Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-14-2008 Minutes�s ? ,�{ CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Thursday, , Au ust 14, 2008 Call to Order: Chair Liljegren called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Vice -Chair Wasescha; Commissioners LeRoux, Powell and Runk; City Planner Richards and Commission Liaison Abrahamson. Absent: City Administrator Johnson. Agenda Approval: Vice Chair Wasescha, seconded by Commissioner LeRoux, moved to approve the Agenda with the addition of Accessory Building discussion to New Business. Carried 5 — 0. Approve Minutes of July 10, 2008: Commissioner Runk, seconded by Commissioner Wasescha, moved to approve the Minutes as presented. Carried 5 — 0. Department /Commission Liaison & Other Reports: None. Visitors /Public Comment: None. Public Hearings: A. Continued to September 11, 2008 - Xcel Energy, Inc. Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow vertical expansion of the A.S. King Fly Ash Disposal site, known as the Moelter Fly Ash Site, located S. of Hwy. 36 and W. of Beach Rd. City Planner Richards reported the request for hearing continuance and noted that the applicant has sought and received a 120 day extension to the development timeline from City Council. City Council granted an extension of the timeline to December 31, 2008. Richards noted that there would be no action taken on the application at this meeting of the Planning Commission but that the public hearing was still open on and that if there were visitors to the audience wishing to speak on the matter, the Commission should allow them to be heard. Chair Liljegren opened the public hearing for public comment and invited those wishing to address the Commission to do so. Chuck Dougherty of 15330 58 St. N. introduced himself and his wife, Judy to the Commission. Mr. Dougherty noted that he was out of town at the July public hearing and was unable to attend and was grateful for the opportunity to address the Commission regarding Xcel Energy's request. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2008 Page 2 of 8 Mr. Dougherty stated that he and his wife have lived at their home and have operated their Bed and Breakfast business at 15330 58 St. since 1993. He discussed the change in operations at the ash site since 1993 to present, including a significant increase of business operation at the site, dust and noise, all of which make it daily living and business operations difficult. Mr. Dougherty stated that Xcel Energy doesn't seem to do what the City has directed them too until they are at a point where they are needing City approval for something and cited examples regarding the sites condition, including poor and dead tree conditions, grass, dust control, work operation hours and Xcel Energy's general lack of follow through. He stated that he doesn't feel that Xcel Energy's request benefits the neighborhood in any way and that he would like to see a condition of any approval added that requires the buffer zone be increased to 400 feet. General Commission discussion ensued as to the previous public hearing comments received, the community meeting held by Xcel Energy with the surrounding neighborhood, and how the Commission was to proceed with the open public hearing. It was noted that approval of Xcel Energy's request is not a given nor is the request their only option. Vice Chair Wasescha expressed the importance of interested parties attending both Planning Commission Public Hearings as well as City Council meetings to the matter. Brian Jones of 15331 58 St. N. and owner of 15357 58 St. N. informed the Commission that he moved into his home in 1991 and that he feels the changes in work at the ash site over the years since then have made it feel like he is living in a disaster area. He noted that he has had enough and wants to be gone from the area regardless of approval to the request. Commissioner Runk, seconded by Commissioner Powell, moved to continue the public hearing to their next meeting and that notices are to be mailed, notifying the community whether or not the public hearing will be on the meeting agenda for activity. Carried 5 — 0. Oakgreen Village Planned Unit Development Amendment of Lots 1 -3, Block 4, Lots 1 -8, Block 5 and Lots 1 -4, Block 6 of Oakgreen Village and Subdivision of platted property to Oakgreen Ponds, located S. of Upper 58 St. and E. of Nova Scotia Ave. City Planner Richards reviewed the August 6, 2008 planning report to the request for an amended planned use development permit to allow modification to earlier approvals, allowing one 3 -unit and two 2 -unit buildings for a total of seven one -story dwellings, all of which would be of the same design as the units approved for the development area by City Council on May 27, 2008. Richards provided an issue analysis, discussed the same and noted reviewed conditions recommended as party of any approval. Chair Liljegren opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being no visitors to the public hearing, Commissioner Runk, seconded by Vice -Chair Wasescha moved to close the public hearing. Carried 5 — 0. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2008 Page 3 of 8 Commission discussion ensued as to the conditions of the planning report. Todd Erickson of Folz, Freeman and Erickson was present and responded to Commission questions relative a number of the conditions. Vice Chair Wasescha, seconded by Commissioner Powell, moved to recommend City Council approval, subject to the conditions of the August 6, 2008 planning report as amended, specifically: The preliminary /final plat for Oakgreen Ponds is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and City Attorney. 2. All easements, as required by the City Engineer and City Attorney, shall be dedicated to the City as part of the subdivision approvals. 3. Sidewalks /trails and timing for the construction are subject to review and approval by the Parks Commission, City Council and City Engineer. The trail and crosswalk at 58 Street and Oal<green Avenue shall cross 58 Street to the south. 