Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/16/20041. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 16, 2004, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. July 19, 2004 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Summerhill Senior Housing Cooperative (935 Ferndale Street North) Land Use Plan Change - S (school) to R-3(H) Zoning Map Change - R-1 (single dwelling) to R-3 (multiple-family residential) Conditional Use Permit (for building over 3 stories in height) 7:30 Cottages at Legacy Village (Hazelwood Street) Land Use Plan Change - BC (business commercial) to R-3(H) Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat New Business a. Hillside Estates (Springside Drive) Preliminary Plat Zoning Map Change - F (farm residence) to R-1 (single dwellings) 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. July 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler b. August 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Bartol c. August 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller d. September 13 Council Meeting: ?? (was to be Mr. Bartol) 10. Staff Presentations a. Reschedule September 6 meeting (Labor Day) - Tuesday 9-7 or Wednesday 9-87 b. Annual Tour Follow-up 11. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, AUGUST 16, 2004 I. CALLTO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. II. ROLL CALL III. IV. Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jeff Bartol Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Daniel Lee Commissioner Paul Mueller Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Planner Shann Finwall, Planner Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Lisa Krol!, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Dierich requested that staff add the Findings of Fact before the public hearing portion of the Summerhill Senior Housing Cooperative discussion. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Bartol had a correction on page 3, the second from the last paragraph changing the word extensive to excessive. Approval of the planning commission minutes for July 19, 2004. Commissioner Bartol moved to approve the planning commission minutes for July 19, 2004, as amended. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Roberts to ask the Code Enforcement Officer, Butch Gervais, to go out to 1705 Abel Street for an inspection. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 Commissioner Trippler seconded. -2- Ayes - Bartol, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Trippler Abstentions- Desai, Mueller, Pearson V. FINDINGS OF FACT Mr. Roberts reviewed the findings of fact and the "valid bases" for findings of fact and the reasons that are "not valid" bases for findings of fact. This information had been included in the planning commission packet for review. Miscellaneous discussion by the commission members followed after the reading. VI. PUBLIC HEARING a. Summerhill Senior Housing Cooperative (935 Ferndale Street North) Ms. Finwall said Transfiguration Church proposes to construct an addition to their church and middle school site located at 6133 North 15th Street in Oakdale. The addition will house their elementary school students, who currently attend school at Transfiguration Elementary School located at 935 Ferndale Street in Maplewood. Because of the relocation of the elementary students, Transfiguration Church would like to sell the elementary school site. Transfiguration Church wants to support senior housing in the community. As such, they interviewed several senior housing developers for the purchase of their elementary school site. After several months of interviewing potential developers, the church selected Nichols Development, LLC, to purchase and develop the site as a senior cooperative housing development. Nichols Development is proposing a 44-unit senior cooperative building for the site called Summerhill of Maplewood. The proposed building would have three stories, 61 underground parking stalls and 26 surface parking stalls. The units would be sold as a cooperative in which residents buy a share of the building and pay a monthly carrying fee, until the eventual sale of their unit. City staff recommends approval of the land use plan change and rezoning for the new senior cooperative from school and single dwelling residential to high multiple dwelling residential. Commissioner Dierich asked Ms. Finwall what the percentage of seniors was in the City of Maplewood and how that percentage would change in the next 20 years? Ms. Finwall said off hand she did not have those statistics or the met council's projections for seniors but perhaps the applicant could give statistics from the Maxfield Research study when he comes forward to speak. Commissioner Dierich asked who would be responsible for the street repair after the site was built? Mr. Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, addressed the commission. He said the developer would be responsible for the street repair. The city wants to see that any work done fits in with the work that was done to the street in 1998-1999. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -3- Commissioner Dierich asked if the issues brought up by the engineering department regarding the grading and drainage going into the Nature Center had been resolved? Mr. Cavett said the original plan had not addressed that concern. With the new three story building this change would address that issue and city staff would ensure that is taken care of properly. Commissioner Dierich asked what the soils were in the area and if it would be difficult to excavate that deeply? Mr. Cavett said the city found the soils were variable but generally were sandy in nature. Commissioner Dierich asked if the zoning was changed to R-3M would the proposed density be okay or would the city have to give a variance? Ms. Finwall said the city's comprehensive plan is divided into three levels. High, medium and Iow and the applicants are requesting the high level, which would allow for the requested 44 units. In the R-3M zoning, the maximum number of units the developer could build is 27. Commissioner Trippler thanked Ms. Finwall for including the map in the packet that represented the residents who were opposed and the people who were in support. This makes it easier to review the site to see where the public opinion lies relative to the property. He would recommend staff include information like this in future packets. He said when staff mentioned there would be fewer vehicle trips with the senior coop compared to the existing elementary school he heard moans from the audience. According to the information provided in the packet on a yearly basis he calculated the senior housing would have 62,415 vehicle trips per year and the school would have 53,430 vehicle trips per year. That is assuming the school is closed for three months out of the year and closed on weekends. The overall impact on the neighborhood would consist of more traffic in the neighborhood with the senior housing proposal. When he looks at the zoning map he sees mostly R-1 zoning and doesn't believe this proposal is a good fit for the neighborhood. He believes senior citizen housing is important and needed, however, not in this particular neighborhood. Commissioner Mueller said mixed housing is being built all over and seems to be a trend. This is basically mixed housing put in the middle of single-family housing. Someone mentioned schools are not busy in the summer and on weekends. He is an educator and the school is always busy at night, on the weekends and in the summer months. He would prefer to have traffic in his neighborhood spread out throughout the day as it would be with senior housing located here compared to busy traffic in the morning and in the evening when he is driving around. Commissioner Grover asked as a point of clarification if the footprint of the building was spread out more since revising the plan from a four story building to a three story building, which would mean less green space for this proposal? Ms. Finwall said the footprint of the building is larger so there is less green space. Commissioner Grover asked how the financing has changed with the decrease in units? Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 Ms. Finwall said with the city's density calculations for senior housing the applicant was able to add more two-bedroom units with the 44-unit proposal, which made it financially feasible. She said she would ask the applicant to address that issue when coming forward to speak. Commissioner Trippler said he is in favor of mixed use housing but he thought what the city was trying to accomplish with zoning was to have a gradual increase or decrease from one zoning to another. In this particular case the applicant wants to go from School (S) to (R-3H), which is the highest residential zoning the city allows. If this proposal was for (R-2) he would not have a problem with it. He asked staff if the city had a zoning jump like this anywhere else in the City of Maplewood? Ms. Finwall said staff would review the zoning map and respond in a moment. However, one example Ms. Finwall thought of was the Resoto Senior Housing on Roselawn Avenue that has 70 units adjacent single-family housing to the south. Mr. Roberts offered two more examples Gere Apartments at the corner of County Road B and Hazelwood Avenue west of John Glenn Middle School, which is a 70-unit apartment building with single-family homes on three sides and a school across the street and apartments on the west side of English between Ripley and Frisbie Avenue, which is a 30-unit apartment building south of the open space mixed with single-family homes. Chairperson Fischer said the city has been looking at mixed uses in the Hillcrest Area and the Gladstone Area. She asked if there were any buffer zones built into the mixed-use zoning? Ms. Finwall said in the new mixed-use zoning district the city requires buffering of 50 feet to the mixed-use building. With multiple dwelling units adjacent single-family homes the city has the same required setback. In this case both proposals meet the increased setbacks due to the fact that this proposal would be across the street from single-family homes. The setback would be an average of 115 feet from the residential properties. Commissioner Desai asked if this proposal went through as senior housing and the units didn't sell, would the applicant have to come back to the city to convert it to an apartment building or condominiums? Ms. Finwall said the planning commission is approving the zoning and comprehensive land use change. This won't be a PUD approving senior housing, however, the developer is proposing a senior cooperative and with the financing it cannot be converted to other housing for 40 or more years. It would not require city approval to convert the building from seniors to apartments because they meet the current parking requirements, but it would require major financial approvals. Commissioner Dierich said with mixed-use zoning the city is talking about planning for businesses and housing to be in the same area together, which is different than this. You can have mixed uses, however, mixed-use zoning is different. She asked how many units in this proposal are due to density units for underground parking? Ms. Finwall said she doesn't have the answer to that. City code allows an additional 300 square feet per unit, per underground parking stall, which can be added onto the gross acre of the lot to increase the density. Perhaps the applicant can answer that. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -5- Commissioner Dierich said this is a land use change and a zoning change, which means if the applicant gets R-3H zoning it's possible the applicant could come back and say they are building something other than senior housing. The city has a proposal but not a plan yet. Ms. Finwall said any newly proposed multiple dwelling would have to go through he CDRB process so it's not a done deal yet. But with rezoning and a comprehensive land use change they are not necessarily bound to this senior housing project. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Chuck Armstrong, Director of Business Development, Nichols Development, 350 West Burnsville Parkway, Burnsville, addressed the commission. The information from Maxfield Research states that the Census for 1990 to 2000 in the City of Maplewood for residents 65 and older went from 3,680 to 5,257, which is an increase of 43% over 10 years. In 1990 Maplewood residents 75 and older was 1,577 and in 2000 was 2,674, which was a 70% increase. He printed demographics off the I nternet for the year 2000 and Maplewood residents ages 55 and older was 16% of the population. 8% of the Maplewood residents were 75 and older in 2000. The impact for reducing the units is quite large with this building being a senior cooperative. The financing is based on a HUD insured 40-year fixed rate mortgage and is not subsidized in any way. The residents that have ownership in the building will pay for the building insurance. When Nichols Development proposed 52 units it was more financially feasible for HUD with the payments for the mortgage and insurance. That could be better balanced for the monthly mortgage payments including the cost of operations for the building. With the reduction of units from 52 to 44 that is the least amount of units they can have for units of this size and they are confident they can make it work with 44 units. Anything less than 44 units would not be long term financially feasible and you would see spikes in the monthly carrying charges for the seniors as time goes on. With the HUD insurance at the point the "shovel hits the ground" 90% of the units must have a reservation on them at which point 60% of the minimum share payment must be in hand. Minimum share payment is approximately 1/3 of the cost of the unit. A $150,000 unit means a prospective owner must put up $50,000 and once 60% of that is collected they can break ground and move forward. Mr. Armstrong said it would be close to an act of god to switch this senior cooperative building to a rental building because it is registered with the State of Minnesota, listed as a corporation, and because of the 40-year mortgage financing. Mr. Armstrong introduced Father Bob Hart and asked him to speak. Father Bob Hart, Pastor at Transfiguration Church, 935 Ferndale Street North, Maplewood, addressed the commission. The parish was founded in 1939 and one of their primary goals has been to educate the children. They realized several years ago that the property at 935 Ferndale Street North was not accomplishing that goal because the building was not large enough. They started building at the 15th street and Century Avenue corner in Oakdale and they are now in the last stage of a three-stage process. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -6- Father Hart said the Archdiocese of St. Paul/Minneapolis is strongly dedicated to senior housing. He was at a meeting a few months ago where that fact was reiterated. When the church started looking at selling the property they decided senior housing would make a lot of sense to the neighborhood but also to the community. They looked at several developers and when Nichols Development came forward with their proposal, the church had people review the sites that Nichols Development were involved with. One of the church's fears was that someone would buy the property and they would have a building that would be half full and the building would not be used to the fullest. Then the neighbors would be really upset that the building was not full. The church looked at their goal to have senior housing and this plan made sense to the church to go this direction with a company that had a proven track record. Mr. Armstrong gave a brief description of the Nichols Development and then introduced Ms. Dena Rae Meyer. Ms. Dena Rae Meyer, Director of Sales and Marketing, Nichols Development, 350 West Burnsville Parkway, Burnsville, addressed the commission. Nichols Development started mentioning Summerhill of Maplewood in their ads and because of that she has received approximately 50 telephone calls inquiring about this development proposal in Maplewood. Those people are from the Maplewood community and 5 of those callers want to put money down now to reserve a unit. Two of the five callers live in the immediate area and want to stay in the immediate area. As part of the HUD requirement there cannot be anyone younger than 55 years old living here. Because the people that would live in this building would be part owners they take great pride in both the inside and outside of the building. They have taken comments from the neighborhood and are now going to put screened in porches off the decks of the units. Other developments would love to have screened in porches with the bugs in Minnesota, this allows people to enjoy the outdoors longer. They will have nine-foot ceilings, full sized washers and dryers in each unit and the square footage has ranged from 1,100 to 1,800 in some of their other developments, however, in Maplewood the units would be