Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-09-11 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Thursday, September 11,2014—Oak Park Heights City Hall Call to Order: Chair Kremer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and called for a standing moment of silence to observe 9-11. Present: Commissioners Anthony, Bye, Kremer,Nelson and Thurmes; City Administrator Johnson, City Planner Richards and Commission Liaison Liljegren. II. Approval of Agenda: Commissioner Anthony, seconded by Commissioner Bye,moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Carried 5 - 0. III. Approval of July 10, 2014 Meeting Minutes: Commissioner Bye, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, moved to approve the minutes as presented. Carried 5 - 0. Approval of July 22, 2014 Meeting Minutes: Commissioner Anthony, seconded by Commissioner Bye,moved to approve the minutes as presented. Carried 5 - 0. IV. Department/Commission Liaison/Other Reports: None. V. Visitors/Public Comment: None. VI. Public Hearings: A. Pine Grove Gardens PUD Amendment & Preliminary and Final Plat Approval — Oakgreen Court, N.: Consider requests of St. Croix Home Builders, Inc. for Planned Unit Development Amendment and Preliminary & Final Plat approval to allow construction of a 5-unit townhouse structure, located within the Pine Grove Gardens development at Oakgreen Court,N. Commissioner Thurmes noted that he was the surveyor to the project and removed himself from the public hearing. City Planner Richards reviewed the September 4,2014 planning report,noting that the request is to allow a revised plan for five townhome units in an area planned and platted for six units as a result of a reduced setback created by MnDot's roadway changes to the Hwy. 36 frontage Road. He noted that the units will be constructed to match those within the existing development and that the new development will be platted as Pine Grove Gardens 2nd Addition Planning Commission Minutes September 11,2014 Page 2 of 5 Richards provided an issue analysis of the request and discussed the same, including issues related to conditional use permit criteria to be reviewed as to design standards and Homeowner's Association acceptance of the plant change with a reduction of the number of units and their acceptance of Outlot A as an additional common area that will be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Chair Kremer opened the hearing for public comment. Robert Johnson—5833 Oakgreen Ct.N.noted that the developer wasn't present and that it has been his experience that they are usually present to answer questions. Mr.Johnson questioned how the Commission could proceed without his being present. City Planner Richards noted that the public hearing as an opportunity for discussion and that it would be up to the Planning Commission to determine whether or not to proceed in forwarding it to the City Council. Mr. Johnson stated that the second coat of asphalt and curbs have been placed to the private roadway within the development and asked what would be done to force the developer to repair all damage done to the road and curb. It was noted that while it is a private issue with the developer and the Homeowner's Association,as the owner of the road,a condition would be placed within the Development Agreement and the Amended PUD Document; however,the Homeowner's Association should also have it noted in any approval document they create with the developer. City Administrator Johnson noted that typically this has not been a problem with development agreements and that one method the City has is to withhold occupancy permits until such time compliance has been met. It was clarified that the agreement with the developer and the City is one to allow them to create the development,contingent upon whether or not the Homeowner's Association allows it to occur within the development. Conversation was had as to options the Homeowner's Association as to the accepting the Outlot as part of the development common area and any escrow they may wish to require to guarantee compliance is met for issues related to the development. Mr. Johnson asked the Commission to consider tabling the matter until such time the developer was present to address inquiry to the development proposed. Tom Ulness—5858 Oakgreen Ct. N. noted that he lived to the backside corner of the proposed structure and inquired as to receiving a copy of the landscape plan. City Administrator Johnson stated that if Mr.Ulness did not find it in the report materials he has,that he will see to it that he receives a copy. Mr.Ulness expressed concern about construction activity and parking. It was noted that this would be a Homeowner's Association concern and that they would need to address the issues for the development as to where workers could park. Planning Commission Minutes September 11,2014 Page 3 of 5 Mr.Ulness discussed the elevations to the north side of the proposed structure in relation to grading and drainage. City Administrator Johnson noted that the matter of grading and drainage would be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and that in light of the roadway work being done by MnDot,would need to be reviewed overall. Mr.Ulness questioned whether or not the proposed deck/porch combination was being proposed or if it was an option. City Administrator Johnson noted that, as shown on the plans, they do encroach into the outlot space, similar to that of the porches/decks to the northeast townhouse units, and that this is one more item for the Homeowner's Association to consider. Dan Thurmes introduced himself as the project surveyor and discussed the design plan for the five units in line with them being placed into an area that was originally platted for six units and