4. The tree preservation and landscape plans are subject to review and approval of the City Arborist. 5. Grading, drainage, erosion control and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Stormwater plans are also subject to review and approval by the applicable watershed authority. 6. The buildings shall comply with the requirement for a 20 -foot setback from the private street. The site plan shall be revised subject to City Council approval. The site plan does not include light fixtures on buildings. If lights are proposed on the buildings, they must be illustrated on the building plans, details submitted and the photometric plan must be revised to include them subject to City staff review and approval. 8. The Planning Commission is favorable to the building design with the stipulations that the dormers on the front elevations be increased in size, shake siding be used on the gables of the front and rear elevations and that the gable ends of the rear elevation be provided with a vertical element from the roof eave to the foundation. The City Council should review and approve the final design and materials for the townhome structures. 9. The Fire Marshall and Police Chief should review the plans and determine the accessibility of emergency vehicles throughout the development. 10. The applicant shall supply the homeowner's association documents as required by the City Attorney for review and approval. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2008 Page 4 of 8 11. The applicant shall provide all association duties and maintenance until the completion of Phase I. The homeowner's association shall be organized with a funded reserve provided by the developer. The details of the reserve amount shall be outlined in the development agreement. 12. The applicant shall be required to disclose the entire development plans to include the Carriage House Cooperative for all Phase I buyers. Disclosure is also required for modification of all buyers within the development that the roadway and wetlands are to be private and will not be accepted as public in the future by the City. 13. The applicant is required to enter into an amended development agreement with the City in a form acceptable to the City, and subject to review and approval of the City Attorney. Carried 5 — 0. C. Oakgreen Village Planned Unit Development: Carriage House Cooperative Concept Plan to allow construction of a senior housing cooperative located W. of Oakgreen Ave. and E. of Nova Scotia Ave. City Planner Richards reviewed the August 7, 2008 planning report to the request for a planned unit development: concept plan approval, allowing two senior cooperative rental housing buildings to be constructed in two phased and to be known as Carriage House Cooperative. Richards reviewed the history of the site and development and noted that the applicant has secured purchase agreements to the homes along Oakgreen Avenue and that those areas with purchase agreements in place have consented to the application for the project requested. Richards provided an issue analysis, discussed the same and noted reviewed conditions recommended as party of any approval. Chair Liljegren opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Todd Erickson of Foiz, Freeman and Erickson addressed the Commission and noted that the sidewalk is planned for location upon the property of the development. Mr. Erickson, along with the applicant, Tim Nolde discussed the plans for pedestrian pathways, right -of -way and setbacks, vehicle traffic and roadway outlets, parking spaces, density of the site in relation to the overall development and the overall layout for the site as being proposed. Mr. Nolde noted that the site is designed spatially to make it financially feasible to meet the requirements to the development including increased green space at Oakgreen Avenue and marketability to those looking for quality housing at an attainable market price. He noted that they have been working with the people at Boutwell's Landing in working out their design and amenities, and they have partnered with Lou Stocco to assist them with the cooperative ownership of the development. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2008 Page 5 of 8 Lou Stocco of Advantage Consulting introduced himself to the Commission and provided a brief history of their work and experience. Mr. Stocco discussed amenities that are essential to cooperative living communities such as community space and control of the space as exercised by the Board composed of cooperative owners. He discussed the nature of cooperative ownership and its community management in comparison to that of a condominium development, noting that the basic difference is that there are no common areas outside the cooperative ownership and that all areas and responsibility for maintenance of them are shared equally. Commission discussion ensued as to the applicant changing plans for the overall development site, density of the cooperative buildings on its site in relation to the overall development site, how the project blends with everything else within the overall development, green space, setbacks, parking spaces numbers and configurations for them. Chair Liljegren inquired as to other visitors to the public hearing and invited them to speak. Doug Johnson of 5843 Oakgreen Place introduced himself as a new resident to Oak Park Heights and noted that as a former Lake Elmo Planning Commissioner and City Councilmember, he appreciated the work the Planning Commission was doing. He expressed his disappointment as to how the public hearing was being handled, with there being no handouts to the audience to follow or visual display directed toward them so that they could follow what was being proposed. City Planner Richards apologized for the technical difficulty with the visual display normally used and Vice Chair Wasescha noted that there was a public viewing packet at