PC Minutes 1/22/07-DRAFT

ITEM NO. 5:              PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ABERDEEN ON 6TH (SLD)

 

Reconsideration of Planning Commission recommendations for PDP-01-02-06:  Revised Preliminary Development Plan for Aberdeen on 6th Street.  This proposed multi-family planned residential development contains 108 proposed apartment units and including four duplex units on approximately 9.59 acres.  The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of W. 6th Street and Stoneridge Drive.  Submitted by Landplan Engineering for MS Construction Co., Inc., property owners for record.  On 12/12/06, the City Commission referred this to the Planning Commission to reconsider their recommendation.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Sandra Day gave an introduction and overview of the project, a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) for Aberdeen on 6th.  She outlined the progress of the project which was approved 9-1 by the Planning Commission in November of 2006 and forwarded to the City Commission.  The City Commission met on 12/12/06 and returned the PDP to the Planning Commission with recommendations to reconsider their vote.  Ms. Day provided a summary of actions and votes with the various recommendations and options.  She stated that Planning Commission received communications regarding this item including the Staff Memo, the alternative plan submitted by the applicant and a summary of the meeting minutes.  Ms. Day stated the alternative plan is not being submitted for formal review as Staff has not had the opportunity to study it extensively.  She said the continued discussion regarding controlled access with some type of emergency gate is not included in any of the revised plans but is an existing recommended condition of approval.  Controlled access will be a requirement for the applicant.  The applicant’s intent with the revised plan is to give the Planning Commission the opportunity to provide revised conditions on the concept of the alternative plan, if appropriate.

 

Comm. Harkins asked if staff was prepared to give formal recommendations on the plan prior to the Planning Commission vote.

 

Ms. Day stated that Staff has not had the opportunity to provide recommendations on the alternative plan and that if necessary, conditions could be created as the discussion progressed.

 

Comm. Eichhorn stated the only way he would feel comfortable is to have Staff recommendations regarding the revisions prior to the vote.

 

Ms. Day referred the Commission to the City Commission minutes contained within the Staff memo and referenced pages 6-7 and 8-9 where the City Commission speaks to the changes they would be comfortable seeing but did not want to revise at the City Commission level.  The City Commission did not question density or the concept of multi-family use.  Comm. Hack spoke to the project as being infill.  The City Commission did not express concerns regarding stormwater or of Winthrop Court access being a condition.  Comm. Highberger stated multifamily is the best use but hoped for a better transition from single to multi-family.  The City Commission asked for a scaling down of buildings that immediately abutted the single family homes.  Comm. Schauner expressed concerns about the structures on the southern piece of the property.  The City Commission suggested more density on the northern end of the property and larger landscaping.  Ms. Day said the ultimate question is if the alternative design presented this evening meets the City Commission criteria. 

 

Comm. Eichhorn asked if the revised plan meets the conditions discussed by the City Commission.

 

Ms. Day said that the plan does meet the majority of the City Commission recommendations. 

 

Comm. Harkins asked about the procedure for this project and noted that the project has been back and forth between Planning and City Commissions with a great deal of time and money spent.  He said the changes presented seem substantial; Staff has not had the opportunity to review them and does not have a recommendation.  He expressed feeling uncomfortable about making a decision to recommend or not recommend the plan without Staff input.  Comm. Harkins stated he voted for the project initially but does not like the idea of taking a short cut in the approval unless there is a compelling reason.

 

Comm. Eichhorn asked if the changes are major or minor.  He said he would like to see whether the new plan meets with better acceptance by both Commissions and feels it appropriate to continue with discussions if the changes are minor.

 

Ms. Day said the number of dwelling units is the same and there is an increase in open space.  The building mass for the units on the western side of the property are smaller.  She said there is record of public and neighborhood input but Staff does not know what the official thoughts or comments are regarding this plan from the neighborhood.  Ms. Day said this is a valid attempt to respond to the City Commission concerns.

 

Comm. Jennings stated that this is an official agenda item and the Planning Commission has the option of not acting on it.

 

Comm. Finkeldei commented that there are three possible options:

1.            Not act on the new proposal which would send the previous plan back to the City Commission.

2.            Send the previous plan back to the City Commission with no changes.

3.            Send the plan back to the City Commission with recommended changes.

Comm. Finkeldei said as the City Commission sent the previous plan back, he believes the Planning Commission should hear this new plan and give input before forwarding to the City Commission.

 

Comm. Harkins stated his belief that the Planning Commission should hold off hearing about the revised plan until Staff is able to give recommendations on the changes.

Comm. Burress asked the applicant’s opinion regarding holding the vote for a month.

