Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-25-1999 MinutesCITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, FEBRUARY 25,1999 Call To Order Chair Hedlund called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Commissioners Dahlquist, Schultz, and Wasescha. Staff Present: City Planner Richards, Community Development Director Danielson, and Community Development Secretary Hultman. Absent: Commissioner Vogt and Council Liaison Swenson. Approval of Agenda Added: I. Discussion of letter as Item C under Informational/Update. 2. Project Priority Update as Item B under Old Business. Dahlquist, seconded by Schultz, moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Carried 3 -0. Visitors Councilmember Lynae Byrne; Donna S. Gray, Oak Park Heights; Jack Krongard, Krongard Construction; Kori Land, LeVander, Gillen & Miller, P.A.; and David Malchow, Stillwater. Approval Minutes Commissioner Dahlquist, seconded by Schultz, moved to approve the Minutes of January 21, 1999 as presented. Carried 3 -0. Public Hearings A. Continued - To consider the 1998 update of the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan City Planner Richards provided introductory remarks regarding the Comprehensive Plan's history and informed the Commission that he had revised the Implementation and Project Summary of the plan according to their input. He further informed the Commission that he was seeking overall recommendations on the plan and direction to proceed with the plan. Chair Hedlund opened the hearing for public discussion at 7:06 p.m. Kori Land of Vandergill and North introduced herself and noted that her firm represented the interests of Robert Brackey in Planning District 13. She indicated that they are pleased with the current Planning District 13 language and offered to answer any questions the Commission may have for her with respect to this District and their interest. At the request of Donna S. Gray, Richards displayed the diagram of District 13 and outlined the district for the audience. David Malchow of Stillwater encouraged the Commission to proceed with their plans on behalf of members of the congregation of St. John's Lutheran Church. He explained that at this time, they feel repressed and are unable to move forward under the plans established by the City of Lake Elmo. Richards informed the Commission that this property is not located within Oak Park Heights, but that it is included in the Comprehensive plan for future planning. Schultz, seconded by Dahlquist, moved to close the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Carried 3 -0. Discussion ensued. Dahlquist expressed his concerns about planning districts 15 through 19 and stated that he believed language should be included to clarify the City's intent related to annexation. He also indicated that he wanted to ensure that the language in the plan was clear enough to be accurately interpreted by someone who may pick up the plan in the future. Dahlquist stated that he would like to see this area remain lower density residential and expressed concerns about protection of existing residential property to the North and West. Hedlund explained that the Commission shared his concerns and after considerable discussion determined that they needed to protect the property to the West. Dahlquist asked if a natural barrier between the Hwy /Warehouse District and lower residential density area could be created. Richards indicated that he would like to see some type of transition off of Hwy. 5. Dahlquist would like specific language indicating that the City should pursue planning district 16 to allow for residential development. With respect to district 17, Dahlquist feels that DNR and farmland areas are important to the City and that the City should pursue this district along the lines with compliance as established by Metropolitan Council. He noted that he felt it more important to emphasize the open area land use classification. Richards added that the area adjacent to Northbrook Blvd. should be included due to the important transportation connections afforded the City. Commission consensus was that each district should include language as to the City's intention for eventual annexation. Richards indicated that he would include language within each district for clearer understanding. Danielson suggested that a blanket statement may better serve the plan and allow for more flexibility to prioritize, plan, and to better determine what is to be happening next and why. Dahlquist agreed that general statements are important, but in this case that each section should have a few specifics as to its own character. Hedlund and Schultz acknowledged their agreement with Dahlquist's statement. Richards stated that he would insert generalized language to this effect. Richards expressed that he felt it important to leave the language included in the overall plan for district 18, but insert language regarding it being of a lower priority. Dahlquist stated that he didn't feel the medium density blended with the surrounding area. Richards explained that the outlined density allows to provide some transition to the low- density development to the West. Dahlquist asked why district 19 was included in the plan. Richards stated that it is included as part of the