the Council bench for audience use. Mr. Johnson expressed his concern as to construction traffic and where the construction entrance would be located, as to the mature trees along Oakgreen Avenue currently in place, what the landscaping plan of the proposed project will be and how long he would be subjected to construction activity. Vice Chair Wasescha indicated that based upon the information provided, the proposed construction would occur from the Nova Scotia Avenue and that there shouldn't be any access from Oakgreen Avenue. As to length of construction, based upon the length of other projects, Wasescha speculated that it could be at least one year. City Planner Richards noted that the hearing being held was for a concept plan approval and that there would be another public hearing at the general plan approval stage, where more of the specifics to the project would be made clear and addressed. The Commission and City Planner Richards once again extended an apology to Mr. Johnson for the lack of visual communication through the course of the meeting. Commissioner Runk, seconded by Chair Liljegren, moved to close the public hearing. Carried 5 — 0. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2008 Page 6 of 8 Commission discussion ensued as to the conditions of the planning report. Commissioner Runk, seconded by Commissioner Powell, moved to recommend City Council approval, subject to the conditions of the August 7, 2008 planning report as amended, specifically: R -3 District standards for density and building heights are complied with for this project. 2. The plat shall dedicate right -of -way for Oakgreen Avenue and shall be approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney. 3. The City Council should discuss the need for and the timing of improvements to Oakgreen Avenue as part of the discussions of the concept plan. 4. The Fire Marshall and Police Chief should review the plans and determine the accessibility of emergency vehicles throughout the development. 5. The Planning Commission and Park Commission should comment on the proposed private and public trail system. The general plan submittals shall address the location of trails and their maintenance. 6. All perimeter units must maintain a 30 -foot setback to 58 Street and a 20 -foot setback to Oakgreen Avenue. 7. Detailed tree inventory, tree preservation and landscape plans shall be provided for general plan of development. 8. Detailed grading, drainage and utility plans shall be provided for general plan of development review. 9. Detailed architectural plans for the proposed buildings in the project shall be required for general plan of development review. 10. The Planning Commission was favorable to the architectural appearance of the proposed structures. The City Council shall comment as part of the Concept Plan review. 11. The City Engineer shall comment on the vehicle count and traffic information. 12. An alternative parking design shall be provided for the front entrance of the Phase I Carriage House building. 13. The City Council shall comment on building placement of the Carriage House Cooperative buildings. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2008 Page 7 of 8 14. The applicant shall provided a revised design plan of the lower level parking area to meet all drive aisle and disability parking requirements. Carried 5 — 0. New Business: A. Accessory Building Study /Possible Ordinance Amendment City Richards informed the Commission that the matter of accessory buildings had been discussed by the City Council as part of an initial discussion regarding having the City Planner conduct an accessory building study for possible ordinance amendment. The discussion was a result of communication expressing concern that residents with difficulties in meeting setbacks or other accessory building criteria may not be seeking improvements to those buildings due to the process and expense involved. Richards noted that the possibility of creating a lower fee for a residential conditional use permit, similar to that in place of the variance fee schedule, was discussed as well as the flexibility created by using a conditional use permit process for working with difficult lots making reasonable accessory building improvements a viable option to homeowners. Council asked that the Planning Commission discuss the matter and provide them with feedback. Discussion ensued as to examples of such accessory building scenarios, that a residential conditional use permit fee structure would not remove the process of public hearing and comment but would make it more flexible for reasonable requests as well as more affordable for homeowner's. At the end of discussion, Commission consensus was to have Council Liaison Abrahamson convey that the Planning Commission would prefer to look at the fee schedule amendment for a residential conditional use permit versus a planning study into accessory buildings. Old Business: None. Informational: A. Sign Ordinance Update City Planner Richard advised the Commission that the City Council wished them to review the special event permit section of Zoning Ordinance 401 and consider amendment to the same creating greater flexibility to its requirements. Richards noted that the City has been proactive in enforcing the ordinance resulting in increased compliance as well as areas of issue that could be improved upon in the language and allowances. This matter will be on the September agenda for review and discussion. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2008 Page 8 of 8 B. Upcoming Meetings September 11, 2008 7:00 p.m. - Regular Planning Commission Meeting (Council Chambers) C. Council Representative August — Commissioner Runk September — Commissioner LeRoux Adjournment: Commissioner Powell, seconded by Commissioner Runk, moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Carried 5 — 0. Respectfully submitted, Juli A. Hultman Pla ning & Code Enforcement Officer Approved by the Planning Commission: 09 -11 -08