Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-08-02 PC Packet AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,August2,2011 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. July 5, 2011 5. Public Hearings 6. New Business a. Gateway Corridor Presentation b. Homeowner's Association Documents-Discussion 7. Unfinished Business 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. Commissioner report for the city council meeting of July 11, 2011. Commissioner Nuss was scheduled to attend. There were no planning commission items. b. Commissioner report for the city council meeting of July 25, 2011. Commissioner Bierbaum attended. The items reviewed were the South Metro Human Services CUP and the former Corner Kick Soccer Center building CUP. c. Upcoming City Council Meeting of August 8, 2011. Commissioner Fischer is scheduled to attend. At this time there are no anticipated items for review. d. Upcoming City Council Meeting of August 22, 2011. Commissioner Martin is scheduled to attend. At this time there are no anticipated items for review. 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JULY 5,2011 1. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Commission was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Fischer. 2. ROLL CALL AI Bierbaum, Commissioner Joseph Boeser, Commissioner Tushar Desai,Commissioner Lorraine Fischer, Chairperson Robert Martin, Commissioner Tanya Nuss, Commissioner Gary Pearson, Commissioner Dale Trippler, Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood, Commissioner Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Staff suggested moving 5 b. Conditional Use Permit for the Former Corner Kick Soccer Center Building ahead of 5 a. Conditional Use Permit for South Metro Human Services, 1111 Viking Drive since the Corner Kick building CUP proposal would be a much quicker review. Commissioner Boeser moved to approve the aQenda as amended. Seconded by Commissioner Trippler. Ayes - All The motion passed. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Bierbaum moved to approve the June 7. 2011 minutes as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Trippler. Ayes - All The motion passed. 5. PUBLIC HEARING a. 7:00 p.m. or later: Conditional Use Permit for the Former Corner Kick Soccer Center Building, 1357 Cope Avenue i. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and answered questions of the commission. ii. Applicant, Mike McGrath, addressed and answered questions of the commission. July 5, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1 Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing. No one addressed the commission. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Yarwood moved to approve the resolution approvinQ a revision for the conditional use permit for 1357 Cope Avenue. the former Corner Kick soccer Center. based on the findinqs required bv citv ordinance and subiect to the followinq conditions (the additions are underlined and the deletions are crossed out.): L All senE:trllstien E:hall fellew the FJlanE: aate E:tamFJea AFJril e, 2007 ana the FJlanE: aate E:tamFJea May J1, 2007. The sity sellnsil may aFJFJreve majer shan!jeE: te the FJlanE: ana sity E:taff may aFJFJreve miner shan!jeE: te the FJlanE:. allsh shan!jeE: E:hall inslllae: ;L ReviE:in!j the FJrejest FJlanE: te meet all the senaitienE: ef the sity en!jineer (inslllain!j the aaaitien ef a E:iaewalk alen!j CeFJe Avenlle) ana sity E:taff. g, ReviE:in!j the ellilain!j elevatienE: aE: may ee rel:lllirea ey E:taff, the Cemmllnity DeE:i!jn Review Beara (CDRB) er the sity sellnsil. 2. The ewner er sentraster E:hall E:tart the senE:trllstigpf@[thiE: FJermit reviE:ien within ene year ef sity sSllRsil aFJFJrsval sr the FJermit revisisR sh(jUeRa. TJ:l@ sity sSllRsil may eJeteRa this aeaaline fer ene year. ~ The sity sellnsil E:hall review thiE: FJermit reviE:iiilpene year trem the aate ef aFJFJreval. .i. The ewnerE:.'eFJeraterE: ef the E:esser senter, tRe tire marE:hal ana the sity ellilain!j effisial E:hall a!jree en a FJlan fer the E:esser senter te make the rel:lllirea lite E:afety ana ellilain!j imFJrevementE: te the exiE:tin!j ellilain!j. This FJlan E:hall inslllae the inE:tallatien ef: a. The rel:lllirea fire FJreteetien (sFJrinkler) E:YE:temE:. e. An early warnin!j tire FJretestien E:YE:tem (E:meke aetestien ana meniterin!j). s. Aaaitienal emer!jeRsy li!jhte ana exit E:i!jne (if neseeear/). ~ Have the sit'! en!jineer aFJpt~'Je final senE:trllstien ana en!jineerin!j FJlane. Theee FJlane E:hall meet all the senaitiene ana shan!jee that the en!jineer Rates in the meme aatea AFJril 2J, 2007, inslllain!j the inE:tallatien ef the eiaewalk alen!j CeFJe Avenlle. ~ The ewner er eFJerater ehall ee reE:FJeneiele fer the maintenanse ana Glean llFJ ef the FJenain!j areae en their FJreFJerty. L. The ewner er eFJerater ehall FJeet the arivewaye ana arive aielee ae ne FJarkin!j zenee. ll. The SWRer sr sFJeratsr sf Csrner Kisk shall SRSllre that visitsrs sr llsers sf the fasility as RSt SallE:e aietllreansee er make llnreaE:enaely lella neiE:e in the FJarkin!jlet that aietllre nearey reE:iaente. The ewner er eFJerater E:hall E:llemit a FJlan te sity etaff fer the eallsatien ef their FJatrene aeellt eehavier elltE:iae the senter, fer the enfersement ef neiE:e rlllee ana hew they will aeal with, sentrel ana minimize ether aiE:tllreansee en their FJreFJerty. 