Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-07-10 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Thursday,July 10,2014—Oak Park Heights City Hall Call to Order: Chair Kremer called the meeting to order at 6:59 p.m. Present: Commissioners Bye, Kremer, and Thurmes; City Administrator Johnson, City Planner Richards, City Engineer Reifsteck and Commission Liaison Liljegren. Not Present: Commissioners Anthony&Nelson. II. Approval of Agenda: Commissioner Bye, seconded by Commissioner Thurmes,moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Carried 3 - 0. III. Approval of June 12, 2014 Meeting Minutes: Commissioner Thurmes, seconded by Commissioner Bye,moved to approve the minutes as presented. Carried 3 - 0. IV. Department/Commission Liaison/Other Reports: City Administrator Johnson provided an update to roadway construction activities. V. Visitors/Public Comment: None. VI. Public Hearings: A. Continued-Palmer Property—5625 Oakgreen Ave.N.: Consider requests for property Subdivision, Planned Unit Development-Concept & General Plan, Conditional Use Permit,Rezoning and Preliminary&Final Plat approval to allow development of a 13 lot subdivision. Commissioner Thurmes noted that he was the surveyor to the project and removed himself from the public hearing, noting that in the event of a vote he would be abstaining. City Planner Richards reviewed the July 3, 2014 planning report, noting that the two primary issues addressed by the Commission at the June 12,2014 public hearing were the allowances requested through the Planned Unit Development process related to the lots and right of way, and the storm water drainage for the lots to the south of the development. Richards provided an analysis of the lot width and rights of way, street design and stormwater issues. He noted that project Surveyor Dan Thurmes of Cornerstone Land Surveying,Inc.provided comparative local information as to lot width and rights of way and rational as to the applicants request for smaller streets and reviewed that information. Planning Commission Minutes July 10,2014 Page 2 of 9 Richards discussed proposed lot dimensions and R-1 Zoning District standards,noting that while the proposed lot widths do not meet the zoning district standards,they do all meet and some significantly exceed the minimum lot size. Richards discussed street design requirements and the proposed 55 foot right of way radius for the cul-de-sac and 50 foot street right of way width. City Ordinance specifies a 65 foot right of way radius minimum for a cul-de-sac and a 60 foot minimum local street right of way width.He noted that the proposed right of way dimensions are similar to what the City has allowed for private street development and is typical of other developments in the area.Richards suggested consideration of increasing the proposed 10 foot drainage and utility easements adjacent to the right of way to 15 feet to allow adequate space for utility placement. Richards reviewed City Engineer Long's recommendation to require placement of a storm water pipe between 5519 and 5523 Oakgreen Place N. to facilitate a 100 storm water event and emergency overflow. Richards noted that City Staff has met with the applicants regarding this requirement as to its facilitation and cost burden. Richards noted that he has included the recommended conditions for approval from his previous report and noted several of them that the Commission may wish to discuss. Chair Kremer opened the hearing for public comment and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Steve Johnston of Elan Design Lab, the Civil Engineer to the project provided a presentation as to the drainage at the site, displaying images that show the site conditions pre and post development for surface water. He noted that the development's plans will not affect ground water issues currently being experienced by properties adjacent to the site. Mr. Johnston made himself available for questions. Tom Walberg— 5565 Oakgreen Ave. N. expressed his concern as to an increase of surface water at the NE corner of his property,which is directly behind proposed Lot 7 of the development.Project Engineer Johnston discussed water flow and that the area could be addressed.He indicated that he would communicate with Mr.Walberg to address his concern. Carol Lombard—5527 Oakgreen Place N.noted that her property abuts a wetland at her backyard and her understanding of what is being planned for surface water run-off and does not see how that helps relieve her of any additional surface water run-off. She is not asking the developer to correct her existing issues,but wants to be certain that they are not increased. She inquired as to the definition of a variance and how many variances were being sought for the development. City Planner Richards noted that the requests are those related to planned unit development allowances, not variances, and discussed the criteria of how allowances are considered for approval. Planning Commission Minutes July 10,2014 Page 3 of 9 Chair Kremer discussed the Planning Commission's role, noting that when the Planning Commission looks at requests,they do so from many points of view as to their potential impact upon the individual property owner, as well as potential impact upon neighboring properties and the community in general. Carol Lombard asked whether or not there were different requirements for variance situations for residential owners and commercial developers. Richards described how both worked and the burden of each applicant and felt that the requirement burden for residential variances and development planned unit development allowances equally.She asked for clarification of allowances being sought and City Planner Richards responded. Lombard wanted to know where the difference of hardship was for a developer versus those of a homeowner. Discussion ensued as to the difference and how considerations are made. Brad Reifsteck of Stantec Engineering responded to Carol's initial question of how the proposed drainage plan helps her property. He noted the developer is creating two additional ponds as part of the development that will capture surface water from the development, along with the grading elements,etc. and that the design should serve to not increase water drainage to the adjacent properties. Steve Johnston provided a display of the development,described the drainage plans and how they would serve the site and potentially relieve the adjacent properties of surface water and responded to questions related to location and estimated volume. Wynn Babcock—5523 Oakgreen Place,N.expressed his understanding of the proposed drainage plan and sought clarification. Project Engineer Johnston discussed the composition of the natural wetland and potential improvements to water level acceptance. Chair Kremer noted that he lives on Oakgreen Place, N. and his opinion is that it is difficult for adjacent property owners to know and understand the process related to drainage and thought if it were possible, that it would be beneficial if those with or concerned about water problems were directly involved in the planning process. Mr. Johnston expressed that the public hearing is one of those opportunities to be part of the process. City Administrator Johnson discussed the process following any approval and development agreement creation in spelling out the details of the understandings and agreements between the City and developer,which can include additional neighborhood meetings as appropriate and ultimately final inspections and approvals prior to releases of development securities held by the City. Planning Commission Minutes July 10,2014 Page 4 of 9 Mick Lynskey the landowner and developer agent, noted that there are burdens to the developer for the plan proposed and that the changes made to original plan as a result of communication with the City in order to be best suitable to the neighborhood and make more sense as to concerns expressed by the City. Both plans result in the same number of lots,but the current plan allows for a calmer,more attractive neighborhood addition. Mr. Lynskey offered to meet with homeowners to view the two plans in comparison. Wynn Babcock—5523 Oakgreen Place N.expressed his appreciation that the applicant has met with the neighbors to help them understand and address their concerns. He noted that their concerns/suggestions are a result of their own situations as well as those that new residents to their neighborhoods will experience. Mr. Babcock questioned whether or not all of the larger trees in the lower lying areas needed to be removed. He'd like to see as many as possible to remain if possible so that they can absorb some of the moisture. Mr.Babcock expressed his concern as to the roof drainage,noting that he would like to see it required that the roof drain drainage go to the street. Mr.Babcock suggested that the front yards could be reduced to enlarge the street width and cul-de-sac radius, making it easier for school busses to navigate as well as emergency vehicles. Mr. Babcock inquired whether or not permission has been granted to route water to the front as proposed. City Administrator Johnson responded that the drainage issue at this point would be between the City and the Palmer's and that any requirements of the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization will need to be complied with. Johnson noted that no work permits for demolition or new construction would be issued by the City until Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization approval has been granted. In response to the concerns expressed by Mr.Babcock,City Planner Richards questioned whether a school bus would likely go down Oak Cove or whether it would stop on Oak Park Blvd. and turn around at that roadway. He and City Administrator discussed the roadway width and parking possibilities/scenarios. Project Engineer Johnston discussed street standards in relation to community composition and discussed calculations relative to savings and overall development planning. As to tree removal,Richards reviewed the landscape plan,noting those that are expected to remain, be supplemented with additional plantings, removals and new