closed. Carried 5-0. IV. Department/Commission Liaison/Other Reports: City Administrator Rife reported that the City continues to work in the background on the City budget for the next fiscal year and that the City has successfully extended an employment offer to Alison Egger for the position of City Finance Director, with a starting date of June 24`h. V. Visitors/Public Comment: None. VI. Public Hearings: A. Jaime Junker — JK&K Group LLP: Consider request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use classification of Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for the property located at 5676 Oakgreen Ave. N. Chair Van Denburgh stated that he would like to begin the public hearing with the applicant providing a summary of the proposal,limiting comment to about 10—15 minutes and opened the public hearing. Jaime Junker introduced himself as the applicant and shared a bit of his journey to the point of his asking the City for the comprehensive plan amendment for the property. He stated that the properties are listed for sale but ideally, he and his wife, would develop it and they would live there. Mr.Junker shared the overall site plan hoped for the site,briefly discussed the layout, and stated that he hoped the Commission and neighbors agreed that it was a nice-looking plan for the full property site. Planning Commission Minutes June 13,2024 Page 2 of 6 City Planner Richards reviewed the June 6, 2024 Planning Memorandum to the request, noting that the land use classification is the only things being considered as part of the public hearing and not any details as to any future development of the site. He provided an issue analysis and noted conditions recommended, with an approval consideration. Richards noted that City Traffic Engineer, Ed Terhaar from Stantec Engineering was also available to address traffic related questions. Commissioner Kremer asked for clarity on the Comprehensive Plan versions referenced in the planning report with regard to use designation for the property. Chair Van Denburgh invited public comment. Jean Smith from the Palmer Station neighborhood inquired as to why the density was changed from medium density to low density in the two Comprehensive Plans. Discussion was had as to the time cycle of required updating of the Comprehensive Plan and related discussion that would have contributed to that change. It was clarified that the zoning of the area is currently open space and that could be changed through public hearing request. Vickie Gacke — 13964 56th St. N., has lived in Oak Park Heights for 25-years and their property backs up to the property being discussed,noting that a 150-foot buffer was placed to protect their properties from density, and expressed that the property should be considered R-1 as per the 2018 Comprehensive Plan and should stay that way. Dick Gacke— 13964 56thSt.N. stated that his problem with the meeting being held is that it is talking about a comprehensive plan and that there is no development that should be considered. He noted the last proposal and neighborhood meetings and how the density changed between those meetings. Mr. Gacke noted that he was adamantly opposed to the request and that the discussion should not be had without a plan attached to it and suggested that he might support low-density single-family homes there. Dave Harvieux of LaBelle Real Estate Group introduced himself,noting that he has been working with Mr. Dunker for the past couple of months on the current project and was not involved with the earlier project. He noted a positive to the proposed project is that there are only two driveway cuts and that with six or seven single-family homes you would have six or seven individual driveways accessing 58th St. and Oakgreen Ave. Mr. Harvieux noted that the density of the 10 units on the acreage would average out to be less than that of homes on 56th St. and also his understanding that any zoning approval to the property would be contingent upon a plan rather than just be available to anyone who wanted to buy and develop the property. Valessa Caspers - 13950 56th St. N has lived at her home for 24 years. Her property also backs up to the property being discussed. She inquired about the amount of parking, expressed her concern about light pollution and noted that noise pollution has increased greatly in the past 20 years. She stated that she would rather see six driveways and potentially 12 cars versus 30 and that she is opposed to the request for a comprehensive plan amendment as well as any plan that looks like what is being shown. Planning Commission Minutes June 13,2024 Page 3 of 6 Chair Van Denburgh clarified that the public hearing being held is not about any plan approval—only density. Any plan for the site would require a separate process and public hearing where those elements would be discussed, along with many other checks and balances. Jaime Junker addressed parking in that vehicles are intended to be parked in the garages and that the striping in front of them should not be there, as the vehicles would be inside the garage. Susan Clary of 56th St., stated that her property abuts the property being discussed. She stated that she walks the area and has noticed that the houses in the area sit further back from the roadway and wonders how a plan such as that shown would fit in. She also noted that the land area at the end of the property floods in the Spring and she would like to see the land area protected so they do not have larger flooding issues. She stated that she in favor of less is more for the site. Commissioner Husby, seconded by Commissioner Kremer, moved to close the public hearing. Carried 5-0. Commission discussion ensued as to it being difficult to separate the comprehensive plan change request from the material presented showing the housing,that the housing photos are not depicted with any accuracy to the elevations at the land and sidewalks or the tree coverage as the site, 58th St. being a decent divider between the high density and the low density housing on its own, that regardless of number of driveways traffic will increased based on the number of units, the time and consideration put into the comprehensive plan amendment and not enough being provided to support changing it, Mr. Junker's right to develop his property,difficulties in approving the request without a plan attached to it due to so many variables,that the current development idea is much better than that previously proposed, housing layout comparable to single family homes and potential ideas to make it more suitable and reiteration that the Planning Commission is a recommending body— that the City Council will make the approval decision and that only the density is being discussed for voting consideration at this public hearing. Commissioner Kremer,seconded by Commissioner Van Dyke,moved to recommend City Council deny the request. Chair Van Denburgh expressed that he felt that Mr. Junker had made a fair compromise with his request and agreed with Commissioner Van Dyke that he should have the right to develop his property. City Administrator Rife called for a roll call vote to recommend the City Council deny the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request. Commissioner Husby: Aye Commissioner Kremer: Aye Commissioner Nelson: Nay