1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped May 17, 2011. The city council shall review any maior chanQes proposed. Staff may approve minor chanQes. 2. The city council shall review this permit in one year. July 5, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2 3. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the city enQineer, buildinQ official and fire marshal. 4. The applicant shall revise the landscapinq plan for staff approval to provide for a visual buffer alonq the frontaqe of the property between the two driveways to block headliqhts from shininq into neiqhborinq properties. This buffer shall be at least three to four feet tall. 5. Site liQhts and noise shall be controlled to follow the requirements of the city ordinance. 6. This permit includes a parkinq waiver for the applicant to provide 60 parkinq spaces with the potential for 23 additional future spaces. If further spaces are needed. the applicant shall restripe the parkinq lot to provide at least 15 additional spaces at the ends of the proposed parkinq rows. Seconded by Commissioner Desai. Ayes - All The motion passed. This goes to the city council July 25, 2011. b. 7:00 p.m. or later: Conditional Use Permit Drive i. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave commission. ii. City Attorney, Alan Kantrud iii. Terry Schneider, South Metro Metro Human Services, 1111 Viking and questions of the of the commission. Maplewood. Chairperson Fischer opened the Fourteen neighboring property and property value opposition of this proposal due to safety concerns spoke below. 1. Steve Shay, Owner Maplewood. 2. Kathy Kleve, 3. Don Huot, Huey's Saloon, 4. Don Seiford, Maplewood. 5. Barb Clothier, Maplewood. 6. Dr. Skipstead, Maplewood. (Can't read his last name and no address given). 7. Mara Coyle, Maplewood. 8. Mark Warner, Maplewood. 9. Kelly Ubel, Maplewood. 10. Katie Rivard, Maplewood. 11. Dick Seppal, Maplewood. 12. Ray Hitchcock, Maplewood. 13. Wife of Dr. Skipstead (last name and address unknown), Maplewood. 14. Karl Clothier, Maplewood. One neighboring property owner William Knutson, Maplewood, spoke neither for nor against but commented on this proposal based on his prior experience in managing such facilities in the past. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. July 5, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 3 Commissioner Yarwood moved to table the proposal particularly because of the number of police calls. concerns about the effect on property values and because of concerns reqardinq what it will do to the character of neiqhborhood. Seconded by Commissioner Boeser. Ayes - Commissioner's Boeser, Desai & Yarwood Nays - Chairperson Fischer, Commissioner's Bierbaum, Martin and Trippler The motion failed. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the resolution approvinq a conditional use permit for a 16-room transitional housinQ facility in coniunction with a proposed mental health care clinic at 1111 Vikinq Drive. Approval is based on the findinqs required by ordinance and subiect to the followinq conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. Staff may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed use must be substantially sta[t~d within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. Th@Cqyncil may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this 4. Before the applicant obtains a city agreeing to pay an annual the cost of police calls to the 5. Additional housing units 6. The applicant shall one yea:r, they shall sign an agreement with the of $1 ,000 per year for ten years to defray a revision of this permit. 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. Seconded by Ayes - Chairperson Fischer, Commissioner's Bierbaum, Martin & Trippler Nays - Commissioner's Boeser, Desai and Yarwood The motion passed. This goes to the city council July 25, 2011. 6. NEW BUSINESS None. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 8. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. July 5, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 4 9. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Commissioner Desai reported for the city council meeting of June 13,2011. Items discussed were The Fleet, Inc., CUP for car sales and the Ferndale Street/ih Street yacations were discussed. b. Commissioner Yarwood reported for the city council meeting of June 27, 2011. The Eldridge Fields preliminary plan and the first reading of the Chicken Ordinance were discussed. c. Upcoming City Council meeting of July 11,2011. Commissioner Nuss is scheduled to attend. At this time there are no anticipated items for reyiew. d. Upcoming City Council Meeting of July 25, 2011. Commissioner Bierbaum is scheduled to attend. The anticipated items for reyiew are the South Human Services CUP and the CUP to remodel the Former Corner Kick building. 10. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Staff stated the 2nd planning commission judge training being held in the council will be cancelled due to election 11. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Fischer adjourned the July 5, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: James Antonen, City Manager Michael Martin, AICP, Planner Gateway Corridor Presentation July 27, 2011 INTRODUCTION Andy Gitzlaff, from Washington County, is scheduled to attend the August 2 planning commission meeting to present information regarding the Gateway Corridor. The Gateway Corridor is a mass transit way currently under study. The study area is defined from Eau Claire, Wisconsin to downtown Saint Paul, roughly following 1-94. DISCUSSION Three transit mode options are being studied for potential use within the corridor. The modes include light-rail transit, commuter rail transit and bus rapid transit. Of all the alternatives currently being studied, the most likely impact this corridor will have in Maplewood is north of 1-94 between McKnight Road and Century Avenue. A key goal of this study is to ensure the transit way serves 3M in some capacity. A station is likely to be proposed at either the McKnight Road or Century Avenue nodes, just north of 1-94. Another possibility, but less likely, is to site a station within the 3M complex. Two committees have been formed to guide this study. One committee is made up of technical staff from each of the impacted communities while the other committee consists of elected officials from each city along the corridor. Please review the attached materials and if interested visit www.theQatewaycorridor.com for more information. RECOMMENDATION Please review the attached information for the discussion at the August 2, 2011 planning commission meeting. P:IPlanninglGateway Corridor StudylGateway Corridor_080211 Attachments: 1. Gateway Corridor Fact Sheet 2. July 2011 Gateway Corridor Alternatives Analysis Newsletter @l Mop of the Gateway Corridor from the St. Croix River Bridge to St. Paul, MN More than 300,000 people I ive along the corridor and more than 90,000 vehicles cross the St. Croi x River Bridge each day. By the tl me commuters reach downtown Saint Paul, the number of vehicles Increases to ~50,000. These current traffic levels on 1-94 exceed the interstate's capacity. By 2030, the corrl dor's population is expected to grow by nearly 30 percent. In addition to the population growth, more than 30,000 jobs are expected to be added to the corridor - adding more com muter, to an al ready congested corridor. With the public's I nput, the Gateway Corridor Commission I s lead ing an Alternatives Analysis Study that will determine the best mode ottransit. The AA Studywill Identify whether the besttransit option Is light-rail transit, commuter ral I or bus-rapid tran sit for the Gateway Corridor, as well as estl mated rldershl p, potential routes and estimated costs for construction and operation. The Gateway Corridor's Alternatives Analysis Study Is expected to be completed by spring 2012. Depending upon federal and local funding, new transit In the Gateway Corridor could be operational by 2022. Attachment 2 Volume J The Gateway Corridor Commission initiated a "Transit Alternatives Analysis" (M) study in Fall 2010, looking at the [-94 corridor from downtown Minneapolis to Eau Claire, Wisconsin. The M is the first step in determining the best transit mode (light rail, commuter rail, bus rapid transit or express bus) and route alternative for transit service in the corridor. The study will include forecast ridership, station stop locations, and estimated cost to build, operate and maintain. The study will help address issues of con- gestion, potential economic development/revitalization, and social and environmental impacts. A Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) will be identified at the end ofthe study. Proposed Station Locations Identified for Further Study Over the past few months, the Gateway Corri- dor Project Team has met with each city in the Gateway Corridor to identify proposed station locations for each of the eight alternatives. Proposed locations for transit stations and park/ride lots were identified based on the fol- lowing criteria: 1-35W BRT Station at 46th Street Northstar Commuter Rail Station at Target Field . Proximity to proposed route, connecting transit routes and major cross streets . Existing and proposed land uses . Existing and proposed population and em- ployment densities . Potential for transit-oriented development . Availability of a suitable land parcel for a transit station or park/ride lot . Pedestrian and bicycle connections Two general types of stations are proposed. A walk-up station is a station that will not have a park/ride lot and will be served by feeder bus, drop-off, walk and bike. A park/ride station will be served by these modes but will also have a large parking lot or structure for park/ride pa- trons. Reg ional guidelines recommend that transit stations are spaced an average of 1 mile apart for LRT or BRT routes and 2 miles apart for commuter rail. Hiawatha LRT Station at Franklin Avenue www.theqatewaycorridor.com . Route Alternatives and Proposed Station Locations Eight alternatives are being evaluated in the Gateway Alternatives Analysis. All include transit service between downtown Minneapolis, MN and Hudson, WI. Alternative 1: No Build includes express buses operating in managed lanes on 1-94 between Minneapolis and St. Paul and express buses operat- ing on 1-94 shoulders between St. Paul and Manning Avenue. Alternative 2: Transportation Sys- tem Management (TSM) includes the service improvements in the No Build alternative as well as ex- press buses operating on 1-94 shoulders between St. Paul and Hudson. The TSM alternative also in- cludes spot improvements for express buses and park/ride lots between Hudson and Eau Claire, WI. The other "Build" alternatives are illustrated below. Service improvements in the TSM alternative are also included in the BRT, LRT and BRT Managed Lane alternatives. Alternatives 3-6 BRT & LRT . . Alternative 7: Commuter Rail Alternative 8: BRT Managed Lane The new "BRT Managed Lane" alternative (center run- ning lanes on 1-94 between downtown Minneapolis and Hudson) is very similar to the Mn/PASS lanes that currently exist on 1-35W south of downtown Minnea- polis and 1-394 west of downtown Minneapolis. These lanes are restricted during peak periods to buses, high occupancy vehicles (carpools and van pools), and sin- gle occupant vehicles that pay to use the lanes. Pric- ing varies depending on the level of congestion. The lanes are electronically controlled. Stations and other special facilities may be provided for buses. MnjPASSmanaged lane on I-35W . Eva Transitway projects requesting Federal Transit Administration (FfA) New Starts funds must follow the FfA's evaluation criteria. These cri- teria are: . Mobility improvements (20%) . Transit-supportive land use (20%) . Economic development effects (20%) . Operating efficiencies (10%) . Cost-effectiveness (20%) . Environmental benefits (10%) The Gateway Corridor goals and objectives mir- ror the Ff A criteria. Improve Mobility-Improvements to mobility will be measured by transit ridership (including reverse commuters), transit travel time com- pared to the auto, user benefits and transit ser- vice improvements, service to people who de- pend on transit, and improvements for bicycle and pedestrian access. Support Economic Development- Consistency with local, regional, state and inter- state economic development goals will be im- portant along with the extent of transit suppor- tive plans and policies and population/ employment within 1/2 mile of stations. Provide Cost-Effective, Economically Vi- able Transit Option- This will be measured by capital and operating costs, FfA's Cost- Effectiveness Index (CEI), and service prod uc- tivity measures. Protect Natural Environmental Features- Evaluation measures will be tied to sustainabil- ity, minimizing environmental impacts, and avoiding or minimizing alterations to environ- mentally sensitive areas. Preserve/Protect Quality of Life- Alternatives should be consistent with commu- nity plans; noise, vibration and traffic impacts should be minimized; and the transit rider ex- perience should be improved. Improve Safety-Safety will be evaluated on the potential to reduce crashes, the number of at-grade crossings, and the extent of crossing protection provided. Next Steps The next phase in the AA process will focus on the detailed evaluation and comparison of alter- natives. This work will include 2030 transit rid- ership forecasts, capital and operating cost esti- mates, conceptual design of the alternative routes, and an early assessment of potential environmental, economic and social impacts. The results of the detailed evaluation and com- parison of alternatives will be presented to the public for comment during a third series of pub- lic meetings in early 2012. A recommendation on a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) is an- ticipated by the Spring of 2012. Additional Opportunities for Input The Gateway Corridor Alternatives Project Team can present more information about the Alternatives Analysis project. Contact us at aatewavcorridor@co,washinaton,mn.us or 651-430-4300 if your neighborhood association, educational institution, community organization or business group is inter- ested in learning more. for more information about the Gateway Corridor or to provide additional comments, go to the project web site at www.thegatewaycorridor.com. www.theEstewavcorridor.com MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: James Antonen, City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager Homeowners Association Documents-Discussion July 27, 2011 SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION At the June 7, 2011 planning commission meeting, when reviewing the Eldridge Fields Preliminary Plat, the commission discussed the subject of homeowner's association (HOA) documents as a requirement for approval of residential developments. In the case with Eldridge Fields, staff was recommending that the developer of this five-lot subdivision be required to form a homeowner's association and provide HOA documents as a means to guarantee the maintenance of rainwater gardens within the plat. The rainwater gardens overlapped lot lines making it difficult to require that a specific owner maintain them. This requirement generated considerable discussion and raised the following questions: . Can the city legally require HOA documents? . Should the city require HOA documents? . Are HOA documents the best way to guarantee the future maintenance of site improvements? . Is there another option? . If the developer does not want to form a homeowners association and submit HOA documents, should the city deny the project? Some members of the planning commission felt that we should not be requiring such documents. Others did not find an issue with them. PAST USE OF HOA DUCUMENTS The city requires HOA documents to guarantee the maintenance of private development site improvements like streets, landscaping, rainwater gardens, storm water systems and streetlights. The documents also assure continued compatibility in design characteristics like roof and siding color and compatibility in replacement materials like the types of siding used. As an example, if there were damage to one unit of a row of townhomes, the HOA documents would require a homeowners association replace damaged materials to match the other units. DISCUSSION Can the City Legally Require HOA Documents? Alan Kantrud, the Maplewood City Attorney, commented as follows: Typically, requirements for development are memorialized in a development agreement. Absent that or in addition to, they appear in PUD documents. As long as the City has conditioned approval of the development, whether obvious or tacit, it will or should be clear that we have an enforceable condition. The key is to memorialize the City's requirements in a way that conditions approval of the development or binds the HOA to perform, or both. If the development agreement is recorded, the conditions are clearly spelled out and any subsequent owner is bound thereby. It is awkward to have to intervene and enforce requirements that a third party (HOA) adopts pursuant to a development agreement, but if the HOA does so, the obligations would flow to them and the requirements to maintain rain gardens, landscaping and the like would contractually flow to them. They took the property subject to those requirements. Thus, the City can enforce the requirements that are part of the overall development agreement. It is important to make sure that the HOA takes on the requirements as defined in the development agreement as the City would not want to put that on the developer alone, since they typically relinquish control of the plat/CIC to the HOA upon deed-transfer of the plat to the HOA. As a result, the inclusion of the requirements in recordable form is important, whether in the HOA documents or otherwise. Therefore, the HOA documents should be required and recorded to the extent that they obligate the Association to perform City requirements. Should the City Require HOA Documents? As stated above by Mr. Kantrud, recorded homeowner's association documents should be required so the city's conditions of approval carry to the multiple owners of the development. Enforcement The homeowner's association becomes responsible for upholding the city council's conditions of approval once the developer has sold the units in the development. The recorded HOA documents are important to enforce those conditions. Alternatives to HOA Documents Developer's agreements, sometimes called development agreements, are ways to assure the proper completion of specific improvements within a development. Developer's agreements are agreements between the developer and the city that outline the developer's obligation for installing public improvements such as streets, utilities and 2 storm water systems. Developer's agreements also spell out any financial obligations of the developer in the construction of the project. Developer's agreements end, however, once the developer's work is completed. Homeowners Association documents, assure that once the project is turned over to the residents that it is understood that they are responsible for the future maintenance of certain things-rainwater gardens, common areas, landscaping, etc. The city would maintain public roadways and utilities. Michael Thompson, the city engineer, explained that the city regularly requires, as a term of a developer's agreement, that the developer also submit recorded HOA documents for the future upkeep of the project. Staff's opinion is that recorded HOA documents are the best option to assure the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of the development to assure compliance with council conditions. Should the City Deny the Project if the Developer will not Provide HOA Documents? Staff would approach this situation on a case-by-case basis. If there are other avenues for making sure that council conditions are met (a developer's agreement, for example), then a HOA documents may not be needed. p:\ planning commission\home owners documents 7 11 te 3