Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-01-12 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ° CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Thursday, January 12, 2012 — Oak Park Heights City Hall Call to Order: Chair Bye called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Commissioners Dougherty and Powell; City Planner Richards, City Administrator Johnson and Commission Liaison Runk. Absent: Commissioner LeRoux, and Squyres. II. Approval of Agenda: Chair Bye, seconded by Commissioner Dougherty, moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Carried 3 - 0. III. Approval of November 10, 2011 Meeting Minutes: Commissioner Dougherty, seconded by Commissioner Powell, moved to approve the minutes as amended, correcting the street name from 59 to 58 in the first line of the 3` paragraph from the bottom of page 2. Carried 3 - 0. IV. Department /Commission Liaison / Other Reports: None. V. Visitors /Public Comment: None. VI. Public Hearings: A. Oak Park Sr. Living — Phase I: Planned Unit Development Amendment Related to the Construction of Oak Park Heights Senior Living — Phase I (Formerly Known As Oakgreen Village) Allowing A Change in the Approved Number of Townhome Units, Construction of Brownstone Sr. Living Buildings, An Increase To Allowable Building Height & Increase To Overall Density of Approximately 291 units for the Entire Oakgreen Village Development, Including All Phases of Oak Park Senior Living. City Planner Richards reviewed the January 5, 2012 planning report, noting that the City Council had reviewed the development request at their November 29 and December 13, 2011 meetings and that as a result of those reviews, the City Council was sending the proposal back to the Planning Commission for their review with respect to two new conditions to the project, located at Nova Scotia Ave. N. and 58 St., in that Building 4 of the project be reduced by one story and that the overall density of the development, including the existing townhomes and Oakgreen Commons not exceed 275 -291 dwelling units. Richards clarified that the purpose of the public hearing is to discuss the density conditions, that there have been no changes to the overall site plan, and that the appearance of the proposed buildings would be architecturally similar to one another. Chair Bye opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. and invited the applicant to speak. Tim Nolde of Oakgreen Villa LLC /Anchobaypro was present in the audience with project Engineer, Todd Erickson of Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. and project Architect, Mike Diem of Archnet U.S.A. Mr. Nolde indicated that he had nothing new to add to the planners report and made himself, along with Mr. Erickson and Mr. Diem available for questions. Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2012 Page 2 of 9 Chair Bye noted visitors to the audience and invited them to speak. Amy Brown — 13898 56 St. N. stated that she found the public hearing notice language to be unclear as to what the public hearing is about and noted that the opening discussion of the public hearing did not clearly convey what has been approved, what is being sought for amendment and the difference between. For the public not following closely, she stated that she would like to see communications clearly what has been approved and what is being sought in the way of change, along with some history if it would be appropriate for understanding. Ms. Brown inquired as to Metropolitan Council status with respect to the May 2008 City approval to increase the density of the site. After a bit of clarification of Ms. Brown's inquiry, City Planner Richards responded that the high density approval in May of 2008 was approved by Metropolitan Council as part of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update. Ms. Brown inquired as to Fire Marshal review of the site for emergency vehicle accessibility, grading and drainage review, and asked for an update as to traffic counts for the area. City Planner Richards noted that he had not received comments of concern from the Fire Marshall and that there was access at Nova Scotia was discussed relative to emergency vehicle accessibility. He noted that the roadway accessibility was an item of any approval condition subject to review and approval of the Fire Marshal. Richards noted that the grading and drainage is also an item that is an approval condition that would be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Richards noted that such approval conditions for these types of matters are typical. With respect to traffic, Richards indicated that the density is becoming lower, decreasing anticipated traffic for the area. City Administrator Johnson briefly discussed how the language of a Development Agreement would facilitate the concerns she has expressed toward accessibility, grading, drainage and traffic and offered to share a typical Development Agreement with anyone interested in viewing one to see the nature of its language placing conditions and /or restrictions upon a development. Ms. Brown concluded by stating that she would like to see a better transition between the businesses, townhouses and single family residential areas. Jim Kremer — 5475 Oakgreen Place N. expressed that he didn't feel anyone was opposed to senior housing in the area being discussed but felt that there were several issues that had not been adequately address or discussed. Mr. Kremer questioned whether or not there was a "need" for additional senior rental housing and what evidence is there that show such a need. He questioned what happens if senior rental housing is approved and the development constructed but then does not succeed. Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2012 Page 3 of 9 Mr. Kremer expressed concern about the development being turned over to an open occupancy rental market, which he argued would create an even higher density in an area designed based on senior housing occupancy, noting that he feels that over time the area has been become incrementally denser. In closing, Mr. Kremer stated that he felt the number of units approved should be lower and suggested 250 as a possible number; that the area does not feel like a residential area design and should have setbacks, etc. to create a greater residential feel such as that within Boutwells Landings; and that there should be stiff penalties if the development goes from senior rental housing to something else so that the City residents would be protected. Starr Frost — 5555 Novak Ave. N. asked what the impact to the City would be if the development went from senior rental housing to something else and how the City would enforce senior housing occupancy. She asked if there has been any study done that shows how this development will affect the existing home values in the area and questioned whether the proposal was being thoroughly reviewed to ensure that it is meeting the City's existing requirements, adding that she felt the site needed a more residential feel and suggested that perhaps moving the corner building in could help create that. Ms. Frost sought a clarification of what was being considered "senior" noting the definition of Elderly (Senior Citizen) Housing within City Zoning Ordinance 401.02.B. Ms. Starr said that the distinction was important and needed to clear as it changes the criteria the development must meet. Richards reviewed the definition in the City Zoning Ordinance and clarified that 55 years of age is the definition of "senior" for the project, and that it is line 1 with Minnesota Statutes for privately owned housing, which City Ordinance recognize. In conclusion, Ms. Starr asked what city residents get from continuing to allow change after change to the site. Mauritz Anderson — 13902 56 St. N. inquired as to the width of the streets to the interior of the development and questioned their suitability for emergency vehicles and busses. Noting his experience as a realtor, Mr. Anderson stated that he did not feel that a senior rental housing demand lined up with the current market. In conclusion Mr. Anderson stated that he did not feel that current property had been kept up well. City Planner Richards noted that the with the previous plan showing 350 units, the roadways were 28 -feet wide and allowed for parking on one side. Brief discussion ensued with the project engineer as to the issues of parking, accessibility and snow removal, wherein Richards suggested that further discussion may need to be had on the roadways in light of the issues discussed. Valessa Caspers — 13950 56 St. N. stated that she has noticed an increase in emergency vehicle traffic since the nursing home was constructed at Boutwells Landing and questioned if there had been any discussion on the increased traffic and sirens. Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2012 Page 4 of 9 Ms. Caspers noted that she too felt the upkeep of the current property has not been good overall and would hope that it would be better in the years to come. She discussed several other areas of potential development near the site of discussion, which will have some affect to overall density of the area and potential roadway changes in the future among other potential changes that need to be considered when making decisions. She encouraged the Commission to consider potential issues to the future while making decisions for this corner today. Starr Frost — 5555 Novak Ave. N. stated her understanding that the proposed development had to go along with the City of Oak Park Heights overall idea that the City tries to put out there [for Tree City U.S.A.], questioned how high density fit in with the overall plan of Tree City, stated that she felt the trees along the area were miniscule and that she didn't think that the proposal fit in with the residential Tree City theme that Oak Park Heights seems to like to put out. Amy Brown — 13898 56 St. N. stated that she didn't feel like people really knew what was happening when the Oak Park Commons building was being constructed and went from a 2- story building to a 4 -story building. Ms. Brown stated that she is taken back by representation of the Planning Commission and the City Council thinking that this project is in the best interest of the community and reiterated that she found that the public hearing notices did not make sense. Ms. Brown expressed that she felt the representatives should be thinking about those they are representing. City Planner Richards noted that written comment was received from Tom and Janice Greene — 5845 Oakgreen Ct. N. and Dick and Judy Tunender — 5843 Oakgreen Place N. and read them aloud, making them part of the public hearing comment record, expressing concerns about area impact including, traffic increase, change in area appearance, potential changes to the frontage road should the bridge project advance, access to Hwy. 36 for residents in the area and increased traffic congestion, and the impact of the development upon property to the SE of it at Oakgreen Ave., density, and what will happen to the development if senior housing rental does not work out. Chair Bye closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. and asked the Commission for comment. Discussion ensued as to the matters of density approvals, Metropolitan Council review and Comprehensive Plan amendment, and planned use of green space shown on the site plan. Commissioner Dougherty, seconded by Chair Bye, moved to inform the City Council that the Planning Commission is comfortable with the density plan as presented and recommend City Council approval, subject to the conditions within the January 5, 2012 planning report, specifically that: 1. The third story on Building 4 shall be eliminated. Only two stories of dwelling units shall be allowed for Building 4. Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2012 Page 5 of 9 2. The overall density of the development, including the existing townhomes and Oakgreen Commons shall not exceed 275 to 291 dwelling units. Carried 2 — 1, Powell opposed. B. Oak Park Sr. Living — Phase II: Planned Unit Development Amendment Related to the Construction of Oak Park Heights Senior Living — Phase II (Formerly Known as Carriage House Co -op) To Increase Building Height & Density to a Total of 62 units. City Planner Richards reviewed the January 5, 2012 planning report, reviewing recent requests and approval to the project and that noted that, as with the previous public hearing, the matter was being sent back to the Planning Commission by the City Council for additional review as to their conditions of eliminating the third story on Building 4 and reducing the overall density of the development, including the existing townhomes and Oakgreen Commons so that it shall not exceed 275 -291 units. Richards noted that density of Building 4 would be reduced from 96 to 62 with this request. Discussion ensued among the Commission as to sidewalks, pedestrian connections and setback issues. Todd Erickson — Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. discussed the issues of building setback and story removal in relation to comment and direction received from the Planning Commission and the City Council. He stated that he felt the proposed building, which is to be about 28' tall, should fit in nicely and have a nice boulevard feel and discussed the planned private sidewalks to the lower level units to connect to the public sidewalk at Oakgreen Ave. Mr. Erickson discussed improvements made by the developer to the site overall and responded to City Administrator Johnson's inquiry as to the possibility of moving the building around to allow more green space at the corner and other possibilities of finding some common ground toward concerns for the corner. Chair Bye opened the public hearing at 8:27 p.m., and invited public comment. Valessa Caspers — 13950 56 St. N. discussed some of the noted green areas to the site plan and stated that she would like to encourage some of Building 4's density relocated to some of those green space areas that do not appear to beneficial as green space. Ms. Caspers questioned whether it was possible to delay the approval of this phase, for the building, until a later time such as a year or two to see how things fill out with the economy. Discussion ensued as to Ms. Casper's inquiry as to the possibility of delaying approval of Phase II, wherein it was noted that the phases I and II are two separate applications and that one could be approved and another denied. It was clarified for the record that the Planning Commission is a recommending body and that any recommendation they make to the City Council would certainly be considered, but that ultimately it was the City Council that makes the decision. City Administrator Johnson clarified that the Commission should provide comments that they would recommend the City Council consider in the form of a motion. Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2012 Page 6 of 9 Mauritz Anderson — 13902 56 St. N. inquired as to the proximity of the building setbacks to Oakgreen Avenue, expressing his concern that the building was very close to Oakgreen Avenue, and commented that the houses on Oakgreen Avenue looked okay until it was determined that they would be removed. City Administrator Johnson discussed some of the conditions that existed with the houses that were on Oakgreen Ave. prior to being removed, nothing that while some of them were very nice looking, others did have substandard conditions that were not necessarily visible from the exterior, including mold. Chair Bye closed the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. and asked the Commission for comment wherein brief discussion ensued as to how to structure the recommendation motion to City Council. Commissioner Dougherty, seconded by Commissioner Powell, moved to inform the City Council that the Planning Commission is comfortable with the density change in Building 4 from 96 to 62 dwelling units and recommend City Council approval subject to the amended conditions within the January 5, planning report, specifically: 1. The third story on Building 4 shall be eliminated. Only two stories of dwelling units will be allowed for Building 4. 2. The overall density of the development, including the existing townhomes and Oakgreen Commons shall not exceed 275 to 291 dwelling units. 3. That City Council review the phasing of the development overall, and at Phase II in lieu of 55 years and older, senior rental housing market concerns. 4. That City Council review the setback for Building 4 at Oakgreen Avenue and consider requiring it be equal to that of the setback established for Oakgreen Commons, which has already been constructed. Commissioner Powell stated that he would like to see a scaled drawing for the site, noting that the number of dwelling units for each building and their footprints was confusing the way shown. Discussion ensued, wherein project architect, Mike Diem discussed the different building configurations and footprints. Mr. Diem also shared a perspective image he prepared illustrating how the site would appear with the proposed setback and reduced story and discussed the residential feel created by the design and the private lower level sidewalks tying into the public sidewalk. Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2012 Page 7 of 9 There being no additional discussion, Chair Bye asked Commissioner Dougherty to review the motion he made, which was seconded by Commissioner Powell. Commissioner Dougherty repeated his earlier motion, which was again seconded by Commissioner Powell. The original motion as repeated carried 3 — 0. City Administrator Johnson clarified that the proposal includes phasing plans and discussed potential actions the City Council could take based on the Planning Commission's recommendation relative to phasing. C. New Horizon Academy: Planned Unit Development Amendment and Sign Variance Related to Proposed New Horizon Academy Child Care Facility, to be located at 5903 Neal Ave. N. City Planner Richards reviewed the January 4, 2012 planning report relative the request, noting that the request for planned unit development amendment is due to the retail area, Oak Park Ponds, where the site is to be located in the former Hollywood Video location, having been constructed under a Planned Unit Development. The sign variance is being