a bit smaller. There is a great room for gatherings, fitness center, guest suite, underground heated parking and a car wash. Security is an important concern with residents and they take great pride in the extra security. Every resident receives a key card that allows them entrance to the building and garage. These key cards are individually programmed in case someone looses their key card then one card can be programmed instead of having to re-key the whole building. A lot of residents that take up residence in Summerhill buildings go south for the winter. Many also have cabins and are gone most of the summer. For this reason there is less traffic coming and going from the building and traffic concerns shouldn't be a problem. Mr. Armstrong said Summerhill has built units in Eden Prairie, which is a 44-unit building that opened in 2001, Summerhill of Bloomington, which is a 44-unit building that opened in January 2002, Summerhill of Apple Valley with 70-units that opened in November 2003, they will be breaking ground in October for Summerhill of Cottage Grove for a 56-unit building and are currently working on a building in Hamline Park in St. Paul for a 44-unit building and they are looking at some additional communities as well. He added the Nichols Development has listened to the community with their concerns and have made several changes including moving the building, reducing the number of units from 52 to 44 units, and reducing the size of the building from four stories to three stories. They have also reduced the slope of the building and are screening the decks, as well as some other changes. Mr. Armstrong introduced the architect, Mr. Link Wilson and asked him to come forward. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -7- Mr. Link Wilson, Architect, Miller Hanson Partners, 1201 Hawthorne Avenue, Minneapolis, addressed the commission. Miller Hanson Partners, a housing design firm was established in 1939. They have a long track record with the Nichols Development and are aware of the problems and concerns that arise with designing and constructing buildings in different communities. Mr. Wilson reviewed the building design plans for both the audience and the commission. Chairperson Fischer asked with the reduction of units from 52 to 44 units, how many units had one bedroom verses two bedrooms? Mr. Armstrong said with the 44-unit building they are proposing to have 12 one-bedroom, one- bath units, 18 two-bedroom, two-bath units, and 14 one-bedroom, plus a den and a bath units. Ms. Finwall said the applicant could get up to 46 units without any density bonuses with this proposal. Commissioner Dierich asked if the applicant went to a flat roof with a mansard edge on it how much lower would that make the building for the neighborhood? Mr. Wilson said it is not a style that they prefer and he spends a lot of time out on construction sites and he sees roof leaks and problems with that style of roof. Flat roofs do not last as long and they have problems with ice dams. From the mid point of the roof you would gain about 8 feet but with a mansard edge that would change it to about 5 feet. In his opinion, a flat roof would not be as visually appealing on this building design. Commissioner Dierich said because this neighborhood was built in the 1950's many apartment buildings at that time had a garden level. She asked if they could have a garden level in this building to lower the building. Mr. Wilson said in his experience this type of homebuyer would not particularly like to live in a half submerged home. With a garden level home a person could not have a deck or screened porch either. There are also security issues to deal with for the seniors, and buyers like their units built up and off the ground. Commissioner Dierich asked what the average income level was for people that buy these types of units? Ms. Meyer said off hand she did not know the average income level, however, HUD requires that individuals can't spend more than 46% of their annual income on their monthly carrying charges, which range from $1,000 to $1,500 a month. Commissioner Bartol said the gables are stepped back and he is not sure what Commissioner Dierich was trying to accomplish with a mansard roof because that casts a greater shadow because the mansard roof adds an immediate four feet where a gable roof ads a gradual 8 feet. Mr. Wilson said they have a 4-12 slope and a shadow cast off of that would be less than a mansard roof. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -8- Commissioner Pearson asked if the underground parking would ingress and egress from the north? Mr. Wilson said that is correct. Commissioner Pearson asked if they planned on having a "safe room" for the residents? Mr. Wilson said the garage is considered to be a (S3) structure and is made of 12-inch reinforced concrete block and has a 12-inch precast concrete lid on it. If there were a tornado, he believes the entire neighborhood would want to be in the underground garage because it would be a very safe place to be. Commissioner Pearson asked if the 18 foot-wide garage door on the north side needed to be required to handle 100 mph winds? Mr. Wilson said the 18 foot-wide garage door probably could not withstand the 100 mph winds. However, there are two different egress and ingress to the garage and there are safe refuge areas within the garage area. Commissioner Trippler said as part of any type of retirement community he would be looking at pathways and other recreational areas for seniors to enjoy. He asked where the trail shown on the plans led? Mr. Wilson said the trail connects to the sidewalk. This is also a way into the Nature Center and is also a way for emergency vehicles to gain access to the property by driving on the sidewalk. Commissioner Trippler asked if there would be any benches for people to sit on around the grounds? He also asked if the water shown on the plans were ponds or would they be storm catch basins? Mr. Wilson said those are not ponds they are more of an overflow. There will be a playground area for the neighborhood as well as visitors or relatives of the residents. There is also a patio area for residents to enjoy. About 1/3 of the floor area in these buildings is common area. It is a community room, guest suite, business center, office, craft room, a billiard room etc. Commissioner Trippler asked what the size of the patio area was because it looked quite small. Ms. Meyer said it is not a patio it's a four-season gazebo with some soft seating and a big screen television and outside of the gazebo is a slab of concrete with some exterior seating and a gas grill. They wait until the residents move in and get comfortable and allow the residents to have input as to where they believe the benches should be placed instead of placing them haphazardly. Mr. Wilson said his design plan did not show this gazebo that Ms. Meyer is referring to but it will be brought to the community design review board at their meeting for review. Commissioner Bartol said in Mr. Wilson's defense he would venture to say the drawing shown was put together very quickly for tonight's meeting? Mr. Wilson said correct. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -9- Commissioner Bartol asked about the ramp going down into the underground garage. He is concerned with ice and Minnesota winters and would like Mr. Wilson to address that. Mr. Wilson said the ramp is four foot, six inches out of the ground and the building is up and out of the ground. However, the slope is still steep at about 9% grade and you don't want to go over 10%. The slope is on the north side of the building and they have experienced two different ways of dealing with ice. They have installed a Wirsbo system, which he doesn't prefer because that type of system can be punctured by trash vehicles. They have also installed some thick electrical cables that can heat the ground, which helps to keep ice off the slope. Commissioner Grover said given the residential density in the area he asked if there were other styles of development that Summerhill has built that are not so dominating in presence so that the building would be more in line with the architecture and the layout? Mr. Wilson welcomed commissioners to visit the Summerhill buildings around the twin cities. Each building is different and even though the same architect designed the buildings you would never guess it because each building is so unique. They try to suit the buildings to the neighborhood along with building materials and colors and there are also cost issues that they have to deal with when designing a building. You are also locked into certain design features with cars parking underground and homes above that. Commissioner Bartol said another issue with trying to fit 44 units in a building, is you have to build at least two levels if not three levels otherwise your building pad takes up a large portion of the property. Remember we are talking about senior housing and typically seniors don't want to walk far or have to go up and down stairs so you have to install elevators. You really can't spread a building out and make it look less oppressive and still have elevator access. This is about the only design you could have and accomplish 44 units. The following Maplewood residents spoke at the public hearing: 1. Jay Hruby, 2659 Harvester Avenue. 2. Gene Kunde, 937 Glendon Street North. 3. Margaret Kunde, 937 Glendon Street North. 4. Janel & John Heroff, 940 Ferndale Street North. 5. Laura Schweiker, 2607 Harvester Avenue. 6. Abby Bour, 957 Edith Street. 7. Dave Picard, 2672 Harvester Avenue East. 8. Kristen Bowers, 2677 Harvester Avenue East. 9. Willard Ginkel 1001 Ferndale Street North. 10. Frank Fleischlacker, 2650 Harvester Avenue. 1. Jay Hruby, 2659 Harvester Avenue He is not against senior housing. The developer is asking the city to change this property from the lowest zoning possible Single Family (S) to the highest zoning possible (High Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3H). He and his neighbors are against this proposal even with the revised scale of the building from a four story to a three-story building and from the 52 units to the reduction of 44 units. The city has zoning for a good reason and this building is still inappropriate for this neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -10- Mr. Hruby is also concerned about the increase in traffic since the current location is vacant 25% of the year. In 1999 the City of Maplewood and the residents paid very good money in tax dollars and assessments to have a cul-de-sac on Harvester Avenue on the west end. That cul-de-sac was specifically to reduce traffic in the area and now the developer wants to build this development, which would add another 60 cars a day. That is a very strong about face from the intention of the city's policy to cul-de-sac Harvester Avenue to reduce traffic. The school does not have a gymnasium or any sport fields so there are no extracurricular activities taking place. 2. Gene Kunde, 937 Glendon Street North. He lives directly across from this proposal. He asked what the height, width, and length of this proposed building was? (Ms. Finwall said the height is 37 feet high and she didn't know the width and length off hand.) He asked the commission how they would like looking out their door everyday and face this large building? It takes away all his privacy and that's the reason they moved into Maplewood to begin with. They knew the school was there but there wasn't traffic in the area. 3. Margaret Kunde, 937 Glendon Street North. The developer did a beautiful job designing the building and she appreciates all the work they did in the building proposal, but it doesn't belong in this neighborhood. You should not change the zoning for this either. She appreciated the commission allowing her to speak her peace and Maplewood would make a big mistake by granting this building to be built and changing the zoning. 4. Janel & John Heroff, 940 Ferndale Street North. They live directly across from the driveway of the proposed project. If this building were built with three stories you would be looking into her back and her front yard because their house is a 1¼- story house. They moved into this neighborhood 29 years ago near a school so they could raise their children in Maplewood. This is a neighborhood that needs to stay single family residential. They have lived by the school building, which is 1½-stories tall because one level is at garden level. She is concerned about the trees on the nature center side and she believes those trees will be damaged during the construction process. Those trees are hundreds of years old and she doesn't believe the city can afford to damage the nature center because it is a "jewel" in Maplewood! They have been knocking on doors and talking to their neighbors. They have been collecting signatures for a petition against the development and have 42 signatures. Some people could not be here tonight and some people did not respond to the survey they were sent. She presented the petition to Chairperson Fischer and passed it around and then gave it to staff for the record. Mr. and Mrs. Heroff said this has been a wonderful experience going door to door and meeting the people in the neighborhood. She can live with a two story senior housing building but not with a three or four story building. She agrees with senior housing and she agrees with senior housing in that location but not a building that size. She is a senior and she could not afford to move into the building. According to the pricing sheet it costs $150,000 a unit. She doesn't believe that the seniors that live in the neighborhood are going to be able to afford to sell their homes and move into units that cost this much either. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -11- Laura Schweiker, 2607 Harvester Avenue. She did not sign the petition that came around their neighborhood because she did not know all the details, but that is why she is here tonight. She is concerned what "would be" built in this location if this senior housing building were not approved. Realistically the church is going to sell the property and prefers the property would be a park but that is not going to happen. She would rather have senior housing across the street rather than Section 8 housing. The residents have to be real careful what they wish for in their neighborhood. She grew up in the neighborhood and she and her husband bought her parents house because they love the neighborhood. You have to be realistic that changes are going to happen. They just don't want a huge building built across the street. She is concerned where the garbage dumpsters would go and where the mechanical equipment would be. People have said nothing happens at the school 25% of the time. The reality is the school has activities all year long day and night. The traffic is not as much of a concern to her as much as what is going to be built there. (Ms. Finwall replied that the property could be used by another type of school without any city approvals including a charter or junior high school.) 6. Abby Bour, 957 Edith Street. She believes the neighborhood could use a nice park for the children to play. Currently children have to cross two major intersections to play at the park. The Nature Center is lovely and they walk down there. She understands there is a small park planned with this proposal and she would welcome that. She wants something to be put there that would increase her home value and she believes this proposal would increase the value, as any new construction would increase the value of the neighborhood. She and her husband have done many improvements to their home and they don't want anything to go in that would decrease her home value. She doesn't want to look at this building and thinks that is not aesthetically pleasing nor does she want to drive down the street and look at this building either. She would welcome senior homes or townhomes in the area. 7. Dave Picard, 2672 Harvester Avenue East. He said he had several conversations with Ms. Finwall and found her to be impartial to the proposal and very informative with the questions he asked. Ms. Finwall also spent a lot of time sending information out to residents, way beyond the 500 feet that is required. North St. Paul closed their library because they did not have enough money to run it any longer. This property is 2.13 acres of land that they want to put senior housing on and the only other cooperative nearby is in North St. Paul and is on about 2 acres and on a busy road. Mr. Picard said the Cardinal Pointe cooperative in north Maplewood is on 5 acres and other high rises are on even more acreage. This would be the only senior housing (he could find) that would be surrounded by residential homes. Because of this, the residents find this difficult to handle having this development on such a small piece of land. Mr. Picard said if this was zoned 1:{-2 he would have nothing against it. He still likes the idea of having a library in this location. (Commissioner Bartol said he is confident that having a library in this location would increase the traffic more than the proposed senior housing would.) Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -12- 8. Kristen Bowers, 2677 Harvester Avenue East. She has a great concern for the residents on Ferndale Street because those residents will virtually have no sun shining on their property. She is "for" senior housing and she realizes something will have to go there. R-2 zoning would not be out of the question and this is a single- family neighborhood. Most people have ¼-acre lots so that lot is the size of four of their properties and the developer is talking about putting 44 units on the same size parcel. Most of the kids are bused to school and the parents do not drive the children, so there is not that much traffic. She would be interested in knowing the school's current building height compared to the proposed building height. (Commissioner Bartol said with the building setback and the landscape the senior building may look nicer than what is currently there.) (Ms. Finwall added that the building would be setback 30 feet from the right-of-way with an overall setback of 90-115 feet from residential property.) (Commissioner Trippler asked staff to let the residents know what R-2 zoning meant since it has been referred to so many times this evening.) (Ms. Finwall said she believes residents meant to say (R-3M) which means medium density and they could have 27 units. R-2 zoning is double dwelling residential which would allow for duplexes and would require 12,000 square feet per double unit and they could have up to 16 units or 8 double dwellings on this property under that zoning.) 9. Willard Ginkel, 1001 Ferndale Street North. He said they live in the speedway of Minnesota! The church is going to sell this land regardless if it is a high-rise or something else. There could be affordable housing built here just like in Beaver Lake. The residents need to be very careful what they wish for on this piece of property. Instead of the property benefiting anyone, it could end up being a detriment to the community. 10. Frank Fleischlacker, 2650 Harvester Avenue. He is trying to raise a family of five kids and it is a nice area for kids to ride their bike. Now you are talking about increasing the traffic and it would be unsafe for the kids to ride their bike. He moved here to raise the kids in a nice residential neighborhood. Mr. Fleischlacker said the school is closed in the summer and he likes that. His backyard is the best part of the house and now he can't have pit fires in his backyard because it will bother people in the senior housing who would complain about it. This is absurd, and why don't you people think of the families. Commissioner Trippler said he likes the idea of senior housing. This is an attractive design in his opinion. He appreciates that the applicant tried to listen to the neighborhood's concerns and reduced the height of the building. This neighborhood is unified in character, all R-l, fairly uniform in size, well maintained and in a quiet neighborhood. The proposal is an excellent proposal but he doesn't think it fits in this neighborhood and for that reason he will vote no. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -13- Commissioner Mueller assumed if the developer was asked to build a two-story building that it would not be financially feasible. If a two-story building were built, it would have to be spread out over a larger area of the property, which would not be the answer either. Mr. Armstrong said they could not make a two-story senior cooperative building financially feasible on the site. Commissioner Mueller said he knows the church wanted to build a senior cooperative on the site but he wanted to know what they would do if that did not happen? It sounds like the residents don't want it built in their neighborhood. He asked if the church had other options? Father Hart said when they first looked into selling the property they hired a developer to market the property. Some of the proposals that were put forth were another church renovating the building, one developer was going to expand it and turn it into a senior property, and other than that the church doesn't have a plan b. He is a neighborhood resident as well and lives kitty corner from the proposed area. It is not as quiet of a neighborhood as the residents have stated. There are loud cars that go up and down the street with loud radios, pipes on their cars and frankly he does not think it is a very quiet neighborhood. Regarding the traffic, there are lots of activities that occur in the church during the summer and on the weekends. The traffic would be less if the senior housing were to be built than the traffic that occurs now. Commissioner Dierich admitted she and her family are members of the Transfiguration Church and her kids attended school all eight years so she is very aware of the traffic situation. She likes the idea of the senior housing and she likes it in this neighborhood. She has a mother that could not afford to buy a unit in the coop at this price. She likes the idea of a senior coop however, because this is high density it does not belong in this neighborhood. On the other hand, given the fact that the church would be having this land developed it would be built well just like the Transfiguration school was done well. The developer would do their best to meet the neighbors' concerns and needs. She would like to see the architect be more flexible with the design especially with the height of the building and having a garden level could shave height off the building. She would not want to look at a three-story building either even though she already looks at three story homes in her neighborhood. She would strongly recommend that Transfiguration and the developer withdraw for the time being and work with the neighborhood a little longer. Commissioner Bartol said the need for senior housing is going to increase. The seniors are increasing and they are going to need to live somewhere. If not in a neighborhood that is vastly R-1 zoned, then where? Does the city lump all the multiple level, high density or high-rise buildings in one area? Then you will really have a traffic problem. He thinks this is an ideal place for senior housing because of the location and the Nature Center. If not senior housing then what should be built in this location? It may be 8 duplexes. They may be three story duplexes, they wouldn't be a setback like this building would have, it wouldn't have a playground area, and it probably wouldn't have nice landscaping or sitting areas outside. It is not going to stay a school and it won't be a park. Commissioner Bartol said as far as the traffic count estimates are that would equal one car every ten minutes. It would be a benefit to the neighborhood and it would increase the property value in the neighborhood. They would be very quiet neighbors and he would vote "for" this proposal. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -14- Commissioner Mueller said as a planning commission does the commission have any authority to say how tall a house can be built on this property? Ms. Finwall said no. Commissioner Mueller said having a senior building in this location would be nice, close to the Nature Center and with this being a family neighborhood with children, seniors love children, it would be a great combination and a great way to make "community". Commissioner Pearson said he serves on the HRA (housing redevelopment authority) and this proposal tugs on his heartstrings. The HRA has tried to provide senior housing in the City of Maplewood. There is going to be a tremendous shortage of senior housing. He lives across the street from Lakeview Senior Housing and it has less of a setback than what this proposal would have. It's less attractive than this proposal and when the building was built the CDRB did not look at where the mechanical equipment would go so consequently he has to listen to the mechanical units. All in all they are good neighbors to live next to. They keep the property up and the traffic on Maryland Avenue is ten times more than this neighborhood would ever see. He has a hard time going against such a large block of neighbors whose will is to keep the neighborhood as it is and to keep the existing zoning what it is. Even though this is a good proposal and development he has to vote against it and "with" the neighbors. Commissioner Mueller said he likes this proposal and it would do great things for the property but he has a hard time going against "the people". Commissioner Dierich said senior housing is a good idea and the neighbors are saying maybe if you made it two stories they may approve of the proposal. She reviewed the findings of fact document for this proposal and based on these findings this is the reason she is not voting for this. Ms. Finwall did a great job working on this proposal and working with the neighborhood, as did the Nichols Development. Chairperson Fischer said a person raising a family might look at having this development in their neighborhood differently than someone who is a senior and looking for a development to move into. For seniors this development has a lot of amenities that a person would be looking for. The population for seniors is increasing and they will be looking for housing. Many times people that have family in Maplewood want to move here to be closer to family members. Commissioner Mueller asked what the timeframe was for this development with the city process? Ms. Finwall said the city has to process this within 60 days, which would be September 21,2004, unless the applicant agrees to an extension. Mr. Armstrong said that is a complex question because there is a series of steps that need to be completed. They need to close on the land so Transfiguration Church can move forward with their construction. Transfiguration would keep the elementary school open one more year and then the building would be demolished next summer so they could begin construction. He is concerned about the comments from the neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -15- Mr. Armstrong said first they proposed a four-story building. The neighbors were concerned about the height of the building so Nichols Development agreed to reduce it to three stories. Now the neighbors say if it was a two-story building they would be more agreeable but what guarantee does the developer have that they won't ask for another change and never come to an agreement? It's disheartening. The other Summerhill sites that they have built projects on have been smaller than 2.16 acres in size with similar number of units and others larger in size with more units. He would ask the commission to consider the three-story building and Nichols Development would continue to make modifications and work with the neighbors. They could reduce the height from nine-foot ceilings to eight-foot ceilings. It is possible to have a flat roof but there are too many problems with ice dams and roof problems. He has that problem himself at his home and would not want to see this building encounter similar problems. Commissioner Mueller moved to at~preve deny the comprehensive land use change from School (S) to High Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3H) for the property at 935 Ferndale Street. Commissioner Mueller moved to ~dopt deny the rezoning from Single Dwelling Residential (R-1) to Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3) for the property located at 935 Ferndale Street..) The reason for Commissioner Mueller's denial was the community was overwhelmingly not in favor of the development and despite his approval of the development, his vote is based on the neighbors concerns for their neighborhood. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Grover, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler Nays- Bartol, Fischer, Lee Abstention - Dierich The motion is denied. This item goes to the city council on September 13, 2004. Commissioners Desai, Grover and Trippler said they did not vote for this item because they did not feel this was a good fit in the neighborhood. Commissioners Mueller and Pearson said they voted against this item because they listened to the concerns of the neighborhood and voted with the wishes of the residents. Commissioners Bartol, Fischer, and Lee thought this was a good proposal and a good fit in the neighborhood. The planning commission took a short recess. b. Cottages at Legacy Village (Hazelwood Street) Mr. Roberts said Larry Aim, representing Southwind Builders, is proposing to build 33 for-sale townhomes on a 4.6-acre site on the east side of Hazelwood Street, south of County Road D. The project is between Hazelwood Street and the recently approved Heritage Square part of the Legacy Village PUD. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -16- Commissioner Trippler asked staff if they knew how much the developer paid for the three southerly properties on Hazelwood Street? Mr. Roberts said no he did not. Commissioner Trippler asked why the city would pay $650,000 for two properties and then turn around and do the demolition and pay the developer a lot of money? Mr. Roberts said staff became concerned when the two northerly properties weren't interested in being redeveloped and did not want to sell. But through some extended negotiations with the developer and the homeowners the city was able to buy those properties based on the values set by appraisals. One reason was for Legacy Parkway to go all the way through the development area, which was important for traffic flow. Secondly, the city didn't want to leave two existing homes in the area and felt it was important to include the properties in the redevelopment of the area. Mr. Cavett said the main reason was because it was important for the Legacy Parkway connection from a traffic standpoint. The city felt the wisest thing to do with the land use was to purchase these homes and not leave two existing homes in this new development area. As part of the city's approved tax abatement plan for the area this pays for the assessments, demolition, grading, as well as the purchase price of the two homes. As this area develops it will be a higher tax base than the single-family homes that existed. That is how this is financially feasible for the city to work with the developer to make this happen. Commissioner Trippler said the city paid $650,000 for the two properties and then they will turn around and sell that to the developer and the developer will pay the city $150,000 when the city paid $650,000 for the same property? After that the city is going to buy back the Legacy Parkway right-of-way for $50,000? The way this reads the city took a $500,000 loss here and as a taxpayer that makes him angry. Mr. Cavett said he cannot speak to the financial details but he can answer questions the commission may have. Chairperson Fischer said with this being redevelopment in the city why didn't this go through the Housing Redevelopment Authority (HRA)? Mr. Roberts said he wasn't sure and he would have to ask Chuck Ahl and Melinda Coleman about that with the tax abatement plans. Commissioner Bartol said the land purchase and sales information on page 5 of the staff report is basically a history of what has happened. It has already taken place and the commission can question why it happened that way but nothing can be undone because it has already occurred. Mr. Roberts said from his understanding that is correct. Commissioner Bartol said it would influence his position and he felt this proposal is incredibly dense. There is a nearby park but people would have to cross Legacy Parkway to get there. He was wondering if the city could encourage the developer to reduce the density and put in a small park to accommodate younger children that cannot cross Legacy Parkway. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -17- Mr. Roberts said there is some green space on the plan but not a lot. From what he understood, the market for this development is for empty nesters or young people that don't have children yet therefore, a park wouldn't be necessary in this development. Commissioner Grover asked what the density comparison was for both developments? Mr. Roberts said on page 2 of the staff report it states the 33 units on the 4.6-acre site means there would be 7.2 units per gross acre. This project density is less than the maximum density standard in the comprehensive plan for town houses. For comparison, the Heritage Square town houses to the east of this site will have 220 units on 19.8 acres, which is an average of 11.1 units per acre. Commissioner Dierich asked staff if it was typical to include things as stated on page 5 because that's where the question comes up whether this is tax procedural or not. As a taxpayer she is really upset by this information that the city spent $650,000 on this and the reasoning behind it. She asked if the city was going to get that money back? Mr. Cavett said he is not an authority on tax abatement issues but the $650,000 is not money that exists today. It is money that would be created by a higher tax base that would not exist if this development did not take place. It is not costing the Maplewood residents any money. Mr. Roberts said also this money is not coming out of the housing redevelopment fund. Commissioner Grover asked if the ratios shown on page 2 of the staff report in the bottom paragraph referred to the 4.6 acres? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Trippler said on page 9 of the staff report, number 13 it says side yard building setbacks for all buildings that are less than required by the zoning code. He asked staffto tell him what the side yard setbacks would be without an approved PUD? Mr. Roberts said for a single-family home the setback it is 10 feet to living space and he thinks these are about 5 or 6 feet from the property line between the units. Chairperson Fischer asked if the variance would be for each unit or just some of the units? Mr. Roberts said a variance isn't needed for every unit but he didn't analyze the exact setback for each unit. However, item 12 and 13 of the conditions together on page 9 are essentially approving a PUD rather than approving a bunch of variances for each lot and block. Commissioner Dierich said she drew a revised site plan showing the garages in a different location and asked if there was a reason the developer did not use an alternate plan? Mr. Roberts said that is something the developer could bring up when he comes forward to address the commission. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -18- Mr. Larry Aim, Southwind Builders, 5960 Highway 61 North, White Bear Township, addressed the commission. He said he visits many different cities and the commission's input is very important. He asked Commissioner Dierich to state what she would like to see changed for this plan? Commissioner Dierich said she would like to see the porches all facing each other in the center and green space in the middle. As long as the city is going to do a PUD why don't you move the driveway to the edges of the development and have the common green space in the middle of the homes. Her plan showed 26 homes on the plan with the garages on the edge of the development. Mr. Roberts said he's only guessing but he believed that Commissioner Dierich's plan would have more impervious surface than the plan proposed by the developer. Mr. Aim said they looked at using a plan similar to Commissioner Dierich's but it ended up having too many curb cuts. The reason for this plan is this way you only look out onto green space and onto other people's porches, not at driveways. He said they have had fairly good luck in other cities with this concept shown to the commission. Commissioner Grover asked staff if this plan was consistent with the other developments in Legacy Village? He said if his memory serves him the garages were behind the developments with an alley between the developments. Mr. Roberts said the Legacy Village plan includes a mixture of units and styles. Commissioner Dierich said she likes the style of the homes but she is concerned about the homes on Hazelwood Street. Because the street has fast traffic she does not see people sitting out on their front porches watching the traffic. Flipping those units around would provide a sound buffer for those units. The thought is to keep everybody tied to the neighborhood and that was the design for the whole plat. When you have units facing out there is not the feeling of community. Some of the units may need to be reconfigured even though you would still have the same amount of units. Mr. Aim said he had hoped the speed limit on Hazelwood Street would be about 30 mph. His goal was to connect everything with sidewalks because there is a regional trail there. He grew up on a busy street with a front porch so he is kind of callous to that type of situation. Regarding space between units, typical residential homes are five feet on the garage side and ten feet on the home. These units are 16 feet apart but when you talk about lot size in a townhome project, the home is only a little bit smaller than the lot. The rest is common area but the space between units is consistent with a typical single family home. Commissioner Trippler asked if these were considered individual homes or townhomes? Mr. Aim said these are individual homes but with a townhome association. It gives the buyer the chance to buy a single family home but still live within the confines and keep their home value up. The outside area will be sprinklered and maintained by an association and the homeowner will pay a monthly fee for that service. Commissioner Dierich asked if the motions could be separated into three different motions. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -19- Commissioner Mueller moved to adopt the resolution on page 35 of the staff report. This resolution approves a change to the comprehensive land use plan from BC (business commercial) to R-3H (high density residential) for a 4.6-acre site for the Cottages at Legacy Village on Hazelwood Street. The city is approving this change because: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. This change would eliminate an area that the city had once planned for commercial uses that is between two residential areas. This change would allow for a town house that would be more compatible and in character with the adjacent townhome development. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential use. This includes: a. It is on a collector street and is near arterial streets. b. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 5. It would be consistent with the proposed land use. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - All Commissioner Dierich moved to adopt the resolution on pages 36-38 of the staff report. This resolution approves the 33-unit Cottages at Legacy Village PUD (planned unit development) on Hazelwood Street. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall follow the plans date-stamped July 22, 2004, except where the city requires changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall meet the requirements noted in Erin Laberee's memo dated August 6, 2004. 5. The applicant shall sign a development agreement with the city before the city issues a grading permit. 6. The applicant shall provide a copy of the homeowner's association documents to staff for approval. 7. The developer or contractor shall construct the project according to the plans date-stamped July 22, 2004, except as specifically modified by these conditions. Planning Commission -20- Minutes of 08-16-04 8. The developer shall add sidewalks and sidewalk connections in locations that city staff decides are necessary. 9. The developer or builderwill provide parking spaces at the ends of the driveways wherever they may fit. 10.The developer or builder shall install a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk on the east side of Hazelwood Street for the entire length of the project. 11.The grades of the power line trail and all public sidewalks will meet ADA guidelines for slope. 12. Provide a revised landscape plan for city staff approval. This revised plan shall include: a. Increasing the tree size to 2¼ inches from (2 inches). b. Changing the Colorado Spruce to Black Hills Spruce or Austrian Pines (or a mix of these two species). c. The developer should coordinate the landscaping materials and designs along Legacy Parkway and Hazelwood Street to make sure that they are compatible with the approved landscape designs for Heritage Square and Kennard Street. d. Overstory trees to be planted along both sides of Legacy Parkway and along Hazelwood Street shall be set at an average of 30-to-40-feet on center. 13.AII setbacks are approved as shown on the plans date-stamped July 22, 2004. 14. Side yard building setbacks for all buildings that are less than required by the zoning code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan date-stamped July 22, 2004. 15. The applicant or developer shall provide visitor-parking spaces at the minimum quantity of one-half space per townhome unit. This works out to a minimum of 17 required visitor parking. 16.An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. 17. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - All Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -21- Commissioner Dierich moved to ~ deny the preliminary plat for the Cottages of Legacy Village (date-stamped July 22, 2004), subject to the following conditions: (changes are in bold and deletions are stricken.) 1. The applicant shall meet the requirements in the assistant city engineer's report dated August 6, 2004. 2. The applicant shall sign a developer's agreement with the city engineer before the city issues a grading permit. 3. The applicant shall dedicate any easements and provide any written agreements that the city engineer may require as part of this plat. 4. The applicant shall pay the city escrow for any documents, easements and agreements that the city engineer may require that may not be ready by the time of plat signing. 5. The applicant shall pay the city $150,000 for the property now owned by the city. The reason for her denial of item C. is Commissioner Dierich would like to see the developer re-look at the orientation of the homes, the amount of driveway and the curb cuts into Hazelwood Street. The motion failed for a lack of second. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the preliminary plat for the Cottages of Legacy Village (date-stamped July 22, 2004), subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall meet the requirements in the assistant city engineer's report dated August 6, 2004. 2. The applicant shall sign a developer's agreement with the city engineer before the city issues a grading permit. 3. The applicant shall dedicate any easements and provide any written agreements that the city engineer may require as part of this plat. 4. The applicant shall pay the city escrow for any documents, easements and agreements that the city engineer may require that may not be ready by the time of plat signing. 5. The applicant shall pay the city $150,000 for the property now owned by the city. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes - Bartol, Desai, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler Nay- Dierich This item goes to the CDRB on August 24, 2004, and to the city council on September 13, 2004. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -22- VII. NEW BUSINESS a. Hillside Estates (Springside Drive) Ms. Finwall said John Poirier is requesting preliminary plat approval from the City of Maplewood in order to subdivide his 1.6-acre parcel into three new lots. One lot will have street frontage on Linwood Avenue and two lots will have street frontage on a cul-de-sac extension of Springside Drive. All three lots will be developed with future single-family homes. City staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and rezoning from (F) to (R-1). Commissioner Trippler said there are a lot of very old trees on the property and he asked how many of those old trees would be removed to build these single-family homes? Ms. Finwall said according to the tree plan there are 85 large trees on that lot mainly located on the east side of the property along Linwood Avenue and several trees are in the area where the cul-de- sac will be constructed. The City of Maplewood would be doing the road construction project and the city is committed to saving as many trees as possible. Commissioner Trippler asked why the city was building the cul-de-sac? Mr. Cavett said residents can petition the city to ask for help with improvements as part of a public improvement project. The benefits are assessed back to the benefiting properties. This process can be done privately or publicly. It is the city's preference that the infrastructure is done by the city so they can supervise and inspect the construction. Mr. Poirier petitioned the city as a majority property owner, however, the city doesn't see many of these requests. Commissioner Trippler asked how much this would cost? Mr. Cavett said this would cost about $160,000 to remove the temporary and construct the new street and cul-de-sac. The vast majority of the project costs are being assessed to the benefiting properties. There is a portion that the city is covering but basically that is to remove the existing temporary cul-de-sac. The $160,000 includes project costs, administrative costs, and engineering costs. Of that the majority is being assessed to the benefiting properties. As part of the construction, the contractor would not mass grade the site. A minimal amount of grading will take place and the lots will be filled in later. Commissioner Dierich said the commission has always been told the existing homes set the setback. If this is the case does lot 3 need a variance because the house is actually set by the lot that is next to it? Ms. Finwall said it would require a front setback authorization from the city. The existing house to the east is setback further and the existing house on the west is also setback further. This is just a concept and the commission should approve the preliminary plat and not the location of the homes. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to come forward and address the commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -23- Mr. John Poirier from Woodbury, addressed the commission. He said Ms. Finwall and Mr. Cavett have covered everything for him and he has no questions for the commission. Chairperson Fischer asked if he had any problems with the conditions listed in the staff report? Mr. Poirier said no he did not. Commissioner Mueller moved to adopt the rezoning resolution on page 18 of the staff report. This resolution changes the zoning map from Farm Residence (F) to Single Dwelling Residential (R-1) for the proposed Hillside Estates plat. The city is making this change because: a. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. ao The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. bo The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. Co The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. d. The owner plans to develop this property as single-family houses. Commissioner Mueller moved to approve the Hillside Estates preliminary plat date stamped July 14, 2004. Prior to final plat approval, the owner or developer must complete the following: a. Have the city's engineering department prepare the final construction drawings as specified in the city engineering department's August 5, 2004, engineering plan review. b. Prepare and submit to city staff for approval, easement documents for the required utility and drainage easements. Prior to issuance of a building permit for lots 1 through 3 the owner or developer must complete the following: a. Record the plat and utility and drainage easements. Submit grading and drainage plans for each new lot to be approved by the city's engineering department. The trading plan must reflect the preservation of as many large trees as possible. All large trees removed from the three lots must be replaced one-for-one, not to exceed 16 trees, as required by the city's tree preservation ordinance. Commissioner Bartol seconded. Ayes - Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. Planning Commission -24- Minutes of 08-16-04 This item goes to the city council on August 23, 2004. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. IX. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. X. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Trippler was the planning commission representative at the July 26, 2004, city council meeting. Mr. Trippler did not bring his notes to the meeting. Therefore, Mr. Roberts reported the only planning item was the Heritage Square second addition, which was approved. b. Mr. Bartol was the planning commission representative at the August 9, 2004, city council meeting, however he was called out of town, therefore Mr. Roberts reported on the meeting. Mr. Roberts said the first item was the CUP for Commercial Equipment Parking at 65 Larpenteur Avenue, which was approved. The second item was site plan and building design changes for Buffalo Wild Wings at the Chesapeake Retail Center, which was approved. c. Mr. Mueller will be the planning commission representative at the August 23, 2004, city council meeting. The only item to discuss is the Hillside Estates Preliminary Plat and Zoning Map Change for Springside Drive. d. Mr. Bartol will be the planning commission representative at the September 13, 2004, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the Summerhill Senior Housing and the Cottages at Legacy Village. XI. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Reschedule September 6, 2004, planning commission meeting The commission voted to reschedule the Monday, September 6, 2004, planning commission meeting to Wednesday, September 8, 2004. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-16-04 -25- b. Annual Tour Follow-up Mr. Roberts asked the commission for any follow up tour comments and told members they could e-mail him or telephone him with comments or suggestions for next year's tour. Xll. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:07 p.m.