long -range plan potential pursuit areas per the City Council. Long term it has been established as low priority by the Council. Dahlquist expressed his disagreement in this resulting in additional land. Richards stated that this would allow for some control of what surrounds the community border. Hedlund expressed his concern about losing the Beach Rd. /Hwy. 36 overpass and noted that he would like to see a statement indicating that the City would keep Beach Rd. in planning district 2 so as to keep the community tied together. Danielson noted that MnDOT shows the road, but that there is a chance this will change. Hedlund expressed that Osgood Ave. cannot be expected to carry the burden of changes if this roadway is removed. Richards indicated that he has discussed the conditions to be established in the event that Beach Rd. was to be removed. Hedlund asked Richards if language could be added to the Land Use Plan Implementation section stating that steps toward annexation would be pursued at a time when there is a readiness for all those involved. Richards indicated that he would address the port in the language. Wasescha arrived at 7:40 p.m. 2 Hedlund inquired if MnDOT had presented their plans for the Oakgreen /Hwy 36 intersection and if it has been determined to proceed with a four -lane bridge. Danielson updated the Commission with information shared at a recent bridge update meeting and noted that the City would like to proceed with work on the Osgood Ave. and Oakgreen intersections. Hedlund noted that the Central Business District is located right near Oakgreen Ave. In light of the bridge issue, he is concerned that MnDOT will construct overpasses at this intersection and others within the City along Hwy. 36. Richards noted that district 5 language discusses the Oakgreen Ave. interchange. Danielson noted that the City has to address the dangerous situation that presently exists at the interchanges and though the City has taken no official position, the diamond at Osgood Ave. appears favorable. Hedlund asked if there was a North /South trailway, along Oakgreen Ave. in the trail planning. Richards indicated that there is a North /South trail path and added with the Central Business District, there will likely be an East /West trail path also. Hedlund noted that it was very important that there be a North /South trailway along Oakgreen Ave. and that there should be provisions for pedestrians to be able to access the City's parks without needing to use their vehicles. Richards asked the Commission if they had any comments about the Implementation Project Priorities section. Consensus was that it served as a good working tool that should be shared with the City Council but did not need to be included as part of the plan. Richards will remove the pages from the plan. Danielson suggested that the Commission might wish to prepare a memo to the Council regarding their accomplishments and what their priorities are. Schultz, seconded by Dahlquist, moved to approve the Comprehensive Plan with amendments and to send it onto the City Council. Carried 4 -0. B. Continued- A reauest to consider a conditional use hermit for a student transbortation facilit and bus garage at 5302 Stagecoach Trail, N. : City Planner Richards advised the Commission that Ryder has asked for a continuance to March 18, 1999, so that they may continue to respond to questions related to environmental issues, traffic and external effects to the surrounding area. Danielson noted that Ryder will be holding a neighborhood meeting on the proposed project on March 8, 1999 and will be contacting the surrounding residents with the time and place for this meeting. Dahlquist, seconded by Schultz, moved to continue the public hearing to March 18,1 999. Carried 4 -0. C. Continued — A request to consider Partial General Plan of Development approval — Valley Senior Services Alliance project (Boutwell's Landing) City Planner informed the Commission that complete submittals to the City had not yet been received, thus the public hearing should be continued to March 18, 1999. Dahlquist, seconded by Schultz, moved to continue the public hearing to March 18,1999. Carried 4 -0. Old Rncine— A. Carriage Homes Senior Apartment Building Update Jack Krongard of Krongard Construction introduced himself to the Commission and stated that he was present at the meeting, at the request of the City Council, to apprise the Commission of the history of his development PUD for Valley View Estates and the proposed Carriage Homes project. Mr. Krongard explained a number of changes that resulted in changing the density and variety of his development project and subsequently require amending. He noted that the City Council determined that they will conduct the Public Hearing on the matter rather than the Planning Commission due to the age of the project and lack of familiarity for the Commission. Donna S. Gray, representing one of the homeowner's associations in Mr. Krongards' development indicated that they are okay with the amendment request by Mr. Krongard. Mr. Krongard explained that originally he had planned to erect a Sr. apartment building in the location that Carriage Homes is proposing to do and that ultimately he elected not to participate in the larger building project in light of the changes within the development. Mr. Krongard explained that he had envisioned a building similar to the Ann Bodlovick apartments in Stillwater and that he was very impressed with the design Carriage Homes was attempting to complete. With respect to the previous criteria established by the Commission for this project, Mr. Krongard stated that he was able to bring the project into compliance with everything but the side set back requirements, which end up being five feet and nine feet. He believes that the residents of the building would not be using the side areas of the yard nearly as much as the common area of the building and noted that the project actually exceeds the required green space requirements. Citing the benefits to the community and noting steps that have been taken to inform the community about the project, and expressing his concern about losing the project, he asked the Commission to indicate that they are willing to work with Carriage Homes on the outstanding issues. Richards noted that staff continues to work with Carriage Homes and that there are a number of options being explored. He further noted that there is some possibility to vacate some streets, creating some nice green area and a connection. Danielson briefly informed the Commission of the meeting held on the project to date. Chair Hedlund stated that he felt the building is too big for the land available and that if there is the possibility of locating additional land, he'd be happy to continue discussion of the project. Danielson noted that the developer is exploring other options in the event that this project becomes unfeasible. B. Project Priority Update Richards indicated that he was preparing a memo to the City Council of the Commissions project priorities and asked if they would like to have them prioritized. Hedlund indicated that he would like to receive some direction from the Council on their priorities for moving forward. Hedlund asked if there was any kind of process in which residents were involved in a planning discussion on an issue at the front -end of things, rather than at the end. Richards suggested that a sub - committee could be formed for this type of discussion. Councilmember Byrne indicated her support of such a concept, adding that she felt it would be beneficial in the sense of community. 11 Hedlund expressed that he viewed this process as an opportunity for sharing dialogue and working with the community and further noted that the lower Oak Park Heights zoning issue would be a good situation where this would be beneficial. Danielson explained how sub- committees have been handled with the Cable Commission and with the Central Business District Workshop sessions. Richards suggested that a sub - committee be formed for the lower Oak Park Height rezoning as suggested by Hedlund and will include the sub - committee concept in his memo of accomplishments and priorities to Council. Byrne suggested that a very well written article about what is being discussed on a particular issue that generates response is useful in soliciting interest C. Other Danielson informed the Commission of her communication with Burger King representative and stated that they are expected to apply for a variance or for a reconfiguration of their signage allowance. New Business A. Planning Commission Training - Government Training Service (GTC) The Commission discussed the GTC received by them. Richards indicated that he would like to see each member participate in one or more of the training offerings and added that the State Planning Conference is expected to be in the Metro area this Pall. Hedlund asked if there was any other training available beyond GTC. General discussion ensued as to other additional training possibilities. Danielson and Richards indicated that they would look into other options available. Hedlund noted that he found long -term courses more beneficial in making connections over the short -term courses offered. Informational /Update A. City Council Meeting follow -up Agendas Commission acknowledged receipt. Danielson updated the Commission on Council activities and noted that the Commission Alternate recommendation had been tabled indefinitely. B. January Commission Attendance Record Danielson informed the Commission that this would be included each month in their packets for their reference. C. Discussion of City Attorney's Letter to Commission Hedlund explained that the intent of Attorney Vierling's letter is to indicate that there are certain conditions established by City Ordinance and that if those conditions are met a permit must be granted. In his letter, Vierling suggested yes - no responses on each condition rather than generalizing, noting that the more specific, the better able he is to defend an issue should he be required to do so. Dahlquist stated that he felt the audience needs to be informed of the Commissions need to be specific on points so that they understand how the Commission is operating. Danielson indicated that in the event of such an outline being required, it would likely be Attorney Vierling presenting the process. Adjournment: Schultz, seconded by Wasescha, moved to adjourn at 9:23 p.m. Motion carried 4 -0. Respectfully submitted, J�t ie A. Hultman Community Development Secretary