Commissioner Van Dyke: Aye Commissioner Van Denburgh: Nay Planning Commission Minutes June 13,2024 Page 4 of 6 Carried 3-2,Nelson and Van Denburgh opposed. B. Hampton Companies—The Heights: Consider requests for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use classification of Commercial Use to Residential/Business Transitional Use, Rezoning from 0-Open Space to B-4, Limited Business District, Preliminary and Final Plat, Conditional Use Permits and Design Guidelines/Site Plan Review for proposed construction of an 81-unit apartment building on property located West of Menards at 58th St. N. City Planner Richards reviewed the June 6,2024 Planning Report to the request,providing an issue analysis, and noted conditions recommended with an approval consideration. Brief discussion ensued as the emergency access not being required through Oak Park Ponds. Chair Van Denburgh opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Joel Larson, President of Hampton Companies introduced himself and noted that the building is proposed as a market rate building, with common space within and outside of the building, noted that they will also be owners of the building and shared his conversation with the owner of Oak Park Ponds and how shared access might work. He made himself available for questions. Chair Van Denburgh noted public comment received from Menard's noting their existence along with normal business operation noise, traffic, and light levels. Jeremy Larson of Hampton Companies shared a material board and review the materials proposed for use on the building. Bobbie Teigen— 5795 Newberry Ave. N. asked about the proximity of their driveway to her home and expressed concern about the amount and speed of traffic at 58th St.N.Added that she feels that four lanes of traffic is too much. Chair Van Denburgh suggested that Engineer Terhaar could comment on the traffic study and what we would be looking at for additional traffic to the area with the development. Terhaar discussed briefly how the study is done and traffic levels determined. He noted that acceptable traffic does not imply normal service levels at all times. He pointed out distance standards with regard to vehicles turning in and out of site to roadway and sight distances for safety, which are met with this project. He did note consideration of changing roadway from four lanes to three lanes to assist with traffic turning slow down. The 58th St.corridor does not have a high crash history fortunately,though the idea,called road diet,may be considered if development increases in this area. The existing road was designed for 40 mph, changing the speeds will not necessarily result in drivers changing the speed at which they drive. Discussion was held as the trip calculations in the traffic study. Planning Commission Minutes June 13,2024 Page 5 of 6 Kirk Schultz—5660 Newgate Circle N. inquired as to the traffic study counts and if they considered the new 58th roadway connection coming. Engineer Terhaar noted that the study did not include that; however, he factored in 50% for that and found the levels of traffic with the development to still be in the acceptable range. Mr. Schultz inquired about the berm at 58th St. N. and what the height of the berm in relation to the height of the building was with regard to screening lighting. He does not want to see an increase of any lighting to the area and also feels that the traffic and speeds are already too great. Tim Whaley—5775 Newberry Ave. N. feels like this is the wrong place for this building. The roadway is busy and unsafe and traffic should not be increased. He noted that it has become noisy since they moved in nine years ago and that the speed limit needs to be reduced to 30 mph and that the speed sign should be removed. Ross Teigen — 5795 Newberry Ave. N. expressed his concern about speed and traffic, noting that you cannot see traffic coming from the West. It is dangerous. He thanked the Commission for the time they spent putting the comprehensive plan together and while he is not opposed to the apartment building itself, he is surprised to see two separate public hearings for amendments to it.Mr.Teigen hopes that the Planning Commission will make use of conditional use permit conditions to the site, if they decide to approve it. Jackie Blair — 5790 Newberry Ave. N. moved into the neighborhood in 2009. She is curious how far the driveway to the apartment building is to her street. Richards did not have a specific distance but did note that the access is pulled off closer to the Kowalski's development. She is concerned about the amount of traffic and increased density. Mike Blair— 5790 Newberry Ave. N. shared the same thoughts that it is an undesirable living area for an apartment building and is concerned about who will be living there in five years. Kathy Schultz—5660 Newgate Circle N. shared her concern with the increased in density, number of vehicles and increased traffic. In the 28 years they have been in their home, she has seen the two-lane road grow to four and all of the commercial development in that area come. She thinks it looks like a nice development but that it is being proposed for the wrong place. Maggie Hart — 5710 Newgate Circle N. expressed her concern with traffic, three stories proposed and agrees with others that the location is not a good fit. She expressed that there is just too much unknown with the County road project and that problems should be stopped before they are started. Barb Regal - 5690 Newberry Ave. N. agrees with what others say—too much traffic, too much noise, and too much light. She feels the site should stay zoned commercial. Commissioner Van Dyke, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, moved to close the public hearing. Carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes June 13,2024 Page 6 of 6 Commission discussion ensued as to there not seeming to be so much opposition to the project as much as to increased traffic, per audience comment, particularly around Newberry Ave. N., speed, access granted through Oak Park Ponds, the site layout, green space,the potential for tax revenue,the trend of living in mixed use residential/commercial areas, whether or not the property could be developed and have safe traffic, and how can the City meet the concerns of the neighborhood with regard to traffic independently regardless of the development requested, and conditions proposed within the planning report if there is a positive motion. Commissioner Van Denburgh, seconded by Commissioner Nelson,moved to recommend City Council approve the request with the amended conditions of the June 6, 2024 Planning Report. City Administrator Rife called roll: Commissioner Husby: Aye Commissioner Kremer: Abstained Commissioner Nelson: Aye Commissioner Van Dyke: Aye Commissioner Van Denburgh: Aye Carried 4—0— 1, Kremer abstained. VII. New Business: None. VIII. Old Business: None. IX. Informational: A. Upcoming Meetings: Noted. B. Council Representative: • Tuesday, June 25, 2024—Commissioner Van Denburgh • Tuesday, July 23, 2024—Commissioner Husby X. Adjourn: Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Husby, moved to adjourn at 8:06 p.m. Carried 5 - 0. Respectfully submitted, Juli: ultman Pl. i_� ng& Code Enforcement Approved by the Planning Commission:August 8,2024(4-0)