Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-03-31 OPH Email Re 03-25-03 Meeting Discussion Page 1 of 1 Scott Richards From: "Judy Hoist" < jholst @cityofoakparkheights.com> To: "Mark Vierling (E- mail)" <mvierling @eckberglammers.com >; "Scott Richards (E- mail)" <srichards @nacplanning.com> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 8:58 AM Attach: SC Mall LLC 3- 25- 03.doc Subject: Andersen's application Since none of us were at the last Council meeting, I decided to take another look at the tape to see just exactly what transpired with the SC Mall LLC PUD Amendment and Parking Setback Variance. There seems to be some difference of opinion between Council Members as to what the Andersen's can actually do at this time. I believe the intent of the one who made the motion was for Andersen's to be able to commence the project, except for condition #1 (the trail) was to go to the Park Commission for a recommendation to the Council. The problem arises with the Mayor and possibly one other Council Member interpreting it to mean the drafting of the PUD Amend. can't be completed until a recommendation if received from the Parks Commission, therefore, Andersen's can't go forward until that is completed. I transcribed the portion of the tape pertaining to Andersen's pretty much word for word. (I left out a few er's and ah's). Please take a look at what transcribed and let me know your opinion. I'd like to head this one off at the pass if at all possible. If Andersen's can go ahead, I'll need the Resolution for myself and the Mayor to sign and the PUD Amendment and Variance paperwork for Andersen's and the City to sign. The problem then will be whether or not I will get the Mayor to sign. Let me know. (Sorry to start your Monday like this.) Mark, Hope you had a nice relaxing vacation. Sony to hit you with this right off the get -go. Judy «SC Mall LLC 3- 25- 03.doc» 3/31/2003 SC Mall LLC — PUD Amendment, Parking Setback Variance — March 25, 2003 Cynthia - You should have received a draft resolution describing the request. The request has been broken up into 3 parts. The first being a request to close the north end of Oren Avenue to vehicular traffic. First I should just say generally that these are for improvements to the site and and building of the St. Croix Mall located at Highway 36 and Osgood Avenue. The, I can show here also a plan on the overhead that shows the general site plan. Regarding this request to close the north end of Oren Avenue, the Planning Commission decided not to recommend that a traffic study be done. The 3 Planning Commissioners that were present at the meeting recommended approval of the closing subject to 2 conditions. The first condition being that the City and Andersen Corporation resolve issues of snow clearing and maintenance of Oren Avenue North and the sidewalk connecting the road to the subject site subject to approval of the City Public Works Director and the second condition is that a sign must be placed on the north side of adjacent fence to inform people about the slope ahead and a sign must be placed on the south side of the adjacent fence to inform people about the traffic ahead. We do have a detail here of the end of the road where that would be closed and it does show a sidewalk continuing to provide pedestrian access.. Dave B. — So it's, I mean, I just, we're going to raise where the road end comes through the Mall now, there's going to be the building of a berm of some sort to keep the water out or something cause it's flat now? Cynthia — I don't know about the topographic situation. I don't know if anyone else can speak to that. Dave B. — Ok. Cynthia — And the second request is a 5 foot parking setback variance. The parking variance is a situation where now there is a drive aisle and because there's this existing situation with the parking that that creates a hardship with trying to deal with the new configuration and actually by widening the landscaped curbed area the green space is being increased and the landscaping is being increased and also the vehicles are being separated from the right of way of the road for greater distance. So it's a positive impact and the Planning Commission recommended approval of that variance as well as planning staff. There is a detailed here also showing that the curb is moving out and there would be trees along that island. The third request is a motion, er, a request for a planned unit development amendment for site and building improvements. There are a number of improvements proposed, lets see if I can find the list here, roadway island, parking island and sidewalk improvements, revisions to surface parking, electrical and utility relocation, site and facade lighting improvements, exterior facade improvements, site security upgrades and landscape improvements and the City staff and the Planning Commission are recommending approval of that request subject to a number of conditions which the applicant has agreed to except there is some disagreement regarding condition #1 regarding putting in a trail. The condition reads the site plan must be revised to include a trail constructed by SC Mall LLC along the south boundary of the t site subject to approval of the Parks Commission and City staff. The applicant has submitted a statement saying Andersen is open to discussing the possibilities of a trail easement south of Andersen's existing south curb line and would like to co -plan with the City. At present the trail is not part of the upcoming PUD Amendment. So, they're saying they'd be willing to look at it but they don't want to tie it to this specific application. City staff is recommending that this condition be tied to this application because we don't know when or if there will be any more applications in the future and this is an important trail connection in the City. This is a graphic showing the site location and then along the south boundary showing the trail connection that's proposed and this is part of the City's park plan. Mark S. — So Cynthis can you clarify yourself just a little bit more please. So you're saying you want the whole trail planned out right now as part of this or what? Cynthia — We're saying we want the condition to be that a trail needs to be constructed, it doesn't, we don't have a plan right now like a construction plan but we're just saying that if the PUD Amendment is approved that the applicant is going to be responsible for constructing the trail. Mark S. — I guess that's the point that I was trying to get at is if there's nothing planned yet, how can it be mandated that it be done right now. I guess, you know, I think we all realize that there has to be something put in back there. How do you tie it to them if you don't know what you want yet? Dennis P. — If I could speak. I was probably looking around, the only person around at the last review meeting that's here. I think there's 2 issues. One is that my understanding is Andersen is open to as their statement said reserving an easement for a future trail south of their existing curb line. That there's probably an 8 to 10 foot strip of green space in that area however the topography of that area would make it very difficult and cost prohibitive to build a trail there without ripping out all the neighbor's fences and building a retaining wall and a lot of fill so the other alternative was to reserve part of the existing paved surface adjacent to and north of the curb and have more of a striped trail on the pavement versus constructing a separate trail and that conflicts to some degree with the striping proposed by the current plan. Dave — I think that this has not been before the Parks Commission and I think that they could help us figure out which way we should go and also to resolve the issues though the ah, the connecting, if there's no connection for this striping to Swager Park and that should be resolved at the same time, so I'm going to make a motion that we postpone this decision until after the Park Commission has sent us a recommendation from their next Park Commission meeting. Jack — On the whole proposal? Dave — Yeah. Jack — Well Dave — Is there going to be a second? Mary — I'll second for discussion. Jack — Well as far as #1 goes I'd certainly hate to see any kind of trail put along that parking lot right now. It'd be a safety issue as far as I'm concerned. I, just to stripe a trail, I think that that this Council could work with Andersen's. From the Planning Commission meeting, I don't think Andersen's would be opposed to constructing the trail between the west parking lot and Swager Park for now to get that opened up. And I can't see why we should tie this whole thing up while the Parks Commission meets on it. It would seem to me we could put a provision in there that Andersen's and the Parks Commission meet to come up with an acceptable solution and I really don't know what it is. Dave — Well, I think that's why, you know, that should be a recommendation up to the City Council. We are actually the decision makers. They make a recommendation and that's why I think it's useful and beneficial that this go to Parks and come back to us in, 30 days isn't going to be the end of the world. They can be working on drafting the language on the PUD, ironing out this issue. It's not like they can. Jack — It won't come back to us in 30 days. Dave — Yes it will. Jack — I'll bet you it's June before we get this done. Dave — Well, my motion includes that the recommendation has to be made at the next Park's Commission meeting, Jack. I didn't make a, I didn't give them any longer time than one Parks Commission meeting. Mary — Well, Mr. Moore you were at the Planning Commission meeting when you made that statement about the trail. Did you have something in mind of what you were looking at? Bill Moore — (Couldn't hear) Dave — Please come up so that people at home can hear. We're having a nice conversation but the people at home aren't hearing. Thank you. Bill Moore — Again to restate what we have in mind is trying to work something south of our curb line so that we can keep it out of our parking lot which would make it south of on our property line and I agree with the elevation challenges but we're up to the challenge to see how we could make that work. • Jack — Jim is there some way that the rest of this could be approved with the stipulation that that would have to be resolved? Jim — Sure if that would be your preference that certainly could be done that way. Approve the rest of the application and then reserve this issue. Dave — Any further discussion on the motion to postpone? Mark — Jim, what's your legal opinion on my voting on these issues? Jim — Um, as far as a conflict of interest either you should have a financial interest in the outcome of the matter or your interest is such that you are swayed and it will affect your vote and I would say typically just because of the fact that you're an employee of the company, it would not prohibit you from voting on the issue, but that's your personal decision actually. Dave — Previously you have abstained on these issues, so, and on the motion to postpone, all in favor say aye. Dave aye. Opposed. Jack, Les, Mark Mary aye. (Dave points at Mark) Did you vote for opposing that? Mark — Yes Mary — I'll make a motion to approve the Planned Unit Development Amendment and Parking Setback Variance. Dave — And you're approving this resolution that's here? Mary — Umhum. Mark — Second for discussion. How can we fit that in there Jim so that we can see that #1 gets taken care of? Jim — Well, it's within your discretion to, the motion could have approve the application but reserve that this issue until the next meeting or some specific, you know, date or whatever. Mary — Could I make an amendment to my motion as far as to reserve item #1 pending the approval of the Planning Commission or ah the Parks Commission? Jim — Sure Dave — Well are they, is the Parks Commission going to make a recommendation to the Council that the Council adopts or is the, are you making the Parks decision, Parks Commission the final? Mary — No. To make a recommendation back to the Council. Dave — So even though we don't want to postpone, we can't complete drafting of the document and they can't go forward until it actually comes back to us? Jim — Right, but at least everything but that issue would be approved, I think that would be the intent. Dave — I mean I think that we just don't get where you want to get without, with this one critical issue. Jack — Well, I'd still like to have somebody to show me where they can put a trail in there safely. My big concern is the safety there. If you stripe it on the north side of the parking lot you've got people walking through a parking lot where cars are not used to seeing people walk. If you just stripe it between the curb or along the curb you got people walking on a traveled portion of the roadway. It would seem to me that this is an issue that would be better resolved with some study by the Parks Commission and our engineering firm and our planners and get a safe trail if we're gonna have one. The other concern I have is if they put the trail in and they give us an easement and this trail gets built between their south curb line and the fence they're going to turn that trail over to Oak Park Heights and who's going to maintain it. We can't maintain the trails we got now. I don't know how we're gonna continue to maintain more trails. We keep adding trails and we can't plow or maintain what we got now. Dave — Well, I think we have been able to plow and maintain what we Jack — No we haven't. Boutwell's trails weren't plowed all winter David. They didn't get plowed until almost all the snow was gone. People were walking on the trails out there that were unplowed. Dave — But we directed all of them were to be plowed or unplowed? Jack — The only trail I seen getting plowed regularly was the one along 58 Street, which to me is a sidewalk, but it's part of the trail but, and the ones crossing right here behind City Hall. I don't know about the trails down in the lower part, but ah. Mary — I haven't seen em. Mark — The lower ones weren't plowed. Dave — Yeah but, they weren't directed to be plowed. The loop at Boutwell's I think was to be plowed if the, if the snow was not of great depth because we don't have the equipment. Jack — Yeah, we don't have any equipment to maintain these trails. I don't know why we want to keep adding equipment or keep adding trails when we don't have equipment to maintain what we got. There's been no thought put in by previous Councils that started approving all these trails. The trails are great, don't get me wrong, I walk on em too, but we're ruining the trails plowing em with the equipment we're plowing em with. These trails are gonna start within the next year or 2, we're going to start replacing trails because they're starting to crack up. So we're going to continue to add trails with no thought of maintenance just like the very first Council that started putting these trails in, which I wasn't on by the way. I mean, trails are great, but we better give some thought to maintaining these things somewhere down the line. Dave — Any further discussion on passing the Resolution with the amendment that has it come back to us after the next Park Commission meeting, whenever. Any further discussion. Please indicate to the roll. Ayes by Councilmembers Abrahamson, Doerr, McComber and Swenson. No by Mayor Beaudet.