requested to allow one additional sign beyond the two that is allowed by City Ordinance. Richards noted that there is no change proposed to the existing building footprint and that the interior and exterior is to be updated to accommodate the child care center, with an addition of a playground to the east side of the building. Chair Bye opened the public hearing at 8:56 p.m. and invited the applicant to speak. Peter Hilger of Rylaur, LLC. introduced himself as the architect to the project, representing New Horizon Academy. He noted that also had a couple of representatives from New Horizon Academy with him to address questions. Mr. Hilger addressed the statement within the planning report that the location would not offer school age programs, discussing the licensing for the site and clarifying that the New Horizon Academy reserves the option to provide school age programs if deemed appropriate. Mr. Hilger addressed the planning report condition requiring all visible interior lighting fixtures to be full cut off. Discussion ensued as to the condition, the site having a large amount of glass through which lighting will be visible, the definition of full cut off to mean that that the light source shall not extend beyond the shield of the light fixture and that full 90- degree angle are required to meet full cut off compliance. Mr. Hilger discussed some of the changes planned to the building exterior, including an EIFS (Exterior Insulation Finishing System) finish and inquired about who would served as the appropriate shopping center owner representative to comply with condition 1 of the planning report. City Administrator Johnson addressed the inquiry and discussed how ownership consent could be facilitated at such time permit is applied for work at the site. Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2012 Page 8 of 9 Mr. Hilger presented a materials board to the Commission and discussed with them the materials and colors selection, plans for a canopy from the door area at northern side of the East elevation to allow weather protection coverage from the parking area into the building. He discussed the proposed locations of the signs and the rational for their placement. He clarified that the signs are LED illuminated channel letters and are not boxed signs with a white background. City Administrator Johnson revisited the requirement of full cut off lighting, noting that the exterior wall pack fixture, shown on enclosure 13 of the packet, did not appear to meet compliance. Johnson encouraged the applicant to provide a fixture sample to the City prior to installation to verify compliance. Mr. Hilger was noticed that non - compliant fixtures would require replacement. City Planner Richards reviewed and discussed the conditions within the planning report. In response to condition 9, Mr. Hilger described the type of storage shed they were proposing to use at the site. City Planner Richards noted that a storage structure less than 120 square feet in size would not require a building permit and could be approved administratively and as such not subject to the design guideline standards material wise. He noted that the shed color would have to be complimentary to the building and suggested that the applicant provide a picture of the shed they propose for review. Commissioner Powell questioned the safety of the proposed outside water fountain. Mr. Hilger noted that this very low fountain would be situated within the fenced area, which would be locked. Commissioner Powell, seconded by Commissioner Dougherty, moved to recommend City Council approval subject to the amended conditions within the January 4, planning report, specifically: 1. A representative of the shopping center owner shall provide written consent to the City for the changes that will occur to the parking lot on the shopping center property. 2. The City Engineer shall review the parking analysis and comment on any potential impacts to the street system. 3. The sign specifications and methods of illumination shall be subject to review and approval of the City Planner at the time of permitting. 4. All lighting fixtures shall be full cut off and installed in compliance with the lighting standards of the Zoning Ordinance. All visible interior lighting shall also be full cut off. The lighting specifications shall be subject to review and approval of the City Planner at the time of permitting. 5. The applicant shall implement sustainability initiatives to the site where appropriate. 6. Mechanical equipment that is located on the roof and visible from street level or from neighborhood properties shall be screened with materials that blend harmoniously with the building facade materials. Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2012 Page 9 of 9 7. The applicant shall provide details for the storage structure subject to review of the City Council. The proposed storage structure shall comply with applicable City Ordinances. 8. The grading, drainage and utility plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and the applicable watershed district. 9. A bike rack shall be added at the front entrance of the building. 10. The landscape plans are subject to review and approval of the City Arborist. Carried3 -0. VII. New Business: A. 2012 Meeting & Commission Representation Schedule. Commissioner Powell, seconded by Commissioner Dougherty moved to approve the 2012 Planning Commission Meeting and Representation scheduled. Carried 3 — 0. VIII. Old Business: None. IX. Informational: A. Upcoming Meetings: • Tuesday, January 31, 2012 City Council 7:00 p.m. /City Hall • Thursday, February 9, 2012 Planning Commission 7:00 p.m. /City Hall • Tuesday, February 28, 2012 City Council 7:00 p.m. /City Hall B. Council Representative: • Tuesday, January 31, 2012 — Commissioner Dougherty • Tuesday, February 28, 2012 — Commissioner LeRoux X. Adjourn: Commissioner Powell, seconded by Commissioner Dougherty, moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:22 p.m. Carried 3 — 0. Respectfully submitted, 41k. Julie ltman Plan R g & Code Enforcement Officer Approved by the Planning Commission: 03 -15 -2012