 

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Todd Thompson, attorney for the applicant, stated the visual representation submitted to the Planning Commission is not a plan that was submitted to the Planning Commission for review.  The original plan is being submitted with changes pertaining to the mass and size of the buildings.  He said the City Commission did not vote to reject the plan but wanted to change a few things along the southern property line.  Mr. Thompson said the only reason the picture was presented was as a communication tool to visually explain the steps that have been taken to modify the plan.  He said the buildings are smaller which increases green space but are generally in the same location.  There are three small buildings on the south as opposed to two large buildings.  The building near the Lange house is smaller and placed further from Mr. Lange’s property line.  Density of the project has been moved closer to 6th Street and the densest part of the project is on the north 2/3 of the project.  The swimming pool has east/west access.  Mr. Thompson said the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project last time as did Staff.  The gate is a non-issue; if the City Commission tells the applicant to put in a gate, it will be put in.  The request before the Planning Commission is to recommend approval with the same conditions as the previous plan plus one more that the buildings on the southern edge be modified in accordance with the drawing.

 

Comm. Finkeldei asked why the orientation of the four-plexes on the far east of the project changed.

 

Mr. Thompson replied that the garages were removed from the front of the duplexes.  The applicant believes having one bedroom units is less intrusive to the neighborhood than having three bedroom duplexes.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

Price Banks, attorney working with the neighbors, stated that this is a unique situation.  He said the applicant should be given a pat on the back for working with the neighbors and the City Commission to address concerns.  The one bedroom four-plexes will lower density considerably.  The changes, while not substantial, are effective in changing the appearance of the project to the neighbors.  The gate is important to the neighbors who also understand the importance of the gate for emergency access.  Mr. Banks said the neighbors would like the landscaping to be very dense on the south side of the project and request that is a condition to be added to the Final Development Plan (FDP).  He is pleased the neighbors and the applicant have been able to reach an agreement and would like to see the Planning Commission recommend approval of the PDP.

 

Cory Lange, 901 Stone Creek, said the revisions to the plan are a step in the right direction.  The gate has been a huge issue.  He said he is concerned the gate will become a parking area and would like to see some sort of wall built as a deterrent.   He would like to see the density of the landscaping as a condition on the FDP.  He agreed with all of the changes.  Mr. Lange said the drawing of the landscaping shows mature trees, 20 years or so in the future.  He would like a very dense landscaping plan in the “Tuckaway” style. 

 

Mark O’Lear, 917 Stone Creek, said he appreciates what Mr. Werner has done to accommodate the neighbors’ requests.  He stated he would like to see the gate on the plan and that all of the neighbors would like both the gate and denser landscaping.

 

APPLICANT CLOSING

Mr. Thompson said the applicant would provide the project layout and landscaping plan, the grading, utility and elevation plans to the City Commission.  He clarified that the landscaping would be denser on the southern berm as well as the northern area of the project.

 

Comm. Burress asked if the treatment chosen for the gate and the potential wall for the gate, if made a condition, would go on the plan being forwarded to the City Commission or if it would appear on the FDP.

 

Mr. Thompson replied that those details would appear as part of the FDP.

 

STAFF CLOSING

Ms. Day asked for approval of the PDP with the original 5 conditions and a revised PDP to show a restricted gate per City fire and public works staff approval.  The gate should provide emergency access only and detail of that access restriction would be show as part of the FDP submission.  The PDP will be revised to match the alternative plan drawing dated 1/19/07.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Moved by Comm. Burress, seconded by Comm. Finkeldei, to recommend approval of the revised Preliminary Development Plan for Aberdeen on Sixth based in part on the Staff Report and on new evidence brought forth to address concerns of the City Commission and two additional conditions and forwarding it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions:

 

1.      Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to show a restricted gate along Winthrop Court per City Fire and Public Works staff approval.

2.      Provision of a note that states access gate shall be for emergency purposes only. General vehicular access immediately to Stonecreek Drive from the development shall be prohibited.

3.      Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for intersection and geometric improvements to W. 6th Street and Stoneridge Drive.

4.      Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan that shows installation of larger size (10 gallon minimum size) planting along the south side of the development for lots that abut Stonecreek Drive per staff approval.

5.      Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Development Plan that states: “The Final Development Plan shall include specific building elevations that note building materials to be used for roof, siding, and facing elements visible from the public streets and viewable from abutting properties.”

 

 

 

 

6.      Detail of the access gate will be shown on submission of the Final Development Plan;

7.      The Preliminary Development Plan will be revised to reflect the layout as shown on           the alternative plan dated 1/19/07.

 

 

 

Motion passed unanimously, 8-0.  Student Commissioner Robb also voted in the affirmative.