Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-13-2000 MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Thursday, April 13, 2000 — 7 :00 PM Call To Order /Approval of A eg nda Chair Hedlund called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Commissioners Dahlquist, Dwyer, Vogt and Wasescha. Staff Present: Community Development Director Danielson, City Planner Richards, Community Development Secretary Hultman and Planning Intern Hoel. Commissioner Wasescha suggested that Item A. of New Business "Public hnstitutional District" be deferred to May 11, 2000 due to the abundance of public hearings on the current Agenda. Commissioner Dahlquist, seconded by Commissioner Wasescha, moved to approve the Agenda ad amended. Carried 5 -0. A pproval of March 9, 2000 Minutes Commissioner Dahlquist, seconded by Commissioner Vogt, moved to approve the amended Minutes as presented to the Commission. Carried 3 -0, Hedlund and Dwyer abstained. Visitors There were no visitors to items other than those indicated upon Agenda. Public Hearings A. Continued: Glenbrook Lumber & Supply Conditional Use Permit Request City Planner Richards reviewed his report highlighting issues including fencing and trash enclosure requirements. Community Development Director Danielson noted that the applicant has received support from the residents of the neighborhood and stressed the importance of containment of the area and briefly discussed land issues she felt should be considered. Chair Hedlund opened the hearing for public comment at 7:10 p.m Visitors to the public hearing included Gene Heiger, President of Glenbrook Lumber & Supply; Kevin LaCosse, Oak Park LLC; and Martina Plaster, 5472 Stagecoach Trl. N., Oak Park Heights. Gene Heiger stated to the Commission that he felt the fencing requests to be excessive and unreasonable and that interjections, mentioned earlier, as to how his employees and neighboring workers relationships should not be an issue to this request. Kevin LaCosse stated that he felt the area to be pretty well screened without adding any additional screening and agreed that during the daytime hours, when the busses were gone it would be possible to view the Glenbrook business operations from the roadway. He pointed out that the outside storage material in question is the finished product and that it is not unsightly in relation to the areas surroundings. Martina Plaster a neighbor to the business site, stated that she had no personal problem with Glenbrook's request and that she felt the trees in place do a fairly good job of screening the area and that fence screening being requested is, in her opinion, unnecessary and expensive. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 Page 2 of 9 Commissioner Vogt, seconded by Commissioner Wasescha, moved to close the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. Carried 5 -0. Commission discussion commenced as to the fencing requested, including location, nature of styling and material composition, screening fence requirements of neighboring business, and visibility issues. Commissioner Dahlquist, seconded by Commissioner Wasescha, moved to recommend approval as per the City Planner's report with condition number one being changed. Recommended approval is subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall submit a site plan for six foot board fencing to provide site delineation and screening on the east side and sufficient fencing on the north side to completely screen the outdoor storage area from the public right -of -way. The trash generated on site shall be stored indoors or shall be completely screened if outdoors, subject to City staff review and approval. Site lighting for the Glenbrook facility shall be brought into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements subject to City staff review and approval. 4. A cash escrow equaling 1 1/2 times the City estimated costs for material and labor shall be submitted with the application for a building permit. Carried 5 -0. B. Continued: Twirl City Federal (TCF) Request for Subdivision Site Review and Rezoning and C. Twin City Federal (TCF) Request for Variance City Planner Richards reviewed the activity of the previous public hearing on this matter and suggested that if the Commission desired to, they could combine discussion of the applicant's variance request with this continued public hearing discussion. Richards reviewed his planning report and highlighted issues relating to current city ordinances and conditions cited within the report for recommendation. Community Development Director Danielson informed the Commission that the revised site plan, submitted by the applicants has taken into consideration all of the concerns voiced by city staff and consultants. Chair Hedlund opened the hearing for public comment on the continued public hearing as well as the variance request at 7:53 p.m. Visitors to the public hearing included David Beaudet, 6400 Lookout Trl. N., Oak Park Heights; Judy McDonald and Larry Rose of Twin City Federal. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 Page 3 of 9 David Beaudet expressed his concern about the driveway access and traffic flow. He stated that when Superamerica built on the neighboring property their design included two drives, one of which was built on the adjoining property line anticipating to be shared with future neighbor. He expressed his opinion, of there being no hardship present for which to grant the requested variance. Richards clarified that the drive mentioned by Mr. Beaudet as being located upon the property line is actually setback ten feet from the property line as required by city ordinance. He further commented that combining the drive has not been recommend by the City Engineer due to traffic flow and safety issue considerations. Lam indicated that he was not sure of the exact location of the separation but attempted to show the approximate location for the Commission. Commissioner Vogt, seconded by Commissioner Wasescha moved to close the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Carried 5 -0. Richards reminded the Commission that his report of April 3, 2000 includes conditions and recommendation for both requests being made by the applicant. Commission discussion ensued as to issues relating to the requests for subdivision, site review, rezoning and variance.. Concern was noted that the parcel being addressed is in an area without a development plan. Largely discussed were the issues of a shared driveway with neighboring Superamerica, northern access inviting cross traffic from Neal Ave., traffic flow issues in general, and the City Engineers written recommendation that access to the remaining outlot to the north be restricted. During the course of discussion the Commission determined the need to address the issues and recommendations of each request independently beginning with the request for variance. Danielson made note that the applicant has worked with the City staff extensively to arrive at a workable plan and further indicated that she felt the plan presented works to achieve safety and workability in the area. Commissioner Dahiquist, seconded by Commissioner Vogt moved to deny the request for variance. Carried 5 -0. Commissioner Dahlquist, seconded by Commissioner Dwyer moved to subsequently deny the request for rezoning and subdivision based upon recommendation for denial of variance. Carried 5 -0 Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 Page 4 of 9 D. Stillwater Area High School Request f or Ropes Course CUP Amendment: City Planner Richards reviewed his report and noted the issue at hand to be the hours of operation. The applicant is asking for a change to the hours of operation as set in the original conditional use permit. Richards also reviewed the requirements of the conditional use permit as per the first amendment to the same. Commissioner Wasescha noted that there was a difference in the definition of period of operation between the Amended CUP and the April, 1999 City Council Minutes Chair Hedlund opened the hearing for public comment at 8:30 p.m. Visitors to the public hearing included Tom Edison, 5343 Monarda Ave., Baytown Township; Kent Grandlienard, 4477 Northbrook Blvd., Baytown Township; John Kern, 5469 Stillwater Blvd., Baytown Township; Cathy and Greg Kunz, 12820 53 St. N., Baytown Township; Terri Lewis, Stillwater Area High School; Dan Parker, ISD 4834; Rick Printon, 5320 Monarda Ave., Baytown Township; Karen Rheinberger, 5325 Monarda Ave. N., Baytown Township; Dan Parker indicated that it was his understanding that the days of operation are on days that school is in operation as per documentation received from City Attorney's office, dated April 29, 1999. He noted that an annual review of the Conditional Use Permit has been discussed with the City and anticipates a meeting date with the City Council for this. He further noted that they have met with the City on a nearly monthly basis to address issues of all kinds and to his knowledge not one complaint regarding the rope course had been received by the City since the C.U.P. amendment. Terri Lewis a counselor at Stillwater Area High School and participant in the ropes course activity explained the function of the course. Karen Rheinberger expressed her opposition to an increase of hours of operation at the course. She cited her concerns of safety issues and submitted photos and a video documenting her concerns. She indicated that she was displeased that the school did not notify the residents of the area of their request. She further stated that she continues to be concerned about a visual intrusion by the course, noting that the trees to provide screening are inadequate. She expressed that she has lived with the agreement the school has for the rope course and feels it is unfair to have to continue to live with an invasion of privacy both visually and by the noise created from the course each day. Cathy Kunz is also opposed to the request based on safety issues. She stated that she has witnessed children climb the fence and use the course. She feels the course is not monitored well enough and indicated that she has had to call 911 on several occasions due to unauthorized activity at the course. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 Page 5 of 9 Tom Edison expressed his concern about rules made by the school and broken by the school since the construction of the campus. He expressed his disappointment in the lack of communication from the school to its neighbors. Mr. Edison presented the Commission with photos of children using the course unauthorized and noted that he has also contacted 911. He continues to worry that someone is going to get hurt or worse. Mr. Edison noted that the visibility of this course to is so poor to police patrol that he has actually had to have the police enter his home to view the activity taking place at the course. He would like to see the CUP revoked and the course moved or removed. Greg Kunz questioned the course being a recreational facility, as he cannot use it as he would be able to a ball field and that the federal grant for the facility was for a learning use. He stated that the course structure itself is noisy and that the screening is inadequate and that some of the trees planted for screening are falling over. He indicated that he saw no reason for a change of hours and feels that the course should be moved. Rick Printon expressed his curiosity as to what the actual reason for the courses existence was and stated that the berm created to control noise is not serving it purpose. He sees no reason to expand the hours and wonders what will be next if such a request is granted. Kent Grandlienard stated that he feels that Baytown Township residents are shouldering the burden of this issue and suggested that the Oak Park Heights Police Department investigate their responsibility of the courses existence. He would like to see the request for hours expansion denied and consideration given to future removal of the course. John Kern stated that lie disagrees with an expansion of hours and also understands the reasoning for the course as a valid training tool and would like to see expanded community use for such a resource. He indicated that he feels the course is in the wrong location and interrupts the natural environment area. He feels that better communication with neighbors would have aided in better placement of the structure and improved neighborly relations. Mr. Kern suggested that perhaps the course could be relocated to Oakland Junior High which is centrally located within the district. Commissioner Vogt, seconded by Commissioner Wasescha moved to close the public hearing at 9:10 p.m. Carried 5 -0. Chair Hedlund called for a break from 9:10 to 9:15 p.m Upon return from the break, Chair Hedlund asked the Commission for reaction regarding the request at hand. Discussion ensued as to demonstrated need for expanded hours of operation, discontinuity of language from April, 1999 meeting Minutes and C.U.P. Amendment documentation and other issues of concern relating to the request. Commissioner Wasescha, seconded by Commissioner Vogt, moved to deny the applicant's request for amendment to the conditional use permit for expanded hoes of operation. Carried 5 -0. Commissioner Wasescha, seconded by Commissioner Dwyer moved to recommend that annual review findings reveal conditional use permit conditions not being enforced and that they be requested to be so by the end of the school year in June or the course will be closed until conditions are adhered to. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 Page 6 of 9 Further discussion ensued as to screening, emergency personnel training, landscaping, gates /enclosure, ladder, hours of operation clarification and other ensued. Commissioner Dahlquist would like the Police Department to be required to report their evaluation of the safety of the equipment and the effectiveness of the fencing enclosure in place and to be informed of concerns, if any, the department has. Community Development Director Danielson noted that safety issues related to the course have been discussed with the Police and Fire Chiefs at staff meetings and no concerns were made known by them. She encouraged those contacting the police department about unauthorized use to also contact the city offices. Commissioner Dahlquist, seconded by Commissioner Wasescha, moved to table the previous made motion and discussion regarding annual review of the ropes course conditional use permit Lentil their May meeting to allow staff to complete a review of the issues. Carried 5 -0. E. W.A.T.E. Enterprises, Inc. Request for Minor Subdivision and PUD Concept Plan Approval City Planner Richards reviewed his report on the mater, noting approval was recommended by staff subject to several conditions, which lie discussed in detail with the Commission. Visitors to this public hearing included: Tim Freeman of Folz and Dupay Architects and applicant Will Zintl. Chair Hedlund opened the hearing for public comment at 9:45 p.m. Tim Freeman informed the Commission that his applicant had reviewed the planner report and is in agreement with the conditions established within it. Commissioner Dahlquist, seconded by Commissioner Dwyer moved to close the public hearing at 9:47 p.m. Discussion ensued as to the nature of property ownership, building locations, lot sized, and adjoining properties. Community Development Director Danielson explained the planned unit development nature of the project so as to afford equality to the common areas of the project. Commissioner Vogt, seconded by Commissioner Wasescha moved to recommend approval of the PUD Concept Plan subject to the following conditions: 1. The City will require the applicant to create a condominium ownership where the building footprints, including expansion areas will be under individual ownership and the green space, parking and drive aisle areas will be owned in common. The City will require submittal of the documents establishing the common ownership and easements subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. A site plan with private cul -de -sac turnarounds internal to the site will be required by the City subject to review and approval of City staff. 3. The entire perimeter of the parking lots shall include a concrete curb barrier. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 Page 7 of 9 4. A revised landscape plan indicating additional green space and landscaping shall be submitted subject to review and approval of the City Arborist. A tree inventory of the site and conformance with the tree replacement standards shall be required and be subject to review and approval of the City Arborist. 5. A utility plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer. A phasing plan should be submitted for site development. Grading and drainage plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and the Watershed District, 8. A development agreement between the City and applicant shall be subject to review and approval of the City Attorney. Detailed plans to conform with ordinance requirements shall be submitted as part of general plan review including the following: a. Parking lot b. Loading berths C. Lighting d. Landscaping /green space e. Design review f. Preliminary plat g. Comprehensive signage plan b. Site plan review i. Trash enclosures i. Outdoor recreation areas Carried 5 -0. F. Central Business District (CBD) Community Development Director Danielson outlined the request as per her memo and walked through some of the design guidelines recommended. She provided an overview of the projects history and noted that a planning grant had been received from Metropolitan Council to fund some of the work that has been completed to date. Danielson noted that the concepts attached to this district are creative, convenience, cost effective, visually comfortable, pedestrian friendly and in general a town /community feel. She described the design and community elements including parking, building heights, building materials, signage styles, landscaping and architectural design. No franchise architecture designs are being permitted. City Planner Richards noted that zoning ordinance requirement conflicts can be handled by reference to the specific zone noted in the zoning ordinance per counsel from the City Attorney. Examples of this would include issues of setback, parking and signage. Richards noted that the establishment of Central Business District Design Guidelines would be handled in the same manner that the original Design Guidelines were. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 Page 8 of 9 Chair Hedlund opened the hearing for public comment at 10:15 p.m. Commissioner Dahlquist, seconded by Commissioner Waseseha, moved to close the public hearing at 10:15 p.m. Carried 5 -0. Discussion ensued as to structure design theme /continuity. Areas of commonality, such as trees, lighting, landscaping, and building materials were discussed as a method of creating continuity among the different structure styles to create the feeling of a town /community. Commissioner Vogt, seconded by Commissioner Dwyer, moved to recommend adoption of a resolution to establish design guidelines for the Central Business District. Carried 5 -0. New Business A. Annual Goal Setting Meeting Update Community Development Director Danielson extended thanks to the Commission for their participation at the goal setting meeting. She displayed the board of 2000 -2001 goals for the City and reviewed them. B. Receipt of NSP Air Quality Monitoring Report Danielson noted that provision of this information was part of the information required per their conditional use permit. Receipt was acknowledged by the Commission. C. Other: Commission Terms / Commissioner Vogt announced that he would not be seeking reappointment to the Commission when his term expires at the end of May. Commissioner Dahlquist indicated that he would seek reappointment. Danielson indicated that she would inform the City Council and request commission vacancy advertisement. Old Business A. Commission Council Representation Schedule The following schedule was created by the Commission: June - Dwyer October - Dwyer July - Wasescha November - Hedlund August - Hedlund December - Dahlquist September - Wasescha B. Sheet Lighting Review Community Development Director Danielson highlighted the resolution adopted by the City Council establishing hatbox style lighting fixtures in hartford green as the designated style of lighting for the City. Informational /Update A. Danielson informed the Commission that she would make every effort to provide the Commission with a summary of applications requiring a public hearing prior to placement on Agenda and delivery of Commission packets. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2000 Page 9 of 9 A.diournment Commissioner Wasescha, seconded by Commissioner Dahlquist, moved to adjourn at 10:42 p.m. Carried 5 -0. Respectfully submitted, Julie A. Hultman Community Development Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission: May 22, 2000.