plantings. Mr.Babcock expressed his hope that more of the larger trees at the south property lines would be left in place. Planning Commission Minutes July 10,2014 Page 5 of 9 Jody Burt— 5565 Oakgreen Ave. N. expressed her sentiment that it's wonderful that the developer has plans as to what is going to happen with water run-off,but wants to know who held liable if something happens down the road and the plans aren't effective. Mr. Lynskey addressed her concern that in that it is tough to take a pre-existing condition and guarantee that nothing will occur in the future with circumstances beyond the developers control. He noted the Developers Agreement as being helpful to work through unexpected situations and the purpose of engineers both to the project and at the City to work with such issues. He noted that they could only design it as responsible as possible and that he couldn't offer assurance that it is will alleviate any future problems. Bev Babcock—5523 Oakgreen Place N. expressed her concern as to the clay soil and water at the property during the time the work is occurring. She would like assurance that erosion control and other absorption methods are put in place so that the area does not become a mud hole. Mr. Lynskey responded to general building contractor requirements to place erosion control and place sod. Mr. Lynskey noted that they would like to move forward with the project and asked recommendation to the City Council subject to conditions as they wish and they would work with the Council on any issues. Chair Kremer expressed that he felt those in attendance have appreciated the time the applicant and their agents have spent working with them and that if their responses are indicative of the type of neighborhood being created, they will be welcome, especially if the lines of communication remain open. Wynn Babcock — 5523 Oakgreen Place N. seconded Mr. Kremer's comments, adding if they can truly create a reduction in surface water run-off,that would truly be appreciated. Chair Kremer entered Commission Anthony's comments to public record per her written comment, noting that she was ok with the road and cul-de-sac as long as safety is addressed by the City and emergency vehicles, that she is okay with the City Engineer recommendation for installation of a stormwater pipe as long as it addresses the water issues discussed at the June meeting. Anthony feels that the density and congestion created by 13 homes is too great for the size of the area— she encouraged the Commission to consider a reduction in the number of homes allowed. Chair Kremer asked if there was anyone else who wanted to make any final comments to the public hearing. Al Palmer introduced himself as the property owner and inquired of City Administrator Johnson as to the status of the phone call they had regarding the City wanting to purchase some of the property. He noted that he had been visited by the previous Mayor, Dave Beaudet and told that the City was interested in purchasing a piece of the property and that he had contacted the City to follow up on it and didn't hear back. Mr. Palmer noted that he had a letter regarding this and unfortunately hasn't been able to locate it. Mr. Palmer commented that it probably didn't make a difference anymore and left the podium. Planning Commission Minutes July 10,2014 Page 6 of 9 Mike Runk—5525 O'Brien Ave.N. introduced himself, noting that he is also a City Council member. Mr. Runk noted that the City was contacted by whoever was marketing the property, within the last year—the City Council discussed the proposal of a property purchase and opted against it at the time. Mr. Palmer stated that this occurred earlier. Mr. Runk indicated that he was not familiar with any activity of the City or the Council regarding any other purchase consideration. Chair Kremer closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comment. Commissioner Bye discussed parking requirements and permitting parking to only one side of the road and not in the cul-de-sac. Commission Liaison Liljegren discussed the issue of parking on the street that they have experienced in his neighborhood in Autumn Ridge and it ultimately being restricted to no parking to either side of the street for a specific duration of time, Monday through Friday to counter the problems they were having with high school student parking and safety. City Administrator Johnson displayed a diagram prepared by the City Engineer to visually display what a 28 foot wide residential street would look like with parking to both sides. The cul-de-sac was discussed as it related to the issues of bus and large vehicle turnaround, its design for turn around, and snow removal. The matter of quorum for voting was discussed. Three of the five Commissioners are present,however Commissioner Thurmes considered present and voting as abstained. Chair Kremer noted that the Commission is a recommending body and that the City Council reviews the recommendation and make the official approval decision. He asked the audience if anyone in the audience object to the Commission voting on a recommendation. City Administrator Johnson noted the Planning Commission could send forward to the City Council with a supporting or non- supporting recommendation or without a recommendation. City Planner Richards reviewed the proposed conditions for recommended approval, discussing them along with potential amendment as a result of the meeting discussion. Commissioner Bye, seconded by Commissioner Kremer,moved to recommend City Council approval of the request, subject to the conditions within the July 3, 2014 Planning Report, as amended, specifically that: 1. The preliminary and final plat, as well as the dedication of easements, shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. 2. The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee of 10 percent of the fair market value of the land payable as specified within the Development Agreement. 3. An easement with the City of Oak Park Heights shall be required to provide access to Oak Park Boulevard. Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2014 Page 7 of 9 4. An easement with the City of Oak Park Heights shall be required for placement of the entrance monument sign. 5. Drainage and utility easements along the road/cul-de-sac right of way shall be increased to 15 feet to compensate for the proposed road right of way width and radius. 6. The Fire Chief, Police Chief and City Engineer shall comment on the proposed street dimensions and adequacy for emergency vehicle access. 7. The Planning Commission recommends that a 10 foot easement on the west side of the Palmer property shall be retained by the City for future sidewalk/trail development subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 8. All tree removal and landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Arborist. There shall be no reduction allowed for the required tree replacement. 9. The proposed wetland buffer impact/mitigation plan is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 10. The street construction plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 11. The grading and drainage plans shall be subject to City Engineer and applicable watershed authority review and approval. The City Engineer shall require the installation of a storm water pipe between 5519 and 5523 Oakgreen Place North to address the 100 year storm events. The City Engineer and Project Engineer shall continue to resolve any issues with storm water drainage on the south property line. The City Council shall determine if there will be any cost sharing by the City for the storm water pipe installation. 12. All utility plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 13. The Applicant shall be responsible for capping the well and removal of the septic systems, cistern and oil tank in compliance with Washington County and if applicable, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards. 14. The City will not maintain the landscaping and monument entrance sign; that will be the responsibility of the home owners. The City will specify the provisions related to the easement and maintenance in the Development Agreement. Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2014 Page 8 of 9 15. The Planning Commission is favorable to the proposed final building appearance, colors,materials and the variety of house plans as part of the PUD/CUP review. 16. For emergency vehicle access purposes,parking will be allowed on one side of the street only, and no parking will be allowed within the cul-de-sac. 17. The Planning Commission recommends the request to reduce the allowable setback on the garage side of the home to a minimum of 5 feet. The setback to the dwelling portion of the home would remain at 10 feet. A garage to garage setback would be required to be 15 feet. 18. The Applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Agreement. The Development Agreement shall secure site improvements,protection of neighboring properties, and municipal infrastructure. The Development Agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney and City Council. Carried 2—0— 1, Thurmes abstained. Thurmes was not present at the time of vote; however he indicated his vote to abstain in the event of a vote at the start of the continued public hearing,when he removed himself from discussion. VII. New Business: None. VIII. Old Business: None IX. Informational: A. Upcoming Meetings: • Tuesday, July 22, 2014 City Council 7:00 p.m./City Hall • Thursday,August 14, 2014 Planning Commission 7:00 p.m./City Hall • Tuesday, August 26, 2014 City Council 7:00 p.m./City Hall B. Council Representative • Tuesday, July 22 , 2014—Commissioner Kremer • Tuesday, August 26, 2014—Commissioner Nelson Commissioner Bye noted that a park build event was being held at 8 a.m. on Saturday, at Swager Park, and invited anyone who wished to help construct the playground equipment. Planning Commission Minutes July 10,2014 Page 9 of 9 X. Adjourn: Commissioner Kremer, seconded by Commissioner Bye,moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:59 p.m. Carried 2—0. Res•ectfully submitted, Juli: ltman Pl. • g& Code Enforcement Approved by the Planning Commission:09-11-2014