that he felt the design was a good product for the site. He noted that the grading and drainage would be per approved plans and that the porches were being proposed as shown. He apologized for the developer's absence and made himself available to respond to questions. Chair Kremer asked if there was anyone else who wanted to make any final comments to the public hearing. There being no additional comments or questions from the audience,Chair Kremer closed the public hearing and asked for Commission discussion. Commissioner discussion ensued as the absence of the developer and Homeowner's Association leadership and consideration of tabling the request until both can be present to address questions. It was clarified that the public hearing notice was mailed to all property owners within the development, including those who are members of the Homeowner's Association Board. Commissioner Anthony encouraged Mr. Johnson and Mr. Ulness to reach out to their HOA Board as to their concern. Chair Kremer added that should the Commission decide to table the public hearing, it is important that the developer and the HOA Board have someone present at the next meeting, who is aware of their concerns and can negotiate on their behalf. Ruth Easton—5853 Oakgreen Ct. N. arrived. Chair Kremer clarified that she was the Pine Grove Gardens Homeowner Association President and re-opened the public hearing. President Easton informed the Commission that the HOA Board and its management agent,Judd Orff have been in conversation with the developer in response to issues and concerns of the Pine Grove Gardens residents,that those noted by Mr.Johnson and Mr. Ulness are part of those conversations. She did note that while a final agreement has not yet been reached,she felt that they were very close. Commissioner Anthony encouraged her to make a point to reach out to their HOA members to ensure that they were aware of what is happening and that their concerns are being addressed. Planning Commission Minutes September 11,2014 Page 4 of 5 The developer has interest in commencing construction prior to winter. President Easton stated that she didn't feel that they were that far apart in coming to an agreement and that she felt that,with the lot having been empty for such a long time,that it would be advantageous to the neighborhood to see the work get started. Prior to anything getting started, however an agreement needs to be reached and approved by the Homeowner's Association. There being no additional comment, Chair Kremer closed the public hearing. Commission discussion ensued as to the conditions within the planning report, with City Planner Richards proposing condition amendments for the expressed HOA issues and Development Agreement approval. Commissioner Anthony, seconded by Commissioner Bye, moved to recommend City Council approval of the request, subject to the conditions within the September 4, 2014 Planning Report, as amended, specifically that: 1. The preliminary and final plat shall be approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney. 2. The Planning Commission was favorable to the proposed setback to the MnDot right-of-way as part of the approval process for the PUD. 3. All landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Arborist. 4. The grading and drainage plans shall be subject to City Engineer and if required applicable watershed authority review and approval. 5. All utility plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 6. The Planning Commission was favorable to the final building plans and materials. 7. The snow storage plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 8. The Homeowners Association shall accept the change to the plat,plans to reduce the number of dwelling units to five, accept Outlot A as additional common area that will be maintained by the Homeowners Association, and address issues related to streets, curbs, and construction vehicle parking with the Applicant. 9. Additional landscaping shall be provided between the end unit and the MnDot right-of-way subject to approval of the City Arborist and the Homeowners Association. Planning Commission Minutes September 11,2014 Page 5 of 5 10. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement. The development agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney and City Council. Carried 4— 1 —0, Thurmes abstained. VII. New Business: A. Discussion of Commission's purpose and philosophy for City planning. Chair Kremer stated that he had this placed on the Agenda because he wondered if the Commission might find it beneficial to have a conversation about what the Commission's philosophy of development is and to place it into a general paragraph within the Commission Bylaws. Discussion ensued. City Planner Richards notes that the 2008 Comprehensive Plan related to the philosophy of development and such for the City of Oak Park Heights was crafted by a different City Council and different Planning Commission and pointed out that updating of the plan was coming up and that the process would create a good opportunity for such a discussion and may help what Chair Kremer is seeking to achieve. VIII. Old Business: None IX. Informational: A. Upcoming Meetings: • Tuesday, September 23, 2014 City Council 7:00 p.m./City Hall • Thursday, October 16, 2014 Planning Commission 7:00 p.m./City Hall • Tuesday, October 28, 2014 City Council 7:00 p.m./City Hall B. Council Representative • Tuesday, September 23 , 2014—Commissioner Thurmes • Tuesday, October 28, 2014—Commissioner Anthony X. Adjourn: Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Anthony,moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:02 p.m. Carried 5—0. Res s ectfully submitted, 4ft 1 tman Pl. g&Code Enforcement Approved by the Planning Commission: