Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/21/2005MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 21, 2005, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. March 7, 2005 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Ramsey County 800 Mhz Antenna Facility (645 Sterling Street South) Conditional Use Permit 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations March 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler March 28 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson? April 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Present Commissioner Eric Ahlness Present Commissioner Jeff Bartol Present Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Present Commissioner Mary Dierich Present Commissioner Michael Grover Present Commissioner Daniel Lee Present Commissioner Gary Pearson Present Commissioner Dale Trippler Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Erin Laberee, Staff Engineer III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Dierich seconded The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes -Ahlness, Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Pearson, Trippler Approval of the planning commission minutes for February 23, 2005. Chairperson Fischer had corrections on page 18, second paragraph, first sentence, under item c. Jessie Street Proposal. Insert the word on after the word sits. Commissioner Bartol had corrections on pages 4 and 8. In the fourth paragraph, second sentence, insert the word if in front of the second sentence. On the third line, change the first word the to that. On page 8, in the last paragraph, 8th sentence, it should now read: In his opinion eight-foot pine trees on fifteen-foot centers is lacks of creativity and is a minimalist approach. Commissioner Dierich moved to approve the planning commission minutes for February 23, 2005, as amended. Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 03-07-05 Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. Commissioner Bartol had questions regarding page 4, third paragraph, which states, Mr. Ekstrand said as part of the developers agreement for this entire project, the city council required that any development of the commercial lots maintain 350 feet setback from existing residential but the city council said the developer may go closer than the 350 foot setback for a new commercial building. Commissioner Bartol said he would like to see preexisting conditions like this included in the staff report to refer to as part of the background proposal. Mr. Perry Thorvig, Consultant, addressed the commission. Mr. Thorvig thought he had included that information in the report. V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Ramsey County 800 Mhz Antenna Facility (645 Sterling Street South) (7:06- 7:33 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Tim Mayasich, representing Ramsey County, is proposing to install a new 800 Mhz antenna facility at the existing water tower at 645 Sterling Street South. This proposal would include the addition of antennas to the top of the existing tower and a new prefabricated equipment building near the base of the water tower. Ramsey County would lease the property for the facility and use from the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (the owner of the site). Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Desai said in order for him to get a better understanding about the transmission tower he asked how this tower would compare to the radio tower on Highway 61 for KSTP and other radio stations. Mr. Roberts said he could not answer that and didn't believe Tim Mayasich who is present representing Ramsey County could answer that question either. Commissioner Desai said the reason he asked the question is he lives near the tower on Highway 61 and has a lot of interference from the radio tower. Including interference with his security system, garage door opener, microwave, and his telephone used to pick up KSTP radio on it. The problems still exist and he also had to buy expensive digital telephones for use in his house because of the interference but still has problems with the other equipment going on and off. Because he has lived here for 12 years and the problem still exists, he doesn't buy into the statement made in the staff report that there wouldn't be any problems with this tower. His concern is for the residents who live near this proposed tower location in south Maplewood. He believes there may be some electronic interference problems and he wants to make sure the neighbors are protected from future problems. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 03-07-05 Commissioner Bartol said he too lives close to a radio tower but he cannot definitively say that the problems he's experienced have occurred because of the tower. His gas fireplace has gone on and off by itself, his garage door opens and closes itself, he has had cell phone conversations come over his stereo system, police band broadcasting has come over his stereo system. He said he isn't convinced anyone could guarantee this neighborhood that similar activity wouldn't occur. As a commissioner he's concerned what the city's liability would be if problems occurred. He wondered whose expense it would be to fix the problem, Ramsey County or the City of Maplewood? Mr. Roberts said in reviewing the letter from Ramsey County Commissioner Victoria Reinhardt, she stated concerns about interference as well. The KSTP radio tower on Highway 61 operates continuously 24-hours a day, seven days a week at 50,000 watts and this tower in south Maplewood will be operated in short intervals at a very low frequency for emergency communications. While it's a radio system, it's a completely different systemfrom a commercial broadcast system such as KSTP. Commissioner Desai said maybe Ramsey County could do a survey to get a breakdown from the residents who live near radio towers that are scattered around Ramsey County to find out about existing problems that have occurred living close to the tower? This could help the neighbors' concern of potential problems living so close to the proposed tower. Mr. Roberts said he isn't sure if any of the other tower sites are online yet. Commissioner Trippler said he lives close to the KSTP tower as well and picks the station up on his telephone. He would like to understand more about the tower. He understands that this is for the emergency response system that would tie all emergency systems together. He asked if this new system would take over for the existing systems or if it was to be used for emergencies when all systems have to communicate together such as for a terrorist attack? Mr. Roberts said he understood that this system would take over for the current system that emergency response teams' use such as the systems used in police and emergency vehicles and on their belts. There are different channels on the system so Maplewood could use a channel different from any other city. If they need to coordinate something system wide, they can do that as well. Commissioner Dierich asked if the planning commission could delay this item so that the commission could get answers to their questions such as how this tower relates to the cell phone towers and radio towers as well as how the systems compare frequency and wattage wise so that the commission would understand what to anticipate with this tower. Mr. Roberts said the normal timeline would require the planning commission to act on this item tonight but if the applicant agrees to a time extension, it could then be delayed. Commissioner Pearson said he read the report from Ramsey County regarding the assurance of no interference but would like to include language in the recommendation so that in the event there are negative problems, Ramsey County would be responsible for the cost of fixing the problem and not the City of Maplewood or the homeowner. Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 03-07-05 Mr. Roberts said including definitive language in the recommendation would be a good idea. Commissioner Trippler said he thinks that's a good idea as well but he is concerned that the city doesn't have the authority to do anything even if there is a problem. He asked if the city's hands were tied by federal statute? Mr. Roberts said he believes that could be a condition in the conditional use permit but he isn't sure the city has the authority to say, for example, that Ramsey County has to fix the problem or the city would shut them down. Commissioner Ahlness said the city has to be aware that the FCC regulates the use of the airwaves and the 800 Mhz system is reserved for use by emergency responders. He knows that the government is coming out with new communications at 100 GHz which happens to be the same frequency that many garage door companies use for garage door openers. As frequency management becomes more complex we will run into these problems. The FCC is the regulating agency and at this frequency range this is a government use for emergency response to protect the citizens in the event of an emergency or for use on a daily basis for emergencies. Ramsey County Commissioner Victoria Reinhardt's letter states that this 800 Mhz system is similar to a cell phone tower so there would be nominal interference but it's not going to be a 50,000 watt radio tower that is going to be overrunning all the stations like the tower on Highway 61 so the neighborhood impact would be drastically less than a radio tower. Commissioner Bartol said in that same letter on page 23, second paragraph from the bottom in the staff report, Ms. Reinhardt indicated if there was interference Ramsey County would work to resolve the problem. He agrees specific verbiage would be well advised to include in the recommendation for the conditional use permit. Commissioner Dierich agreed with the comments made. She is concerned that Ramsey County may come back to the city and ask the city how they know the problems are occurring because of their tower and not because of another tower. If the planning commission decides to put that type of language into the recommendation she would recommend asking Ramsey County to have some type of a survey of the surrounding area to make sure people aren't experiencing interference problems already. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Tim Mayasich, representing Ramsey County Public Works Department, addressed the commission. He sensed many questions and concerns by the planning commission and he would recommend that the commission table this item so Ramsey County could bring a consultant to the next planning commission meeting because their schedule allows this item to be delayed. Commissioner Trippler asked if Ramsey County would be willing to add additional trees to the south to visually block this structure? Mr. Mayasich said yes they would be willing to work with staff on additional landscaping. Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 03-07-05 Commissioner Bartol said a couple of the neighbors wrote to the city and offered alternative tower sites but unless there is a structure that is as tall as a water tower they would not be as optimal. Mr. Mayasich said that would be correct. There are issues with the topography in the area so the real challenge is to overcome the topography while having an effective system. He commented any tall buildings or trees affect the signal. Commissioner Bartol asked if there were any other locations that would be as optimal as this location for this tower? Mr. Mayasich said no. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody in the audience would like to address this item. Mr. Craig Beske, 2449 Hillwood Drive, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He and his neighbors are concerned with the possible interference. The assurances he heard tonight don't sound like they are based on experience. He urges Ramsey County to get more experience and information on these types of systems. There has to be one of these systems installed somewhere for someone to check for information on. The city should require Ramsey County to be responsible for fixing the issues or problems along with a time frame to get the problems fixed. Otherwise the length of time to fix the problems could be useless. The control room location on the east side could go behind the hill where it would be completely out of view from the streets as opposed to covering it up with trees. There could be an alternative location at the water tower along McKnight Road where it meets Hillwood. That water tower location may be a higher elevation than the location at Sterling Street and Hillwood Avenue and could be a better antennae site. Commissioner Pearson asked staff what the difference in elevation is between this site and the Ramsey County park land such as old Battle Creek ski hill area? Mr. Roberts said he wasn't sure. Commissioner Ahlness said he would like to remind the commission that the project engineer determined this to be the optimal site. There is a lot more that goes into the placement of these antennae locations than just being built on the top of the hill. There are other factors that go into that decision and a special GIS system is used to determine this type of thing. Saying Ramsey County should look at other sites is really beyond the scope of the planning commission and he believes the research has been done and we shouldn't second guess the experts. Commissioner Trippler recommended tabling the conditional use permit to allow Ramsey County to install an 800 Mhz radio facility (antennas and equipment building) at the property at 645 Sterling Street South until the next planning commission meeting on Monday, March 21, 2005, so another consultant can be present at the meeting to answer the commission's questions. Commissioner Bartol seconded. Ayes -Ahlness, Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Planning Commission -6- Minutes of 03-07-05 Grover, Lee, Pearson, Trippler The motion to table passed. b. Heritage Square Fourth Addition (County Road D, west of Highway 61) (7:33-10:30 p.m.) Mr. Perry Thorvig, Consultant Planner, said Town and Country Homes has requested a new subdivision plat for part of Lot 1, Block 5, Frattalone's Highpoint Ridge. The developer is proposing to plat 7 lots for condominium construction and one common lot surrounding the 7 lots occupied by the condominiums. Ninety units are proposed for the parcel. Commissioner Dierich said she really likes this design. This is not an easy site to work with and she likes the layout of the buildings because it gives the least amount of view into each others' windows. She asked what the maximum number of units were that could be built on this site if this was zoned R-3(M)? Mr. Roberts said he thought it was 92 units. Commissioner Dierich asked if it would be higher than 92 units for R-3(M) for apartments? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Dierich asked what the density would be without the power line in the picture? Mr. Thorvig said either 9 or 10 units per acre. Commissioner Dierich asked how this compared to the New Century development? Mr. Roberts said he doesn't have an exact number but he believed this development would be very similar. Commissioner Dierich said she likes the underground garages and believes it's worth losing a little bit of site line. She believes the neighborhood will benefit from having townhomes in this area. She has this same mix of single-family residential and townhomes in her south Maplewood neighborhood and there haven't been any troubles with traffic or access and these units will be farther away from the single-family homes than where she lives because the townhomes are right across the street. She commends the developer for the job they did given the topography. Commissioner Bartol thinks this is a great design and isn't bothered by the askew angles of the buildings. It would do the site a disservice to align the homes parallel. Commissioner Bartol said furthermore, the additional information relative to the setback would cause further challenges. He asked if the city defines the setback as horizontal or could it be vertical. He asked given the nature of this site, could there be a large retaining wall along the frontage road or driveway that offsets it four to five feet from County Road D but in a vertical direction as opposed to horizontal. Planning Commission -7- Minutes of 03-07-05 Mr. Thorvig said setbacks are measured horizontal. Commissioner Trippler asked where the drainage for the south part of this site would go. Mr. Thorvig said the drainage goes into the regional collection system to the south which was discussed at the February 23, 2005, planning commission meeting regarding the Trout Land Auto dealerships proposed to be located on this site. Commissioner Trippler said that regional collection system is not located on any of the maps in the report. Mr. Roberts said the collection system is located behind the Maplewood Toyota service shop south of the site. Commissioner Bartol said there are very low points behind buildings six and seven and he sees that as a huge pond of water and/or ice. Erin Laberee, Maplewood Staff Engineer, addressed the commission. She said there would be a ditch behind units six and seven that would drain to the south. Commissioner Trippler has concerns about the 30 foot drop off at the north edge of building one and thinks someone could fall into the pond. He asked if there was a way to move the building or to fill the area to protect people from falling off the drop off and he would recommend the developer do that. Mr. Thorvig said he would let the developer speak regarding that when he has the opportunity to come forward. Mr. Roberts said he didn't think the building could be moved to the south because of the minimum pipeline setback requirement of 100 feet. A fence could be put in along the top of the slope outside the sidewalk to prevent a person from tumbling down the slope. Planning Commission -8- Minutes of 03-07-05 Commissioner Trippler said when the proposal came before the commission to realign County Road D he had many concerns regarding the traffic and still has concerns about the traffic in this area. He envisions disastrous traffic tie ups for cars trying to turn into the first driveway. Between the edge of Highway 61 and this turn only measures about 320 feet which means 20 cars could get backed up trying to turn in here. There will be 70 condominium units in this particular area and two commercial establishments using this road. You will have people trying to get into the car dealerships and miscellaneous drivers using County Road D and this area is going to be a disaster waiting to happen. The turn lane will handle about four cars, so imagine trying to make a left hand turn during rush hour, you can't see more than 150 feet up the hill before the road turns and then you can't see cars anymore. This is going to be an insurance nightmare and he predicts nothing but problems. At the very least you should either require the residents who will live in these condominium units to go to the north end to get out onto County Road D to alleviate some of the problems at the sharp corner at County Road D or use signage to direct traffic in and out. He isn't sure people will followthe direction or read the sign, but it may help. As an example, Rainbow Foods in the Mapleridge Shopping Center has a "no left turn" sign onto White Bear Avenue. The no left turn sign exists because of the traffic tie ups and accidents, but drivers choose to ignore the sign anyway. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if engineering had any comments on the potential for traffic problems? Ms. Laberee said Chris Cavett, Maplewood Engineer, reviewed this plan and noted the same issues with the entrance located here and his recommendation was to either move the entrance further from County Road D or to sign the entrance with a "right turn only" in and out from the east to the private drive. Commissioner Desai recalled the meeting last year regarding the approval for 78 units that was a staff error and later was approved by the city council for 90 units for this development. However, he doesn't recall anyone explaining that the right of way, pipeline and power line easement would be included in the calculation and that nothing would be built there. Now he sees the developer trying to squeeze 90 units into a smaller space than what it was originally but at the same time counting the space as part of the R-3 zoning and saying it meets the requirements and he is concerned about this. He has concerns regarding the drainage in the area because the space below this development consists of asphalt for the commercial properties. He lives in this area and throughout the winter he sees a lot of snow being dumped into the holding pond so he isn't clear how the drainage problem would work out. Mr. Thorvig showed the commission the area on the map where a holding pond would be located to hold a 100-year rain. Chairperson Fischer asked if there would be a separate review by the CDRB for the building design features and landscaping? Mr. Thorvig said he would be presenting this item tomorrow evening to the CDRB. Commissioner Ahlness asked what guidance the city gives to developers when looking at the design of the detention ponds? Planning Commission -9- Minutes of 03-07-05 Ms. Laberee said generally the city recommends a 3 to 1 slope. The pond shown on the plans is an existing pond that has been graded already and the developer is tying into existing pond slopes which look to be 2 to 1 slopes. She is unsure of the condition of the pond or why the 2 to 1 slope is being used. Commissioner Ahlness asked regarding the pedestrian access, what was the purpose of the pedestrian access, was it to provide a convenience for people to get down to the future bank and convenience store location? Mr. Thorvig said there are maximum lengths for blocks in subdivisions and this has no street from Beam Avenue all the way up to County Road D. This is a standard practice. If you can't have a street you should at least have a pedestrian way so people don't have to walk all the way around the development to get between the neighborhoods or businesses. Commissioner Ahlness said he would be interested in the neighborhood's feedback regarding this access. Chairperson Fischer asked staff to explain to the newer commissioners how staff calculates the density in developments and how ponds and things are included in the density calculation. Mr. Roberts said city staff looks at the gross acreage of the site, including ponding areas, easement areas such as pipelines and power lines that set the maximum density. It's up to the builder or developer to fit the buildings on a site like this and if they can't, they can't. The city practice has been for 20 or 30 years to go by "gross acreage" and not "net acreage" and that is why the developer gets the benefit of the ponding area, pipeline and power line easement when calculating density. Commissioner Bartol asked if there was an alternative exit through Gulden's Restaurant and Venburg Tire? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Bartol said he thinks people will cut through the Gulden's and Venburg Tire parking lot frontage road and wind their way through the community. It may be safest if it eliminates a left hand turn but how would those commercial property owners feel about that? He asked what the street control on Highway 61 and the frontage road is? Mr. Thorvig asked city staff how the service road meanders through the car dealerships to the south? Mr. Roberts said the frontage road system is going to be installed as part of the new County Road D and the access layout for that was all negotiated with the Gulden's and Venburg Tire owners as part of the new County Road D alignment and they were always aware there was going to be residential properties built in this area. The common driveway was going to be shared by the new residents and businesses. This intersection was designed for that as part of the County Road D project and the frontage road was redone for the benefit of Gulden's and Venburg Tire. Planning Commission -10- Minutes of 03-07-05 Commissioner Bartol asked if there was direct access to Gulden's Restaurant from Highway 61? Mr. Roberts said there is access from Highway 61 but he believed that access would be eliminated when the new County Road D is complete. Commissioner Trippler asked if you can get to LaMettry's from Highway 61? Mr. Roberts said LaMettry's and the Toyota shop share an entrance off Highway 61 which is a right turn in and right turn out and would remain in place. Commissioner Trippler asked if there is access from LaMettry's and the Toyota shop to get to Gulden's or Venburg Tire? Mr. Roberts said as part of the new County Road D there will be access as part of the frontage road. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Kevin Clarke, Director of Land Development for Town & Country Homes, 7615 Smetana Lane, Suite 180, Eden Prairie, addressed the commission. He said Heritage Square Fourth Addition would consist of 90 condominium units built with the Regency style home and would have 1,600 to 1,800 square feet. The recent zoning that was approved was for 91 units and they are proposing 90 units. The units range from 1 bedroom, 1'/2 baths to 3 bedrooms, 2'/2 baths and each unit would have two underground private garage spaces with separate garage doors and private entries to their home. Their market study has found there is sufficient demand and minimal supply for this type of product. These homes will be priced from the mid to high $200,000s and are comparable to their Majestic project, although they are offering more options so the price could be upwards of $300,000. The challenge will be with the topography of the site. There is an existing pond on the site not shown on the plans that has been there for a long time but he's not sure how old the pond is. There have been a lot of studies done on this property regarding storm water management, grading, setbacks, elevation of the product and utilities to service them. Mr. Clarke said Town & Country Homes chose the Regency collection for its underground parking which allows them to reduce the amount of street coverage and increase the amount of green space or open space on the site. The focus is to provide buffering between the new homes and the existing neighborhood to the west. The Regency design has four-sided architecture that presents an attractive and aesthetic fagade on all four sides of the building so no matter where the building is oriented on the property it has a nice architectural look. The homes are interconnected by a system of concrete sidewalks that connect to the public right of way either by a walk or connecting to the trail on County Road D. Planning Commission -11- Minutes of 03-07-05 Mr. Clarke said they are willing to construct trail number 2 leading to Sunset Ridge Park as described in Mr. Cavett's memo but feel to construct trail number 1 as shown in his memo would be very difficult due to the grade and the need to build switch backs and retaining walls and feel it would not meet ADA standards. Because of these reasons they would prefer not to be required to build trail number 1, however, they are willing to work with staff regarding the trail issue. Mr. Clarke said regarding the location of the frontage road and its relationship to County Road D and the right of way, this came at the very last minute and they have been working with staff and the seller understanding all the constraints and items addressed in earlier proposals. Earlier conversations pointed them in the direction regarding the setback that they had flexibility in that area and the requirement for the setback from the right of way was never part of the equation. Granted maybe they should've researched that better but unfortunately it went unnoticed until Town & Country Homes received the staff report late last week and now have the chance to respond to this issue. The setback is 15 feet and they are currently at 10+ feet. For the greater public good and benefit of the neighborhood to the rear, the four or five feet that is the issue is probably a better benefit to the west than it would be to accomplish a small segment of green space between the right of way and the proposed parking drive. Mr. Clarke said moving the drive to the west five feet raises the buildings. If they move the buildings to the west they create more steps and more retaining wall and more inefficient and challenging storm water management. A lot of things would change and not improve the site. They have arrived at a very workable and attractive site. He is asking if the commission could consider any approval contingent upon them working through a variance process. Town & Country Homes feels they can come to some sort of an agreement with city staff and the engineers. He said they would be able to provide a soils report for the building department. They had a neighborhood meeting on January 24, 2005, and there was both positive neighborhood feedback as well as neighborhood concerns regarding density, traffic and the buildings in general. Commissioner Trippler asked if they had a traffic consultant look at the potential traffic problem with this site? Mr. Clarke said no they didn't. Regarding Commissioner Trippler's earlier question about the left turn lane onto Venburg Drive, they talked to engineering and are proposing to make that a right in and right out only and will sign that area accordingly and direct traffic in their sales literature to the buyers stating the predominant entrance and exit would be from the northerly entrance to the private drive. Regarding the use of the drive, earlier discussions had evolved where there is a reciprocal easement agreement between all the property owners that will use the private drive. Because of the reciprocal easement agreement, they are all partners for the road and its maintenance. Commissioner Trippler asked if he understood that they would be building the trail along the power line easement area and if they would have some type of a connecting sidewalk from the northern trail down to the south end or was Mr. Clarke saying there wasn't enough space to do that. Planning Commission -12- Minutes of 03-07-05 Mr. Clarke said the trail under the city's contract would go along the west boundary of County Road D and their trail would connect to the west as proposed in their plan. The southern trail is something they would prefer not to build. Commissioner Trippler said he understands Town & Country Homes feel the southern trail is impractical to build. He looked on the diagram for a trail that went along the west side of County Road D but he wasn't able to see one. Mr. Thorvig said the map shows a sidewalk right along the west edge of the new County Road D and that is the trail connection. Commissioner Desai asked if the northern most trail is going to connect up to Duluth Street. Mr. Clarke showed how the trails would connect on the map. Chairperson Fischer asked any neighbors that wanted to address the commission to come forward, give their name and address and sign in for the record. The following people spoke during the public hearing for the Heritage Square Fourth Addition proposal to build 90 condominium units. Joyce Lambert, 2986 Duluth Street, Maplewood Planning Commission -13- Minutes of 03-07-05 Ms. Lambert said she's in front of the planning commission again with some of the same concerns that she brought here a year ago. At that time they discussed a concept plan which included an apartment building and townhomes and the residents in the Highridge Court townhomes were against an apartment building being built there. At that point it was approved for 71 units based on the acreage. Two months after the planning commission meeting the neighbors received a letter from Tom Ekstrand stating there had been an error in calculating the number of units and that the developer could now build 91 units rather than the 71 units as was originally approved by the planning commission. Now the developerwants to cram 90 units onto the same size of land and she feels this is ridiculous. The view she once had is now gone. She appreciates that the planning commission thinks this is going to be a nice development, however, now she gets to look into the windows of these buildings instead of looking at the view she used to have. The buildings are going to be positioned so the people living in the condominiums don't look into each others' windows but now instead she gets to look into their windows and at the rooftops. She knows there are grading problems and that drainage is a huge problem. She has seen rain storms that have wiped out that whole area and she isn't sure but she doesn't believe that one pond can handle the drainage. She has concerns going back to the realignment of County Road D. She is starting to wonder if there is a conspiracy theory here. The County Road D realignment was supposed to be built to alleviate the traffic on Highway 61 and now the commission is talking about the concerns with traffic on County Road D. Wasn't that supposed to alleviate traffic on Highway 61 and people were supposed to use County Road D to get to Maplewood Mall? This whole area has been proposed in bits and pieces and you couldn't get the big picture of how it would end up so it has been hard to know how this whole thing would end up. She isn't happy to see how it's going so far. She doesn't know what the tax base would be for these condominium units but she pays a lot of taxes in Maplewood herself and isn't happy she will have to look into someone else's windows. She's frustrated to see how this was planned out cramming 90 housing units in this amount of land and feels her neighborhood is being crowded out. She expected development when she moved here 10 years ago. It's a matter of how it happened and how they want to get more and more housing units and buildings in a small space. Because the land is very challenging to build on the developer is using the height of the buildings to get more housing units and the height of the building is what she has a problem with. There is no good solution and she understands that, but it seems like they are cramming too many units in a small amount of space and are going to create traffic problems. She doesn't think building the southern trail makes any sense. It also makes no sense to put steps in just so people can walk to Duluth Street because you are going nowhere. 2. Tony Valento, 2978 Duluth Street, Maplewood Planning Commission -14- Minutes of 03-07-05 He lives next door to Joyce Lampert at 2986 Duluth Street. He has lived in this home since June 2004 and he is concerned about the density, the elevation and the proximity of Town & Country Homes proposed residential development. He sent his concerns regarding this development as well as the commercial developments in a letter to Tom Ekstrand dated January 30, 2005, (not included in the staff report). He knows the city council previously approved 91 units. In the report the developer refers to these dwellings as townhouses and in the Webster dictionary a townhouse is defined as a single family house with two or three stories usually connected to a similar house with a common side wall. A condominium is defined as individual ownership in a multi-unit structure such as an apartment building. This proposal consists of 6 buildings of 12 units and 1 building of 18 units. In his opinion this sounds like 7 apartment buildings with 90 units. That is cramming too many units in too small of land. The underground parking garage increases the height of the units. He attended the informational meeting on January 24, 2005, and at that time they were talking about a 35 foot elevation. Today his viewfrom his deck is rolling hills, Venburg Tire, Guldens, and Highway 61 and now his view is going to be the broad side of an apartment building. He understands there are standard setbacks from property lines and it was his understanding that setbacks vary based on the square footage of the site of the building facing the property line. It was his understanding that there would be variances requested but he recently heard conversations that leads him to believe otherwise. If that is true, given his concerns about the density and the elevation over the development, you can imagine how he feels to have an apartment building even closer to his property line than the standard setback would require. He understands in July 2004 there was a change in the zoning of the property from single family residential and light manufacturing to medium density residential. According to what he read at that time that the proposed townhomes would be compatible with the abutting townhouse development which is the Highridge Court townhomes composed of 36 townhomes or twin homes, which is a very nice development. He walked the neighborhood and spoke to his neighbors about the proposal and was surprised by some of the things he heard. He heard the price of the proposed townhomes was to be about $350,000. The neighbors were surprised and disappointed when they heard about the $250,000 price that was mentioned at the January 24, 2005, informational meeting. His home is an investment and is valued at over $600,000 and he doesn't like the idea of a $250,000 condominium next door to his house. He is concerned about the variances requested for the car lots going from a 350 foot setback to a 167 to 169 foot setback and causes him further concern about the market value of these condominium units. He is concerned about a ripple effect with the houses in his neighborhood and across Carey Heights Drive. The current residents aren't necessarily being considered in the development of this area. He thinks the developer is trying to cram too much into too little land. 3. Bob Kranz, 1264 Highridge Court, Maplewood He was at the planning commission meeting last year and the neighbors said they did not want an apartment building on this site. He had the memo dated May 28, 2004, from Tom Ekstrand, which followed the planning commission meeting. The letter stated the density had to be changed from the planning commission meeting when 71 units were approved. After the meeting Mr. Ekstrand stated an error was made in the calculation for housing units when it was calculated for "net acreage" not the "gross acreage" like it should have been. The net acreage comparison was 1.86 acres and the gross acreage is 15.38 acres. Planning Commission -15- Minutes of 03-07-05 (Mr. Kranz continued) This is quite a difference in housing units. He is disappointed that the Prokosch home site, power line easement, ponding area etc. have been included in the gross acreage. He assumed when the Prokoschs either pass on or move away the Prokosch land could not be developed since it had already been used in the density calculation. 4. Elena Makhonina, 3042 Duluth Street, Maplewood Ms. Makhonina said she was at last year's planning commission meeting when the zoning was changed from commercial to residential zoning. She had the IetterfromTom Ekstrand as well. She asked for clarification of what the difference was in zoning classifications. She said she is here to support her neighbors and the neighborhood and she is not happy their neighborhood will be overlooking this number of condominium units. 5. Cindy Kranz, 1264 Highridge Court, Maplewood Ms. Kranz said she lives behind the proposed 18 unit condominium building. Ms. Kranz asked what the acreage of the Prokosch home site was. (Mr. Roberts wasn't sure off hand.) She said let's assume the property is 3 to 4 acres in size. It is on the other side of the new County Road D yet the land is being used in this recommendation to come up to the 15.38 acres and the density is based on land across the way which Mr. Roberts said somebody else will probably develop so there is a possibility that the land could be changed to commercial property. The calculation is screwy to her and if you look at the map you will realize this is the wrong calculation. If the developer can't make this work with 71 units then the developer paid too much money and that is not the surrounding residents' problem. She believes this shows the city can double dip so to speak when calculating the density of the land. Commissioner Grover said there must be an error on the staff report because there are conflicting numbers shown. Page 2 of the staff report states 11.91 acres for the site size with 7.6 units per acre. The applicant's project narrative states 12.2 acres with 7.6 gross density. But then the residents have just stated 15.38 acres. Which is correct and does it or does it not include the Prokosch property? Mr. Thorvig said he and Tom Ekstrand traded e-mails on February 22, 2005, concerning this issue. Mr. Thorvig did the calculation based on the 11.91 acres from the applicant's submittals. There is also a 15.38 acre number floating around including the Prokosch property. Mr. Ekstrand responded to Mr. Thorvig that the history on density is the applicant is allowed up to 91 units based on the gross acreage calculations. Mr. Ekstrand's e-mail response was 15.38 acres including the County Road D right of way as well as the home of the Prokoschs until they move to another type of housing. This is a result of a lot of negotiations with Kelco. However, their actual site is less now but that was part of the agreement that the city was handed. The discrepancy is in what the actual size of the site is versus what the size was that they calculated the density on and apparently there was more land somehow that was part of the agreement with Kelco and the city. Commissioner Desai said according to the figures on page 14 of the staff report the applicant has stated 12.2 gross acres at 7.6 homes per acre. If that is correct that equals 11.91 acres without the Prokosch property so the applicant is already meeting the density without the Prokosch property. That means the Prokosch property can be developed down the road when they have moved on. Planning Commission -16- Minutes of 03-07-05 Commissioner Dierich asked if the staff error in the acreage was made and then corrected before or after the city council acted on this proposal? The planning commission made their approval for 78 units and she is wondering if city council based their decision on the planning commission's recommendation of 78 units as proposed or at 90 units after the numbers were corrected by staff when they realized they made the error? That makes a difference legally where the city stands. Mr. Roberts said he understood that after last year's planning commission meeting, the city council agreed to allow medium density residential for this site. Then the number of units is based on the acreage. Including the Prokosch property it comes to 15.38 acres. This site is about 12.2 acres so that means the Prokosch property is about 3.3 acres. It is his understanding with Trout Land and Kelco that the agreement included the right of way and the Prokosch property and could have up to 92 units which is consistent with medium density. This will all be clarified before this goes to the city council. Chairperson Fischer said this is not showing some of the land which was used in the calculation to determine the number of units. Mr. Roberts said the density and the number of units was never a question in staffs mind. They feel the applicant is meeting everything that the city council approved last year. Commissioner Dierich said even without the Prokosch property, according to page 32 of the comprehensive plan she calculates 7 X 12= 84 units. If you go to the table on page 33 of the comprehensive plan it equals 72 units and that is a far cry from 90 units that the applicant is asking for. According to the comprehensive plan those numbers don't meet the density requirements even if the Prokosch property isn't counted. Mr. Roberts said according to the table on page 33 of the comprehensive plan, those numbers are calculated to the apartment category and not according to the townhouse category because they are larger buildings and do not have individual property lines under the individual units. The city does not have a line for condominiums in the comprehensive plan. Then you have to look at the density similar to the apartments, then there is one line for buildings with 10-18 units for medium density and then it goes up to 7 units per acre. Commissioner Trippler said the problem with the staff report is there is wrong information on site size and density. Site size should be 15.38 acres and density should be 7 units but if those things are corrected then 90 units is within the criteria. If 15.38 acres is wrong then the city has a problem with the numbers. Mr. Thorvig said the site plan does not include the Prokosch property but somewhere in the negotiations concerning the road a deal or agreement was struck that the applicant was entitled to 91 units on this site. The applicant came in with the request for 90 units and that is what the planning commission sees. Chairperson Fischer asked staff what verbiage the commission could use to prevent the Prokosch land that is not included in this from further development in the future due to the fact that the development rights have been included in the computation for this site already. Planning Commission -17- Minutes of 03-07-05 Mr. Clarke said the Prokosch property is not part of this proposal so it is not fair to Town & Country Homes to have that agreement attached to it. They asked the typical questions like what the zoning was, the density, and what the comprehensive plan showed. The response was city council approved this land for 91 units and that was the total zoning and that is maybe why it doesn't fit in with the tables in the comprehensive plan. This has been a piece of a larger picture and the city council arrived at 91 units. He is not sure how the planning commission should establish verbiage stating this piece of property is approved based on the fact that the Prokosch property cannot be developed upon in the future. Mr. Roberts said he doesn't have the file from last year in front of him and because Tom Ekstrand could not be here tonight, staff is short handed for information to give the history of what occurred. Staff will get this all clarified before it goes to the city council. These concerns will be recorded in the minutes for the city council to read. 6. Kelly Lenz, 3027 Duluth Street, Maplewood Her issue is the letter from Tom Ekstrand from May 28, 2004. The letter said when this went to the planning commission it was discussed and voted on approving 78 units and then she received the letter stating city council approved 91 housing units. Her question is what went to the city council, the numbers that were approved by the planning commission or the numbers that were changed by Tom Ekstrand? There was no discussion or public meeting stating the zoning had been changed from 78 units to 91 units. She asked if the neighbors are going to get another letter stating the 91 units was also incorrect and then not hold a meeting to discuss this again? She has been waiting for another public hearing to discuss this further and there has not been another meeting until now. She asked the planning commission if they would have approved 91 units if they knew the density was calculated incorrectly? She didn't believe they would but because this decision has already been made by the city council everyone has to go along with it. Her issue is the high density and the potential for high traffic in the area. If the traffic is too high on the new County Road D people will drive through Walter Street and onto Beam Avenue and that area is already backed up with the stop lights. She wants to make sure that with this change in density and all these units having cars driving through the area, to make sure these cars aren't going to get backed up and try to take whatever shortcut they can to get out of the area. She said people keep talking about the Kelco and Prokosch agreement and she would like to see that document. She will call Tom Ekstrand for a copy of this agreement. Commissioner Trippler said when this concept plan came before the planning commission they were looking at R-3(H) zoning which would have allowed around 170 plus units in the development. The commission thought that was too many units so the commission recommended to the city council R-3(M) zoning and they were given an acreage that was calculated incorrectly by city staff using the net acreage instead of "gross acreage". When staff realized they made an error, staff modified the number of units that were allowed. The commission doesn't have control over what that number is because it is already laid out in the comprehensive plan. The planning commission is only an advisory board that makes a recommendation to the city council and the city council makes the final decision. Planning Commission -18- Minutes of 03-07-05 Commissioner Grover said the problem is unclear when the city council made the decision to approve the 91 units. Did it happen when the city council received the planning commission's recommendation for 78 units under the net acreage or did they take the recommendation from the planning commission after staff realized they made an error and staff changed the acreage to gross acreage with 91 units? Mr. Roberts said the city council made their decision in July 2004 so it must have been after staff realized the error in the report. Mr. Roberts said he wanted to clarify something that Dale Trippler said earlier that the commission's action was based on the medium density standard and that was for the land use and not based on the number of units but as a type of use that would go there. The change in acreage is what changed the number of units, not the type of land use. Commissioner Dierich said she knows the planning commission members were not thinking along the line of apartment buildings being put in this development. More than the issue of the acreage is that the commission wanted townhomes, twin homes, or condominiums. They did not want apartment buildings, but it appears that staff did the calculation based on apartment buildings rather than townhomes. There is a hole in the density requirements in the comprehensive plan that doesn't account for condominiums. Mr. Roberts said there are density requirements for apartments, townhomes and twin homes but not for condominiums. But even after doing the calculation based on apartments it comes out to be around 90 units. For these to be categorized as townhomes all the developer would have to do is put property lines underneath each unit and it would have the same number of units and look the same but it would be called townhomes. Regarding including verbiage into the motion that the Prokosch property cannot be developed, you can't bind a future action of a future city council because three years from now something totally different could happen and things can change over time no matter what the planning commission recommends. (After checking further into past planning commission minutes, the recording secretary discovered the previous staff report stated that the Prokosch property was listed at 5.67 acres. The Trout Land property was to be heard at the city council meeting on June 14, 2004, however, because there were issues to be worked out the item was delayed and the recording secretary could not find a rescheduled date for the item to be heard.) 7. Jennifer Holm, 3035 Duluth Street, Maplewood They had an incredible view and then things changed. The townhomes aren't going to be a huge issue for her because she lives higher up on Duluth Street. She is here to support her neighbors. It's sad that these tall buildings are going to be built. When people bought homes up on this hill there was a sign that said commercial, and that is what people thought would be built here. People figured it would be one story commercial buildings that you could still see out your windows and enjoy the view and they did not think the zoning would change and they would be looking out into tall condominium units. At the January 24, 2005, neighborhood meeting neighbors asked what the target client would be to purchase these homes and he said singles, newly-married people, and empty nesters. Planning Commission -19- Minutes of 03-07-05 (Jennifer Holm cont.) She doesn't think single people can afford these units on their own unless they have a very good job, and she remembers when she was newly married it was hard to come up with the down payment to buy your first home especially at $250,000 to $275,000 for a condominium unit. She also doesn't believe empty nesters are going to want to buy units with steps that you have to go up and down to get from level to level. Especially bringing their groceries into the house and having to drag bags up different levels of steps. Empty nesters or retired people want one story homes, not multi-unit homes. When the Masterpiece townhomes were built they were snatched up in a minute because of the style of townhomes they are. She is sad the city is not requiring builders to build more one level homes in the city so people could move out of the multi-story homes. She and her husband toured the new Town & Country Homes and thought they were beautiful. She asked a salesperson if they were planning on building any one level townhome units in Maplewood, and they said unfortunately no. The sales person said if they were selling one level units they would have been sold out immediately. She said they have had so many people touring the units and asking that same question for one story townhomes. She asked if these were going to be built in phases or built as they were sold. She would rather have them being built as they were sold so units don't sit vacant. She personally thinks they are going to have a problem selling these units because of the multiple stories. Commissioner Dierich asked if each commissioner could state how they feel about this proposal one by one to be reflected in the minutes? Commissioner Ahlness He said the commission is looking at development units that are going to hold their value with underground parking, brick facades, a good location and a good transition from the commercial properties. These buildings will not deprive people's enjoyment of the use of their land, they might not have the view they once had but development happens. He doesn't see a problem with selling their home for a fair economic price in the future with these condominium units in this location. This is a nice development to look at compared to looking at commercial property, Highway 61 and listening to the traffic. These buildings along with the landscaping will be a nice buffer from the highway. He would encourage the developer to check into the Gladstone Redevelopment Area because these types of homes and higher density would be a nice addition to the Gladstone area. Commissioner Lee He approves of the site design; he likes the idea of positioning the buildings at angles rather than the cookie cutter design. He likes the design of the homes and the whole plan as it stands. Commissioner Desai He likes the look of the buildings but he definitely has a concern about the density fully realizing that the city council had already approved 90 units since the planning commission approved 78 units May 2004. Is the parcel in question 12.2 acres or 15.38 acres and does it include the Prokosch property or not part of the process. The whole thing is very confusing and he is still not sold on what the agreement was or what the truth is here. This is a real key issue with the density and approving this proposal. Planning Commission -20- Minutes of 03-07-05 Chairperson Fischer The question is how many acres are involved in the medium density? She has no problem with the layout and she has no problem with medium density. It is confusing not knowing the correct amount of acreage that is involved here. It seems there is not much support for the second trail to the south. She thinks it is necessary to include verbiage stating the Prokosch property either is or is not included in the development rights of this site and what the future holds for the property. Commissioner Pearson Overall he likes the layout of the plan. He doesn't like the south trail. Building number one makes him nervous because he believes it is going to create a hazard with a drop off right out the back door. So much of this density has been discussed over the past two years with the public hearings that were held for County Road D. A lot of what the developer agreed to is to facilitate County Road D becoming a reality. He doesn't feel anyone has a solid handle on the exact density the city should be working with, especially realizing there is confusion in the comprehensive plan not having a specific density for condominium units. Because of this he would have a negative vote. Commissioner Bartol If he were on the city council he would have a hard time including the acreage for the Prokosch property into the calculation. However, that decision was already made by the city council and it was made for the betterment of the neighborhood and the city overall for rerouting County Road D. The developer has met a reasonable density at 7 units per acre for a total of 90 units. Given the criteria and the problems with the site, the developer has come up with an attractive design. This development could block noise from Highway 61 and maybe even from County Road D. He agrees with the decision not to build the southern trail which could be an insurance liability. Although he has reservations with this proposal he would probably approve it. Commissioner Trippler He has always thought this was a difficult site to work with. Given the complications and difficulties with trying to deal with the topography has gotten the city to where they are. The units look nice despite the feeling of the neighbors who will have to look down on $250,000- $275,000 condominium units from their $600,000 homes. He has always had a problem with the County Road D extension. The traffic that is going to build up and trying to get cars in and out of this development is going to be a mess. Based on what the applicant is requesting he doesn't see how the city can deny this proposal especially since the city council has already agreed to the density and 90 units. He would prefer the buildings lined up rather than the so-called helter-skelter design. Commissioner Dierich Planning Commission -21- Minutes of 03-07-05 She would have a hard time voting for this because the planning commission is unclear on the whole issue of density, not knowing the correct acreage here, and because the commission is unclear if the Prokosch property is included in this or not. She would recommend that the city council fix the problem of not having condominium units listed in the comprehensive plan. She likes the underground parking, four sided architecture and she likes the design, but because of the density and the other issues she has, she will not be voting for it. Commissioner Grover He is not comfortable voting for this in a positive way even if there are straight forward errors that were made in the report and the way the acreage was originally calculated. He is uneasy voting for this not because of anything the builder has done but more on the city's side not clarifying the proper acreage, questions about density, and not knowing if the Prokosch property is included or not included. He also has issues with the potential traffic problems. Commissioner Ahlness moved approval of the preliminary plat for the Heritage Square 4cn Addition, subject to the following conditions: (changes to the conditions are underlined and deletions are stricken.) The applicant shall dedicate a trail easements on the utility easement °n,~ ~r°;n°^° and the applicant shall follow drainage and utility easements as recommended by Chris Cavett in his memo dated March 1, 2005. 2. The applicant shall sign a developer's agreement with the city for the construction and dedications of: a. Water main between the south drive and the Duluth Street stub. b. Trail construction. c. Easement dedications for trails, storm sewer, utilities and water main. d. Native turf establishment adjacent to the ponds. e. Other issues deemed necessary by the city engineer. f. Add a fence restricting access to the detention pond. g. Addition of a sidewalk along the frontage road between the development and Venbura Tire. 3. Recommend that the Prokosch property be excluded from further development when they move from the property Commissioner Lee seconded. Ayes -Ahlness, Bartol, Fischer, Lee, Pearson, Trippler Nays - Desai, Dierich, Grover The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on March 28, 2005. c. The Woodlands of Maplewood (1740 and 1750 McMenemy Street) (10:30 -11:25 p.m.) Planning Commission -22- Minutes of 03-07-05 Brian Bourassa, representing Integra Homes, is asking the city to approve plans fora 24 unit townhouse development. He has prepared a site plan that shows 24 townhouses (in 16 detached townhomes and four twin homes) in a development called the Woodlands. It would be on a 6.6-acre site on the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue and south of the Hmong Church. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. Mr. John Matthews, Integra Homes, addressed the commission. He said they would like to table this proposal tonight upon review of meeting with the neighbors. They would like to review the proposal again and bring this item back for the next planning commission meeting on Monday, March 21, 2005. Mr. Brian Bourassa, representing Integra Homes, addressed the commission. He said Integra Homes is requesting a 2-week time extension. Because this applicant is requesting that this item be tabled, the members in the audience that would be out of town during the next planning commission meeting requested to be heard. The following people spoke regarding the public hearing for the Woodlands of Maplewood at 1740 and 1750 McMenemy Street who would not be present at the March 21, 2005, planning commission meeting. 1. Larry Jaehnert, 1771 Desoto Street, Maplewood He said he had the chance to read the city code and it is his understanding that the city code focuses on the safety of the citizens of the community and about the character of existing neighborhoods. Mr. Jaehnert showed several digital photos of the Monn's Villa area along with homes in this development. His concern was the proximity and size of the mature trees that would have to be removed and changing the character of the neighborhood. He reviewed and read aloud sections of the city code pertaining to this area and is concerned about the area being destroyed with this proposal. He had concerns regarding the rating of the roads being able to handle the traffic. He is concerned about the safety issues in the area as well. The added traffic is unsafe for the children waiting for the bus, people walking, and kids riding their bike. The Gateway Trail is close to here and is accessed through Edgerton Street and the added traffic poses a safety hazard. For the safety and security of the neighborhood he is against this development entering and exiting onto Kingston Avenue. He believes the traffic should enter and exit onto McMenemy Street if it stays within the city code. 2. Tom Azzone, 1723 Edgemont Street, Maplewood Planning Commission -23- Minutes of 03-07-05 He said he's not anti-development or anti-growth. If this can bring more tax dollars into the city to stabilize his taxes then he is okay with this proposal. He has concerns about the density for this proposal being twice as dense as the existing Monn's Villa neighborhood. His neighborhood has 22 homes compared to the 16 detached townhomes and four twin homes the developer plans on building. He is concerned about the increase of traffic and thinks it is "goofy" to think the additional traffic on this small narrow street can handle the load. He believes the traffic count is higher than what is written in the staff report. The report states for a 15-hour day, the 102 vehicle trips would mean an average of 6.8 vehicle trips per hour or an average of one vehicle every 8.5 minutes. Mr. Azzone believes with the schedules and the lives people lead today that number is much higher and he is concerned about the increase in traffic and the added burden on the streets. He is concerned about the kids waiting for the bus, playing outside, rollerblading, skateboarding, riding their bikes, playing street hockey in this area when the kids are outside and the traffic is increased in the late afternoon and early evening. There are at least 22 kids 16 or younger living on this street. He would also like the traffic to enter and exit on McMenemy Street and he has concerns about the Hmong Church and their two day funerals where they park on these streets in addition to the new traffic. 3. Ken Pfarr, 1695 Edgemont Street, Maplewood The traffic is so bad you can hardly get out of your driveway already and with the additional traffic this will make it even harder to get in and out. All these dump trucks and concrete trucks that would be going down Edgemont Street will damage the streets. It just can't handle the traffic. He and his wife enjoy living here and they want to continue living here. Mr. Roberts said staff would send out a new public hearing notice with the revised date. He is not sure what the commission will be hearing or if the developer would submit a new plan. Commissioner Grover recommended tabling this item until Monday, March 21, 2005, so the applicant can work details out that were raised by the neighbors. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Pearson, Trippler The motion to table passed. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Planning Commission -24- Minutes of 03-07-05 None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. No PC representation was needed at the February 28, 2005, city council meeting because there were no planning items to discuss. Mr. Roberts said that the city council had the first reading to extend the moratorium for the Gladstone area for another six months until September, 2005. The second reading will be heard on March 14, 2005. b. Mr. Pearson will be the planning commission representative at the March 14, 2005, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the Trout Land Auto Dealerships at County Road D, west of Highway 61 for two conditional use permits, the townhome development called the Overview at McMenemy Street, south of Roselawn Avenue for a CUP, PUD and the Preliminary Plat, and the Outdoor Storage Area CUP Police Impound Lot at 1160 Frost Avenue. Mr. Roberts said the Jessie Street Proposal at 1685 Edgerton Street Lot Width and Lot Area Variances and Lot Division has been withdrawn by the applicant. c. Mr. Trippler will be the planning commission representative at the March 28, 2005, city council meeting. The only item to discuss is the Heritage Square Fourth Addition, County Road D west of Highway 61. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:27 p.m. MEMQRA~IDUM To: ~ Imager FROM: Keen Robe, Planner 8lfCT: CondH~onal ~ Pam ar~d Rrvl~w P~J~T: R~ ~ M~ Ar~srurt fadNty LOCATION: t~lwood llrive and Straeet (845 ~ Stn~st South) DATE: 11 ~ 2005 -~~ ~: T~ Mayasid-, ~ Rarrtseg- County, is ~ ~ a new 8t10 A~ arMenrra at the g water ~oyrer at 84~ ~ t3tr+aet Soutfi. Thy ~vpoaal would indude~e adcn of antsrstas to the top oif the ea~tir~g and a new pr+efabricwted ~# ~g naffi the base of the wcNsr tower. (Refer to ~ st~rnent an pegs ssv+en and the maps-and plus on pages B -98) Rarrwsy CouMl- would !sass ~ property for tha iarttityand- tie from the Saint Paul Regional Water Serv'wes (the owner of tha site). The applicant is r+eques that the city approve: 1. A aanditiorsd usa permit (CUP) for a p faci~ty (the s and the n~laMd mound eq~}- 2. The design and site plans. C~ar~iaral th+t Psrmit ~"-~'L Ths 9996 Federal T Ad does Hat allow cities to ~t ~ iron of and ems. Because of the law, bc~ +gr~vsrnrrrsnts ,may ordy rs~ate, twt nuwy not pr+svent, the inst~ation of monopoles or other fads. As such, the att- may ony tie their decision about (or any otter slmil~ roquest} on land u~ end on health, suety and we9are canoems. The Federal Commur~ig4ions Catrunisaion (FCC} s a~ systems. This lived c~ufr+ss that the proposed or new e~ Hat ~ w+~h or eisdrordcs squipnrsrd. ff !hens is inlesl+errnoe, then the fCC requires the ~ to asst or sl~rt down the Haw squiprtta~t to vorted the sid~ort_ IMaplerNaod n~ be caroful do not limit or profit thfs fac~y (or any offer antersta sites) bsc~e of eledr+oniv ~rferenos. Tint is up to ~e FCC tp rror and ~. Severs! of the reei~hbors Hoar' t#~ sge eegswsssd +oonosrrrs about the nssr ~ ir~srfarirrp watt efsdronic llama in Asir horrtss. ~ ~ !heir aonvee~~. C~io~wt t~i9idt had the oou~rl~s radio ©or~ ravitwr tits propoad and provide her v,~lh ~ abmut the ~ iaaiisa. COmf111asiOflel' ~eirlt~afdt ~Jfrtfn~ed hb ti11~a ~ ~ fever that ~ hasre d on ppss 23 and 24. The city counc~f should ~ n as thb P~'c!~ n~eeta the for a CUP. The proposed she dhsi~n ahaild be ownpie with the adj~nt hooves snd-the rawer. ; of the bane an~a ~d~ths Iow~er pion of.thet ~r~ler ward bs ~sened by amp and prvpgi~ed ttsea. Ths ~ is ~ ~o add try to the saw and ~t aka of the r and aoaisdnA drinrrway b ~ the #~se ars® ti+om r 4~arn nearta~ twrrNa. The ~ ihA' ~ ~ ~ enane~ tea on tfis r~ side. ~ lthe dri~rsway (abr~p t1~r good 0rire side of he-site) th ~ sd~esn the houses to the nrxth and nortltsast of ~ lower. (See tl~e plar~-on papea 't 1 and 92.) The Bile design, with the addtYcnal iEae pi•rNirp, world be oonnpallbie widr ihs nearby hcxriss. h is ~nport~ tar the dty cotncii, when r+rriswinp the or r ~. to befer+es the irdN+ags of the ~ tl~ pE~cper'ty arc, t#~a ell anal ae ~t as a whole. The pr~apoaed bgtivrt ~ the usrse ~ ~ t nn the and ~ ~ th help saw the pr~apcsed ~ ~`~ ttie`~ on three sides-ot tMe sile. In addiflon, fhe prnpe~i loce~l~srr ~ aon~ sawrrirp of #h~e sifie #e~e~Ny ~e tie area) frorrr the souftf. The prnpased lliib tral~rl~es the ~ ~ ~e wale snd Raney t~or~rrtj- in ~ an ~ ~ on the ~ and'1hs corwerrrs of the moors who warts the scrbsned #rom their ribws. Drsipn and Bile hsues Thb Pry ~ doss a' ~ ~ ~ rrew ~ ~ ~ Pr'oP~!- while ~~ the e~ sir ~ arm ~rrril~ione. The taoura~ hrd to con~dsr se~eraf faclora whin .P'~ ire ian #ar tire, ~ ~,e~ the she. Theae bduded the e~c~np e#tMaewa4t, eila ~ a~ ~ ~ the wrret paR a1 praperttt. ~ ad~lvn, there ~ a 1- ~ the !ice of tf~e w~Mr t brad m +daM r+earld. ~# of these ccndhioAS laid they oou+ltr b pr+ase~s bMl~ la~afdan ~e ci>~- ~ ~r nor~iderirq.-The pr+opaesd brrild~irp-~ Mahe ase of the aabtirrp ~ wull a need 1o e~lend the biluminnoa. moo, the. P~ i~ ~-the arrra~ o~ sile 4ratifnp ~rxt proa~d distubaeree whit t¢~pirp lhs Hats ~ ot- the eal~tinp srrd airy tram the felines arsl the a~Nw~ry- Aoo~s to #~e base arse and equfprnerrt bu~dirp would be firom the aarb~ep drl~nrrraythat is on F~wood nrfn~e. The ~ stauld regwir~e the rrrnoAral of arry debris, s+~e# ~ or restoration and ~enera# aite dean op as cor~tiorea o!! the ~pro~-~. T'he !~ and ~ parti~y scrsea tne -ar+e~. That Poeable whsn'in:taMnp thr neMr*qu appsr~ent b rrow ~ add ~ nor~seat-aides aE~ ~ txri is a r~eebion b Ur Asir phn thrlt o sa~ier~r~ glare oval do a betler~ nt -the west side of 8b+eet wie hNp io alt ieeat srrt mould pnrserme as anuoh ai this rrspetalion as b~. To help sc~rsn ~ ttan arra of the site, the tests $pn~c+s and Auslriar~ Pines th the ~t and and drhnr~Y- (fee fhe t on paces 1 i and 12.) 177ia b 12: new ir+rss an the ails. '~'lais ~atiieeKt and ~Q the drfrawry ahd ~s tease areea of the prvpoasa tatty. ~rt~ Desist As , the equNpnterrt btnp far ~ hd;i~jl rret~d be 12 fast by 3Q Kt im. tt would be rrlade of l~cpElssd ~ wr`9r ~ ~( ~tOC~( dfiit~lar and ward hw-e'a ~ r~DOL (SAe ire proposed bronp ~ on popes 18 ~ou~t 1$.) The firth cabrs and mai3erlats Of #his b~ldirt~ should be wed by celY staff befctns the c31y issues a twilc permit for the pK+q, 091er' COmrCt~a Lt. David Kvam of the Maplewood peace depahrnent did- nt~ identity any cortcecns with this rtrx~est. Ovid Fisher, the M~bwood ~ Ems, iderttiaed sen~eral matters he wlp have the aft and cordrac~or ~ betzcr~s the city wlp issue a bony penrrit'!or th~ fit. (Please sea h~ memo on pope 19.) Chris Cav~ett, the Asst City Enpir~, rioted rte l'icartt ertpirreeretp ~ wlttt the prnpos~. He also noted that they many r~e~ine a gra~rtp psrrrtit anc! art escrow balFoner approvitrp a P~~• A. Adopt the r+esol~ion on papas 25 and 26. This ~ ~ s aartoorraf use permh to apvw Rantse~y County ~ l an 8d0 Np~tC rartiio ~ {arttertnss and ~ lxoktp) at Ste property ~ 8A5 tliq Strbet Soldtt. This approval ~ fOr the property Qn fife sow COrrter Of n9 Str+set and hid Drive. The city bases thw approval on the Andinps r+s~rod by the adi~toe and is s<~tjerct to the foNcwrirp cartoons: 1. Ap oonstnx~fon shop fopoMr the she plan approved by the dty. The dinecior` of oommurtily deveivpmsrtt may approvre motor ~. 2. The proposed oartstruc~on of the new antenna fad~ity moat be started within one ll~ of cswrtrA approval or the parmit shop beoorrre nup and void. The cautcif Wray e~clend the denote for one year. 3. the ~ cow sftall nsvitwv this p~r~t in one year. 4. Any arrtertna or equ~rterrt that is not used for a year shop be deemed ~ and the ~y may ~ the owner th rert!ra~re it. 5. Rarr~ey Cotutty shah be rospor~ble for the costs and in~tsrnertt~on of arty corroc~orts or csa rrscessary because of ~ or Mi'wr' problems rid by tacipty. The county shall make arty such cians or changes ~ a rrr. B. Approve pie plans rrtpad Febrr~ary 4, ZpQ6, and pre rsr~iasrl ant! ~ phn dated pMardr 11, 2DQ6, for an artienrw faoy (lrrcltxlirrp arrlerrrras ~ ~iperrenf ~ on tha - st tf45 ~ ~MSt BradEr {Drr the sow ~ artQ Hplwaod Drive). Appro~ ~ based on rite firaairrBaR roquiwsd' by code and ~ ~ ~ doirtp the ~~ t. Repeat this review irE two- years ~ the aty has not sued pern~ts for this project. 2. ®efiors the city issues a ~ penr~t, ~ stair rtust appr~re the tdlowinp: a. A oer of survey for the pr~ajer~ area that shows the pngpassd new ~iorr, the bc~iaa~ of the property fines and ex~nq site ffi+aur4d the lease area. b. A revised Mmdscape and ~ ~ that: {!) Shows the preservation of as much of the vegetation as pods. (2) Si~wws ~ dean-up and the rostoration of ati tort areas w~ sod. c. A driveway, aidewallc, grading, ~ainage ar~d erosion oantrol plan iof ~ project site. d. The Plans for the equprrrerd bv~dinp -show the proposed eocteriors with ~ desi0ns, ooktrs and ~. e. Pnojsc~ plus arrd sus that meet all the requirerrrerrts or the ~ binding cyMicial. 3. Be[or+s ~ a oerttll~e of oooupamoy, the ant shati rerrrovs and ~ arry debris and ~ , tt+e is ctr~te+d ems. 4. lr any work is rmt done, the c:itY may air ter»porary or~t ~: a. The aly d~ that the work is na# e~errtial ~ the public hrafttt, - or weli~e. b. The del r+eosivss a c•~ash escnorly or ~ ale otter of aa~t-tor the req~rod work. The arna~nt shah be ?SMti al the poet o(1he wed wodc. 5. A~ worts shsa 1bNow ttte appravsd plans. Tim ~rod+or of copy devebim~ ~y ~ ~~'~' ~. 4 I srmrayed the oywasrs of the 72 ~ wlt~ 500 fleet of this fie. AN ~rve of the !~ corrxne~nts or oanoerrMS about the p~oporiai. ~ Fanror None None ~. see the carrrmerrts in the e-ma~-from the Sahyuns of 2458 l~wood Drive on page 20. 2. See the e-rtaa~ from Craig of 2449 Hi~wbod Drive on pale 2i for aior~ commerrts. 3. Aiso see the e-nna~ frnrn the Yvhnks of 2448 hood Drive on page 22 for more oar-cems. 4. Would this al'~ect my N r+eoeption (rabbit ears) in arry way? ( - 2481 Linwood Avenue) 5. Please provkie additional 1~-g araind this Y - asp~scis~- abng F~Ilwood Drive t~)• REFERE~NGE CATION ~ ~r-<~~ s Site size: 59,242 square t+ae~t (1.36 sass) E>ag lestd use: An ~ water towsr North: l~kxrsss across !wood Drive South: Fiauaes saves 8ier~np Street West: Vacwrrt raRaidsrrdal lot and twnses on t~wvod Drive East: Houses acmes ~p Street 5 .._. ~i S :I- 1."- a+,.1:.1:,.- RLG l~ Usa l~ ~: G (Qovertun~t~ Zort>n0: R-1 (Sire dwe ~) Fiequ~ Sec.~iori 44'1092 (1) ret~rss a CUP for any in ~ location. Flndin~s for Cl~ Appnwal Sec~iori 44-1097 (a) ~fsfiss that ~a cry must bay ~ of a C1~ on r~s standards for approve. Refer to ~ orle t#u+ou~h nine im the ~n on pa0ss 25 and 2B. ~ [!aM The city rbc~siv~ed aN the appYcahon m~erials for tMs rsgcaast on ~ebruatX 4, 2005. > law would nortr troqu~s the ~y h~ aa9on t~ r~ec~est ~ Ap9 3, 2006. ~ cae~, hearer, the applicant s~d.1-0y~a~l~woyrr~Mt es~ension ~/~,lh~e lei g~roh 7, 2(105, ~ c~ ms~inp. f the c5y wf~ tae to act ~ ~ "i1 F'p' "' ~ ~ ~ ~ [ ~ to t~ ~. p~sc12-2~QOrr~r~ ~ - ~5 1. Appl~Cs S1~Ismsnt 2. Cnwrty L.oca>!on M~ 3. Loca~on Map 4. -4ma Map 5. Pr~o~a~sd 86s Q~Mbd 3-11-QS Q. Sits Ptah (Er~sd} dam 3-11-05 7. East ElssNiwti 8. Seth Ebel 9. Souk l;ar~ 1A. P~apE~ss4`BiteNst 11. 'Pr+at~r~sd ENvalion 12. Phob d Rro~OSSd 13. 2-44-06 m~e~o ~nm C~rwit! FYher 14. 2-15-E~ e-terl S~ 16.2 !8-t~ e~ti~ t B~Ite t8. Z-1a-06 s~tnall fn~t l~ 17. oeas letMet d~rd 3~-06 torn llic3o~ia Rsk1k 18. Ct~itnwl Ur1s Psnr~it 19. Pt+o~ec~ Plans (sells J.: ;, 13 Awl F..'. ., S 71 In i' J.: ;, 13 Awl F..'. ., S 71 r. ®f EE33 w i ~ ~ ~ ~ ,* , ~ r~aPO® ~r ~ ,~_~, ~ ~ n~rr ~~rrwwo ~ sy~t ~ r r -r ~' trrH ~ ~ ,._,d,r i .. ~~ _ .. _ .. . _ ,_~ 4 - 1 .. . _. ,: . I ~ -~'ik ~ -~~ ~ ~~ { , 6 'k Y0 y l:~~l ~ i .' S ~ .~ P~ ~ J ~ ,:, ` rk; ~ 'L Y ~ p, .5Y4.~~I " ~~ s ry~ ~ -. . -:. ~~ .. ~ .., ;: : ~ . _ ... ~ , ,.r a, ~ ' -Y' y W ~ ?'~'..~y fir. a i, aa;,_ _ a..,y ~ ifs ~ ~,P ~. ,'., _ A 'J~y~yd/f~( . Ik { p: d ~'. ~ ~. ye~µ. N +Jur l y _ ~+ ~ ~' t ~ ~' .4~ - l ry I: ~ ... % ~ r , ' (' i ~ ~ - ~ 1 ~': JT I + i. i ~i i . ~ . i. ' r. !. - . i r 1 .. ., i - _. _. ~ ~ .u - ~. ~ .. i. x'« :~1« a "; o- ';.~ _' ~_ t ,. , . , , ,s y ~ ~ F ~- y * ~ a l r. J n ~ f ... .+.. ,+ ' y . ~: I'~I o ~1~ ~4 d t ~ , fib J ~ at i - t ry: ~ ~ ~ 1 4 fi , n \ a ^[ r v r: .'t '.., y ~~ ~ ~~ ~ tl ~ ~ ~ ~~' t ~ ~~~ 1~ ~ ,. ~ ~ t ~'d,~r 1 I .a F l ~. ,, ~. „~ _ .. _ , ,r. _. ., .. .. ti •~ ~ ~' a~ , ~ ~, . ^ , ~ r x ,,, ~r, , 4, .. ~.i'. ~~ ` - r ~~ ~ , K. ^ i I ~ ~ ~ _ i _ ' ~J .. i. ~ ~ y r _ a~. .. _ r` ,h ,. ,. ~--- . ~ _ .. ,. ~, ,- ~~ ~'~ V A A ~~ 2~E) Cwt Home 15'~V. ~ B1~d. St. P~ml, MN SS~02 Deer Versa: ~~ ~e ~;t La $t~3 i1 ~aa~ ~o ._ ~~:`~~ ~` ~r~th a ~; City mod. ~~Y~ 20 ~~+• 1~r c~ bay tad via mri ar 24~ Food,Dr E bbd, iN~E ~fi41~ ~ V~B 91l1~ 8~ rhacira~lnaRflf3 nat T ~ ~f ~ ~ talM~+d. ~~ ~~i~ '~~ ~~ .,. ~ql A'~ a ~i oNaep~b*rv+M ~ ~~ ~ . ~~ l~::be~t a~an~tao~d ~ s~ ~i ~. +~ ~p..perlc~ar+t ~.~~ ~ till, a lrrrr~~i~i~r'~n ~~~ 22 Ili~i~a~elrNell~t ~''~ 2 f: