Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/18/2005 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 18, 2005, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. July 5, 2005 5. Public Hearings 7:00 The Woodlands of Maplewood (McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue) 1. Land Use Plan Change (R-l (single-family residential) to R-3(M) (medium density residential) 2. Zoning Map Change (F (farm residence) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) 3. Street right-of-way vacation (Edgemont Street, north of Kingston Avenue) 4. Conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) 5. Preliminary plat 7:15 Utility Easement Vacation (Heritage Square Fourth Addition) 7:30 Walgreens (White Bear and Beam Avenues) 1. Land Use Plan Change (LBC (limited business commercial) to BC (business commercial) 2. Zoning Map Change (LBC (limited business commercial) to BC (business commercial) 6. New Business Land Use and Density Review - EAW Study Area (south of Carver Avenue, east of 1-494) 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations July 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Yarwood 17 July 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson August 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler 10. Staff Presentations Annual Tour Update 11. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JULY 18, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the rneeting to order at 7:03 p.rn. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Eric Ahlness Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Comrnissioner Mary Dierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Commissioner Gary Pearson Comrnissioner Dale Trippler Cornrnissioner Jererny Yarwood Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present Absent Ken Roberts, Planner Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairperson Fischer requested an update on the Gladstone meetings. Because the Gladstone representative Commissioner Trippler was unable to attend the meeting the presentation would be given by Chuck Ahl, Maplewood Public Works Director, during staff presentations. Commissioner Grover moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Dierich seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler Approval of the planning corn mission minutes for July 5, 2005. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the planning commission minutes for July 5, 2005. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -2- v. PUBLIC HEARING a. THE WOODLANDS OF MAPLEWOOD (MCMENEMY STREET, NORTH OF KINGSTON AVENUE) (7:06 - 8:28 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Chris English, representing Integra Hornes, is asking the city to approve plans for a 28 unit townhouse development. He has prepared a site plan that shows 28 townhouses (in 14 detached town homes and seven twinhomes) in a development called The Woodlands. It would be on an 8.2-acre site on the east side of McMenerny Street, north of Kingston Avenue and south of the Hmong Church. For this proposal, the developer intends to sell each of the townhomes and expects that each unit will sell for at least $300,000. Staff recommends approval of the six requests of the developer. Comrnissioner Trippler asked how rnany townhome units were proposed with the previous plan compared to this new plan? Mr. Roberts said this plan has two fewer units than the previous plan did. Commissioner Trippler said when he reviews a proposal two things he looks for in the plan are sidewalks and raingardens. He asked if the city has a policy to encourage developers to incorporate sidewalks and rain gardens into the plan? Mr. Roberts said the city has been working with the developer and they plan on installing a trail along the north edge of the project between unit 1 over to unit 11 connecting over to unit 28. There is no new sidewalk proposed along McMenerny Street. The city tries to persuade the developer to construct sidewalks whenever reasonable or possible. Comrnissioner Trippler thinks sidewalks are critical and most of these proposed streets are very narrow. The minimum width for a public street is 24 feet wide and the private streets are listed as 26 feet wide. Because of the narrowness of the private street there wouldn't be room for cars to be parked along the street. Mr. Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director, addressed the commission. The rain gardens are something the city encourages developers to accomplish. This site is unique from the standpoint of rain gardens. The developer is restricting the runoff to nearly the entire site to the two storm water ponds and that overflows into a third smaller pond. The city is trying to infiltrate a 12 inch rainfall event with this. Rain gardens are to infiltrate a 1 inch rainfall. This standard is to control a 12 inch rainfall entirely on the site. This system rneets the NERP standards and is comparable to 100 rain gardens on the site. The city typically doesn't require sidewalks for these types of streets along with the traffic volume of 100 to 200 vehicle trips per day. McMenemy Street is the type of street the city would recornmend sidewalks for. When the roadway is redone the city may be installing sidewalks rather than having the developer install sidewalks. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -3- Mr. Brian Bourassa, the applicant, MFRA Engineering, Plymouth, addressed the commission. Mr. Bourassa handed out a new illustration of the changes they did today that were requested from engineering. They eliminated one of the hammer head turn arounds in the southeast corner of the site and added a private drive turn around that meets the requirements that the engineering staff suggested. They are still investigating the potential for another turn around on the northern end of the private street between units 11 and 12. They met with the engineering staff last week and have been able to address many of the comments from engineering and the Metro Watershed District. Commissioner Trippler appreciated the developer going the extra mile to propose moving and replanting the larger trees. He asked what the developer's responsibility is to replace any trees that are planted/replanted on the site if they should die. Mr. Bourassa asked staff if that would be part of the developer's agreement? Mr. Roberts said yes. Mr. Bourassa said they would take care ofthe concerns regarding the trees. They have hired a professional arborist and depending on the tree species the trees will be transplanted to a non-graded part of the site or balled and burlapped depending on the time of the year and the diameter of the tree. They would enter into an agreement with the city to have a guarantee period for the trees. Commissioner Trippler asked what the height of the retaining walls would be. Mr. Michael Villari, Project Engineer, Metro Land Surveying & Engineering, 412 County Road D East, Little Canada, addressed the commission. Mr. Villari said the retaining walls will be discussed at the CDRB rneeting but said they try to keep the retaining wall under four feet in height as much as possible. Chairperson Fischer asked if the applicant had any concerns regarding the conditions listed in the staff report? Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Villari said they had no concerns. Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing. Mr. George Rossbach, representing the Historical Commission and residing at 1406 County Road C East, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He knows the Historical Commission doesn't have the power to confirm or deny this proposal but feel it's their duty to speak out regarding the five 100 year old homes on McMenemy Street. The Historical commission have photographed, cataloged, researched, and registered these homes with Maplewood. They would like some identification on the site such as a bronze plaque or something to show a 100 year old home once stood there. Commissioner Trippler asked which 100 year old homes would be affected by this proposal? Mr. Rossbach said 1741, 1750, 1765, 1766, 1768 McMenemy Street. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -4- Commissioner Trippler asked if the Historical Commission recommended that these homes not be displaced with this proposal? Mr. Rossbach said the Historical Commission wasn't notified that this was happening until they found out about it today. The Historical Commission felt they should at least be present to make a statement regarding the displacement of these 100 year old homes. Commissioner Trippler asked if the Historical Commission has cataloged the homes with the history of each home as well as other homes throughout the city. There are five homes in this neighborhood that are going to be affected by this proposal. Commissioner Trippler asked if 1750 or 1766 McMenemy Street had any unique historical value? Mr. Rossbach said nothing other than being 100 years old and cataloged as such in the city. Mr. Rossbach said over the sixteen years he sat on the city council he was famous for a few statements and one of those statements he was known for was "a PUD is a license to steal". He wondered what the need for was for a PUD in this proposal? Mr. Roberts said in his opinion the developer is not stealing with this developrnent. The primary reason for a PUD is for the mix of private and public streets and a mix of setbacks off the private and public streets. In the city code there is not a good definition for detached townhornes as far as lot size. If the city had to treat these as single farnily homes these would have to be 10,000 square feet individual lots. By having a PUD the city can allow for smaller lots with a cornrnon area for a townhouse effect. Mr. Rossbach said it ends up with the same effect, it allows the developer to do things the rest of us can't do. Mr. Roberts said yes if the developers ask. Chairperson Fischer said in the past staff has commented for a side by side home if you want cornrnon open space for environmental purposes you can't get 10,000 square foot lots and get the environmental features you want. A PUD is the only way the city has done that in the past. Mr. Rossbach said he comes from the generation where a single family home has a 1 acre sized lot. Commissioner Dierich asked if the Historical Commission registered these 100 year old homes with the national historical registry or just locally. Mr. Rossbach said these homes are cataloged and documented only in Maplewood. Commissioner Dierich asked if there had been any discussion regarding moving these homes to another location to save the homes and the historical nature of the hornes? Mr. Rossbach said no, they are like everybody else in the city, the Historical Commission has no money and no power and all they can do is make a recommendation to the city council. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -5- Mr. Kai Huot-Link, 1741 McMenerny Street, Maplewood, addressed the cornrnission. He lives directly across the street from this proposed development in one of the 100 year old homes. He moved to this home 6 years ago and what attracted him to this neighborhood was the character of the 100 year old hornes on 1 acre lots. The home at 1740 McMenemy Street was built in 1900 and during the time the other homes were cataloged that horne had not passed the 100 year mark but is now 105 years old. It's pretty disturbing to him that this developer wants to change the character of the neighborhood by rernoving the 100 year old homes and building $300,000 townhornes. This is a historical neighborhood and has a sense of place because it has been there a long time. People still think of this house as the Thornalla house. Putting town homes in this neighborhood only fragments this neighborhood and would change the character. Land is expensive and it's very hard to buy a 1 acre lot these days. Partly because people are willing to pay a lot of money just for the piece of land not for the existing house. The property at 1740 McMenemy sold for $440,000 while the house was only valued at $10,000. He bought his 1 acre property 6 years ago for $113,000. These could be fixer upper starter homes for a younger family. There are no yards in this town home proposal. This kind of development won't attract people with children. He has four children and they enjoy their yard. His neighbor has four children to the north and the neighbors to the south have two children. There are beautiful gardens in sorne ofthese yards and what type of opportunity is there for people to have gardens and space to call their own. The whole discussion regarding density of housing at 3.41 units per acre is confusing. The property at 1766 McMenemy Street has one house that is 100 years old and the developer wants to put 6 units on it which is alrnost twice the stated average. He doesn't understand that kind of math. He asked the commission to look at the homes on Kingston Avenue and on McMenemy Street, the size and spacing of the homes. Then there's this proposal that crams in 28 units in such a small space. It doesn't fit into this neighborhood. He has strong feelings about this project and hopes the planning commission can appreciate that and consider recommending fewer units for this proposal. He asked what the legacy of this development is? Commissioner Grover asked if the developments north of this proposed site have similar densities? Mr. Roberts said there are two different developments in this same area of Maplewood both with sirnilar densities. One is called The Gardens, which is north of this site with 20 units on a private drive and The Overview for 24 units (12 twin homes) on a cul-de-sac. Commissioner Dierich said staff said that 3.41 units per acre is a low density for R-2 zoning and she asked what the density would be if it had been R-1 zoning? Mr. Roberts said the city has some single family developments at 3.2 units per acre. Commissioner Dierich said the developer could have broken this area up into single family lots for 3.2 units per acre without coming before the planning commission? Mr. Roberts said it would have required a comprehensive plan change. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -6- Ms. Margaret Jodeit, 1714 Edgernont Street, Maplewood, addressed the cornmission. She and her husband moved here six years ago. She was here before regarding this proposal when it came before the planning commission and overall she is pleased with the changes the developer has made. She wanted to make sure the emergency access trail would not be narned Edgernont Place so there would be no confusion that this is not a normal street for driving on. Mr. Roberts said the city wasn't going to name the trail so there shouldn't be any confusion. Ms. Jodeit said Kingston Court, Kingston Lane and Kingston Avenue are very similar and she is worried this could cause confusion for emergency vehicles trying to locate properties and she wondered if there would be any other street names they could use. Mr. Roberts said staff reviewed that concern with the public safety department and on page 13, item f. the city recommended different street names other than Kingston. Mr. Torn Azzone, 1723 Edgernont Street, Maplewood, addressed the comrnission. He spoke a long time at the previous meeting regarding this proposal so he would try to keep this discussion short. He wanted to make sure this is a ten foot wide blacktop trail. He wanted to make sure the land on either side of the trail is being vacated to the neighbors. He wanted to make sure the pOSSible street going through there has been eliminated. He thanked the developer for their common sense they exercised on this plan. Mr. Ahl said the city acknowledges the trail is ten feet wide, the street is being vacated, and that precludes any future public street to be constructed through that corridor. Mr. Larry Jaehnert, 1771 DeSoto Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said this is also his second time to address the planning commission regarding this proposal. He asked if the commission members had a copy of the minutes from the previous time this item was heard? The planning commission responded no. Mr. Jaehnert said he would then briefly discuss what he said the last time. He asked if the developer had their wood lot alteration permit or is that done after the approval is made? Mr. Roberts said a wood lot alteration permit is not required if they have other development applications like this in. The developer would only need a wood lot alteration if he wasn't applying to the city of any other approvals. Mr. Jaehnert said the city code talks about the natural characteristics of neighborhoods and there is quite a bit of code that is written for dealing with those natural characteristics. He read the Maplewood City Code, Section 12-247, which states the purpose of this article is to protect significant natural features which preserve the natural character of neighborhoods. Mr. Jaehnert said Section 12-249, states a significant natural feature rneans a significant water body, a large tree, a wood lot, a significant slope or a site of historical or archeological significance that has been recorded with the state. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -7- Mr. Jaehnert said there have been changes made to the original plan but the developer still did not address the woodlot which is on the eastern side of the property between 1771 and 1765 McMenemy Street. He hates to see trees removed and the city code bypassed. There has been other development in the area where quite a few trees have been removed as well. Even though there is a tree plan to preserve and rnove as rnany trees as possible but what size of tree can be transplanted and still survive. Mr. Roberts said city code states the city can't preclude the development of a property by saying they have to preserve a certain number of trees. The way the city code is written the developer needs to preserve at least 10 trees per acre when the development is done. If they can't do that the developer needs to replace the trees as a 2 to 1 ratio or try to transplant or move them around on the site. That is what the developer proposes to do. They plan to save and or transplant up to 200 trees on the 8.2 acre site which is well above the minimum 82 trees the city would require by city code. The city has not seen the plan for that and that is required before the city can sign off on the final plans. Mr. Jaehnert said he has an enormous oak tree on his property near the development and he would be very appreciative if the developer could do everything they could to save this tree. He doesn't know what the code states to develop or dig on a drip line but the base of the tree is about 9 feet around and he would like this tree be saved at all costs. Mr. Ahl said when the developer prepares and submits their grading plan to the city to review one of the requirements is the developer needs to stake and erect the construction fence outside the drip line so they cannot go underneath the drip line and cut roots. He believes the tree Mr. Jaehnert is referring to is in the northwest corner of the parcel and believes that is a protected area and the developer is nodding his head yes that area is protected. Mr. Ahl will direct his staff to erect the construction fence so there is no grading done in that area. Mr. Jaehnert asked how this development fits in with the long terrn planning for Maplewood and how it fits in relation to similar developments that are taking place now? The Met Council determined that Maplewood is built up enough to their satisfaction. He wonders what the long term vision for Maplewood is. He is concerned about the amount of density in the area and the public safety because there is no space for people to walk. There are no sidewalks in the area and the more development that occurs in this area causes more public safety concerns. There is no park in the area except for the park on Edgerton Street. He wondered if there would be any other parks built in the area. The area is becoming so dense there is no place for people to go. Mr. Roberts said he is not convinced the Metropolitan Council thinks Maplewood is built out. The Metropolitan Council has been pushing the city to add more units and more density because the city is within the Highway 494 and Highway 694 ring. With the last comprehensive plan update the Met council thought the city had too much commercial and industrial land and they liked areas like Legacy Village so there would be more units within the primary infrastructure of the city. The Metropolitan Council likes developments like this proposal rather than people moving out to areas like Forest Lake. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -8- Mr. Roberts said regarding more parks in the area that question would have to be answered by the Maplewood Parks & Recreation Director, Bruce Anderson. The public safety people that reviewed this plan stated they liked the idea of having trails within the development and also provided comments regarding changing the name of the street. Walking around the area as a whole could be a challenge. Possibly when DeSoto Street is reconstructed sidewalks could be incorporated which could alleviate some of the public safety concerns. Mr. Ahl said sidewalks are sornething the city struggles with all the time. When the city holds hearings regarding the reconstruction of roads and the subject of sidewalks comes up the city runs into issues with homeowners not wanting sidewalks built on their property. The city takes a firrn stand regarding sidewalks. McMenemy Street is a roadway that was turned back frorn Ramsey County to the City of Maplewood. McMenemy Street doesn't have sidewalks. DeSoto Street and McMenemy Street are funded through gas tax money that the city receives. The legislature proposed a .10 cent gas tax increase which Maplewood would have received significant dollars from that would have paid for features like this, unfortunately that gas tax increase did not occur. The city is struggling with how to reconstruct roads. Funding is always a problem and adding sidewalks is the number one request that people would like added in their neighborhoods. Except for the residents that would have to have sidewalks in their front yards. Commissioner Ahlness said Maplewood is a first tier suburb. One of the biggest challenges is for redevelopment in the city. As a planning commissioner he tries to find out how the city can best see the development that would enhance the city in the long term. The city cannot restrict the developer's economic benefit of the land. The city looks at the best way to enhance the community but not harm the neighborhood. If it would harm the neighborhood the city has to find some specific reasons to disapprove the proposal. Using the reason you don't want this development to move forward because of the loss of trees or you don't want this development in your backyard sirnply isn't a strong enough reason to deny the proposal. If the city recommended denial of the proposal for those reasons the city attorney would come back to the planning commission and tell them those reasons are not strong enough to deny this proposal. In this case when the developer has a plan to remove and replant as many trees as possible he looks at that as a positive thing and based on the proposal he is in favor of this plan. Commissioner Trippler said as a planning commissioner he looks to see if a development fits into the overall character of the neighborhood. Even though this proposal has a little more density than the area to the south or to the west, it fits into what is being built to the north of this development. Even though the developer says he is going to save as many trees as possible, many times trees still die during construction. He would assume trees die in many construction projects, and sometimes it can't be helped. He appreciates the fact that the developer has listened to the concerns and comments of the neighbors and that the developer is going to relocate as many large trees as possible, which can be very expensive. He would like to see the 100 year old homes stay in the neighborhood too and can appreciate the concerns of the neighbors. Unfortunately unless you can write a check out to the developer to buy him out this proposal is going to move forward. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -9- Commissioner Dierich lives in south Maplewood and later tonight the commission will be discussing density and possible developrnent of the southern end of Maplewood. Because she is going to be dealing with a similar situation in her neighborhood she can appreciate the comments and concerns of the neighbors and it's hard to accept and deal with. South Maplewood is going to go through sorne major developrnent changes in the very near future. There are truly significant natural features in southern Maplewood as opposed to this neighborhood where it's a mixture of trees and older homes. Regarding Maplewood being built to capacity, it's not that the city is already built to capacity; it's that the city has built enough affordable housing for what is required by the Metropolitan Council. The developer took the comments from the planning commissioners and neighbors. The developer has come up with a nice plan that will add to the tax base for Maplewood, it will look very nice in the neighborhood and still add more residents in Ramsey County rather than having them move out to the outer suburbs, which should make the Metropolitan Council happy. The density is not that bad corn pared to what the developer could have proposed to build on this property. She's disturbed that the historical commission didn't list these 100 year old homes with the national registry or with the state. Her daughter does that for a living and she knows it takes a long tirne to go through the whole process but it's too late to file now. She would encourage the Historical Commission to initiate the action to record 100 year old homes. The city is trying to get as much open space as possible and having these townhomes allows for community open space in this developrnent. Mr. Jaehnert asked if the trail system within this proposed development is private or can the trail system be opened up so anyone can access the trail system? Mr. Roberts said the trail system from Kingston Street north into the development up to the center cul-de-sac would be public because it would still be on the public right of way and connect to the public street. The trail on the north side of the development, near the church would be private because that would be in the cornrnon area of the town homes. Although the city can't encourage people to trespass, he doesn't believe anybody will be there guarding the trails. As far as the trail system, developing a trail network for the neighborhood as a whole would have to be looked at by the city. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Mr. Ahl said the Kingston Court public right of way access point and McMenemy Street have a small segment on the south side called outlot A. That is a reserved strip not allowed by the city code. The city would like outlot A dedicated as right of way. Mr. Ahl said he thought that was put in to restrict the property owner because he wouldn't agree to part of that to restrict his access to a public road and the city doesn't allow that in the code. Outlot A will be a dedicated right of way like Kingston Court. Mr. Roberts said that change would be made before this goes to the city council. Mr. Azzone, spoke out of line and away from the podium so his questions was not picked up by the microphone but it was something regarding outlot A and his driveway. Mr. Ahl said the answer to that is no and the city is going to talk to Mr. Azzone and try to convince him to have driveway access onto Kingston Court. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -10- Commissioner Grover asked if any of outlot A would be on Mr. Azzone's property? Mr. Ahl said no. Chairperson Fischer asked if this change was reflected in the conditions or should it be added? Mr. Roberts said he didn't believe this change was reflected in the conditions so it could be added or staff could be responsible for making the change before it goes to the city council. Commissioner Dierich would encourage the city to be very active as a city in looking at the developer's agreement. She is 4 years into her developer's agreement in her neighborhood and they are still having issues not being able to elect a group that leads the development and therefore, things aren't getting done and trees are dying and nothing is being done about it. The city needs to take a more active role in making sure that when the city asks for a developer's agreement that there is monitoring done in the long term and the agreement has some teeth to it. She asked if the private drives would be plowed by a private contractor or by the city. Mr. Ahl said the public roadway will be plowed by city and the area rnarked private drive would be plowed as part of the homeowners association. Commissioner Dierich asked who monitors the fencing along the drip line? In the past she has seen orange fencing up around tree drip lines and it doesn't last very long. During the construction of her house construction went through the middle of the drip lines and they were also marked as significant. She asked how often those drip lines are monitored, who monitors them and what fines occur if construction went into the drip line? Mr. Ahl said the Public Works Department is responsible for monitoring that. The Public Works Departrnent had one full time person assigned to monitor those types of things but has since retired from the city. That person has been replaced and a summer engineering intern has been hired to assist in the monitoring of those drip lines. The city recognizes they didn't do a good job in the past. A developer like this has to post bonds and escrows to make sure things occur. Most recently the city did some work that was supposed to be taken care of by a developer and the city billed it back to the property owner and developer. So in the end sorneone gets the job done. Comrnissioner Dierich strongly encouraged the neighbors to walk the construction site and call the Public Works department if they notice anything that causes concern. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the resolution on page 51 of the staff report. This resolution changes the land use plan for the Woodlands of Maplewood plat on the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue. This change is from R-1 (single dwellings) to R- 2 (single and double dwellings). The city is making this change because: (changes to the motion are underlined and deletions are stricken.) 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -11- 2. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for medium-density residential use. This includes: a. It is near a minor arterial street (Larpenteur Avenue) and is on a collector street (McMenemy Street). b. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be rninimal traffic from this developrnent on existing residential streets. 3. It would be consistent with the proposed zoning and land uses. Approve the resolution on pages 52 and 53 of the staff report. This resolution changes the zoning map for the Woodlands of Maplewood plat on the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue. This change is from F (farm residence) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The reasons for this change are those required by the city code and because the owner plans to develop this property with a mix of single and double dwellings. Approve the resolution on page 54 of the staff report. This resolution is for the vacation of parts of the Edgemont Street right-of-way, north of Kingston Avenue. The city is vacating this right-of-way because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The applicant and the abutting property owners have no plans to build a public street at this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. 4. The vacation of the right-of-way will allow the adjacent residents to expand and improve their homes. This vacation is subject to the city retaining the center of the Edgemont Street right-of-way located north of the north right-of-way line of Kingston Avenue for public purposes. Approve the resolution starting on page 55 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Woodlands of Maplewood development on the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped June 14, 2005, except where the city requires changes. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) Revised storrn water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's standards and the engineering department requirements. (2) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of the vegetation and large trees. (3) All the changes required by the city engineer and by the watershed district. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -12- The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The director of community developrnent rnay approve rninor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council rnay extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall rneet all the conditions and changes noted in Erin Laberee's merno dated July 11, 2005, and the plans shall include: a. The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control. streets, driveway, trails, tree preservation/replacement, and parking plans. The cul-de-sac bulb shall have the minimum radius necessary to ensure that emergency vehicles can turn around. b. The following changes for the storm sewer plans: (1) The developer shall enclose the new ponds with a four-foot-high, black, vinyl- coated chain-link fence. The contractor also shall install a gate in the fences as may be required by the city engineer. (2) Provide for staff approval a detailed storm water management plan. c. The following for the streets and driveways: (1) Curb and gutter along the street, if the city engineer decides that it is necessary. (2) Clearly labeled public streets and private driveways on the plans. 4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood's ordinance standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site pond and drainage easements, if applicable. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris, junk, fencing or fill from the site. 6. The approved setbacks forthe principal structures in the Woodlands of Maplewood PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - none c. Rear-yard setback: 20 feet frorn any adjacent residential property line Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -13- d. Side-yard setback (townhouses): minimum - 20 feet minirnum between buildings. 7. 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. 8. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Approve the Woodlands of Maplewood preliminary plat (received by the city on June 14, 2005). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide all required and necessary easements (including ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). d. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in at least seven locations. These shall be as follows: (1) At the intersection of Edgemont Land and Kingston Court (by Lot 8). (2) Near Lot 4 in the middle of the block. (3) At the northeast corner of the site near Lot 1. (4) At the north end of Edgemont Lane near Lot 11. (5) At the intersection of McMenemy Street and Kingston Court (Sophia Avenue). (6) At the intersection of McMenemy Street and the northerly driveway (near Lot 23). (7) Near Lot 28 at the east end of the driveway. The exact style and location ofthe lights shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. e. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no parking signs. f. Cap, seal and abandon any wells that may be on the site, subject to Minnesota rules and regulations. 2. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, trail, tree and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo from Erin Laberee dated July 11, 2005, and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall show: Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -14- (1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour inforrnation for each building site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved prelirninary plat. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Building pads that reduce the grading on site where the developer can save large trees. (4) The street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. These slopes shall be protected with wood-fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feet require a building permit from the city. The developer shall install a protective rail or fence on top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet. (7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (B) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (9) A minimum of a 10-foot-wide, 10:1 bench below the normal water level (NWL) of any pond designed to be a wet pond. The depth of the pond below the NWL shall not exceed four feet. (10) Emergency overflow swales as required by the city engineer or by the watershed district. The overflow swales shall be 10 feet wide, one foot deep and protected with approved permanent soil-stabilization blankets. (11) The drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the run- off from the entire project site and shall not increase the run-off from the site. c. The tree plan shall: (1) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or final plat approval. (2) Show where the developer will remove, transplant, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -15- (3) Show the size, species and location ofthe transplanted, replacement and screening trees. The new deciduous trees shall be at least two and one-half (2%) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The new coniferous trees shall be at least eight (B) feet tall and shall be a rnix of Austrian pine, Black Hills spruce and other species. (4) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. (6) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be: (a) near the ponding areas (b) along the west and south sides of the site to help screen the development from the existing houses to the west and south (7) Show the planting or transplanting of at least 200 trees after the site grading is done. (B) Hold the developer responsible for replacinq any moved trees that subsequentiallv die within a one vear period. d. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show: (1) The streets and driveways shall be a nine-ton design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of all intersections at two percent. (2) Water service to each lot and unit. (3) Repair of McMenemy Street and Kingston Avenue (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the new streets, trails and private driveways. (4) The developer enclosing the ponds with a four-foot-high, black, vinyl-coated chain- link fence. The contractor also shall install gates in the fences as may be required by the city engineer. (5) The private driveways with continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed for drainage purposes. (6) The coordination of the water main locations, alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire-flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. (7) All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within the easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -16- (B) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (9) Details of the ponds and the pond outlets. The outlets shall be protected to prevent erosion. e. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm-water run- off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's engineer shall: (1) Verify pond, inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Have the city engineer verify the drainage design calculations. 3. Pay the costs related to the engineering departrnent's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. Q. Show Kingston Court as a public street in a 50-foot-wide public right-of-way. Remove outlot A and make this area Dart of the public riqht-of-wav. c. Label the common areas as outlots. d. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. e. Label all the names of all the streets and driveways on all plans and distinguish which are public and which are private. f. Change the street and driveway names as follows: (1) Kingston Court and Kingston Lane as Sophia Avenue. (2) The north/south driveway as Edgemont Lane. (3) The north private driveway (for Units 23-2B) shall have McMenemy Street addresses. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development. These shall include any off-site drainage and utility easements. 6. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -17- c. Provide for the repair of McMenemy Street and Kingston Avenue (street, curb and gutter and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the new streets and private driveways. 7. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the care and maintenance of the common areas, private utilities, landscaping and retaining walls. 8. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowners' association documents. b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites unless approved by the city council. c. A covenant or association documents that addresses the proper installation, maintenance and replacement of any retaining walls. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 9. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 10. Obtain a permit from the Watershed District for grading. 11. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 12. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 8,2005. b. UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION (HERITAGE SQUARE FOURTH ADDITION) (8:28 - 8:33 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, is asking the city to vacate part of an existing drainage and utility easement on the site of the future Heritage 4th Addition town house development. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -18- Mr. Roberts said this easement follows the alignment of the previously vacated Lydia Avenue. On April 25, 2005, the Maplewood City Council approved a prelirninary plat, parking lot setback variance and the project design plans for the Heritage Square 4111 Addition. Cornrnissioner Trippler asked if the easernent was located where the trail was supposed to go that would lead to County Road D? Mr. Roberts said because of the easernent the trail did not line up so the developer with the plat would be dedicating new easements for utilities and trails that fit the site plan. Mr. Ahl said the city has a developrnent agreernent that is in place requiring the dedication of the easement. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the cornmission. Mr. Jim Kellison, Kelco Real Estate Development Services, 7300 Hudson Blvd., Suite 245, Oakdale, addressed the cornmission. He said this request is pretty straight forward and he didn't have any questions for the commission or of staff. Nobody came forward to speak for the public hearing. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the resolution vacating the drainage and utility easement within the site of the Heritage Square 4th Addition town house development that follows the old Lydia Avenue alignment. The reasons for the vacation are as follows: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The existing easement is not needed for utility or drainage purposes. 3. The approved Heritage Square 4th Addition site plan has a building proposed on top of the easement. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 8, 2005. c. WALGREENS (WHITE BEAR AND BEAM AVENUES) (8:33 - 9:18 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Meer Construction and the Maplewood Financial Center, representing Walgreens, are proposing to construct a 14,480-square-foot Walgreens Pharmacy on a vacant lot located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues. The plan also shows a future three-story office building to be located on the east side of the lot, toward the Maplewood Heights city park. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -19- Mr. Roberts gave background information on this property. On May 28, 2004, the City of Maplewood received cornplete land use applications frorn the applicants for a cornprehensive land use plan change, zone change, and design review for the proposed Walgreen's Pharmacy and future office building. City staff sent a neighborhood survey notifying all property owners within 500 feet of the property of the proposal. City staff received notice frorn the underlying property owners that the applicants' lease on the land did not allow the developrnent of a pharmacy and that they were disputing the applicants' request to rezone the property. City staff notified the applicants of this issue and discontinued processing the permit until the applicants were able to obtain the underlying property owners' permission to rezone or a court order which directed the city to proceed. On May 12, 2005, the city received a court order which directed the city to proceed with the rezoning request as proposed by the applicants. Commissioner Trippler asked under the LBC zoning are there any height limitations or the number of stories for an office building? Mr. Roberts said there are no height limitations on any of the commercial districts in Maplewood. Any commercial building site next to residential has to have increased setbacks to provide a larger buffer. If the developer of the office building can make the parking work it could be a tall office building. Commissioner Trippler said earlier today he spoke with Mr. Roberts regarding the proposed expansion of White Bear Avenue changing to 6 lanes in 2008 and he asked if there would be a need for additional easements because of that expansion. He asked if that would adversely affect the parking that is being proposed for this development? Mr. Roberts said he spoke with Ms. Finwall about that and Ms. Finwall made the developer aware of that. Ms. Finwall was confident that can be worked out but the city has not seen any detailed plans yet. Commissioner Trippler said a resident at 2965 Frederick Parkway wrote into the city that everything in this area was single story. The site plan in the staff report states the Walgreens building would be a one story building but it appears to look like a two-story building, no matter what you call it; it is definitely taller than a single story. Mr. Roberts said it's a tall one story building with a false fa9ade that gives more of an architectural look. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Matthew Regan, Meer Construction, 11800 - 95th Avenue North, Maple Grove, addressed the commission. He said this project has been a long time coming. When Meer Construction filed for the rezoning Ms. Finwall suggested moving the rezoning to the western 290 feet. This is consistent with the spirit of what they wanted there to have an office building on the east and a retail building on the west, so they think this is a very good plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -20- Mr. Regan said Meer Construction just received the report from Erin Laberee and Shann Finwall regarding the reconstruction of White Bear Avenue and the additional easernent needs. The report provided by the Ramsey County Public Works Officer along with a rough sketch from an engineering firm showed the 10 feet that would be required for the easement. He has a copy of what the parking lot would look like with the additional 1 0 feet that would be required. Staff did a very good job reporting on this proposal. Chairperson Fischer opened up the public hearing portion of the meeting. Mr. Gerry Gallagher, representing Mogren Landscaping, LLP, addressed the commission. Mogren Landscaping, LLP, is the owner of the parcel in question. He distributed docurnents to be referred to for the record during his discussion. This parcel has been contested in the past and Mogren Landscaping, LLP, is the fee owner of the parcel in question and oppose the proposed rezoning for four reasons. First, Mogren Landscaping, LLP, disputes Maplewood Financial Corporation, LLP's, right to develop the property as it proposed. Secondly, Maplewood Financial Corporation, LLP, by itself lacks the legal standing to petition and for that reason the City of Maplewood lacks the jurisdiction to grant it. Thirdly, Maplewood Financial Corporation, LLP, as lessee has no capacity at law to agree to certain development conditions which would constitute a taking if allowed to go forward. Fourth, the staff report contains some fatal errors. The litigation between Mogren Landscaping, LLP, and Maplewood Financial Corporation, LLP, concerning the underlying right to do this, is not over. There has been a partial summary judgment in the case running in favor of Maplewood Financial Corporation, LLP, but currently there is a request for review of this decision and that request is pending and alive. Other issues in that same case await a full trial, it is not over, and the case is pending. Further, even if the trial result is less than favorable to Mogren Landscaping, LLP, an appeal is likely. The city and state ordinance requires that all owners must consent or join in the application. The first document he handed out is a section from the Maplewood City Code. He referred to Sec. 44-1161. Initiation generally refers to property owners, plural have to join in the application. It is true that a lessee with a long ground lease duration such as this one, which is for 99 years and they are into it 33 years is deemed to be an owner. But they are not the only owner, the fee owner is Mogren Landscaping, LLP, and they do not consent to this. The requirement to have all the owners' consent and the city lacks the power to do this. That particular point is discussed in the case 2600 University Inn LLC verses the City of Minneapolis reported at 556 Northwest Second 218 which is the Minnesota Appellate court case from 1996. Mr. Gallagher said today, July 18, 2005, a lawsuit involving Mogren Landscaping, LLP, against the City of Maplewood for injunctive relief in this matter was heard by the Ramsey County courts by the Honorable M. Michael Mohanan, District Court Judge. Mr. Gallagher said Judge Monahan states in the handout given to commissioners and staff on page 4 that "Assuming a long-term lessee can be an "owner" at common law for some purpose, nevertheless, it is difficult to understand how the City came to the conclusion that it could consider a rezoning petition filed by one of two disagreeing "owners" given the wording of its ordinance. But, this initial puzzlement is not the point. The controlling point is that it is not part of the judicial function to render advisory opinions. The City has not acted yet. I am not ready to assume that it will act in an unlawful manner. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -21- Mr. Gallagher said this motion is not timely. Addressing the technical question, Plaintiff has not dernonstrated that it will suffer irreparable harrn. Having to participate in a "political" process is simply not a type of "harm". Participating in the political process is the essence of a civil society." Mr. Gallagher said obviously the order in the memorandum speaks for itself but it seems clear that the court is warning the City of Maplewood that although jt hasn't acted yet if they do it is very possible it would be deemed an illegal act and subject to an injunctive relief. That has yet to be determined and it is not right as the court pointed out and the motion was denied because it wasn't timely. If it does becorne an issue they are going back to court. Commissioner Ahlness asked what harm is Mogren Landscaping, LLP, going to incur and why don't they want this to happen? The planning commission is not qualified to make any legal determinations for this proposal. Mr. Gallagher said he doesn't want this to become a legal hearing on these merits. Mogren Landscaping, LLP, hasn't shared with him why they don't want it done. You can't bulldoze this decision through without the fee owner approving it. This is real estate and by definition would be irreparable harm because you can't turn things back. Commissioner Ahlness said apparently Mogren Landscaping, LLP, didn't convince the judge those reasons were good enough because the judge stated "the Plaintiff has not dernonstrated that it will suffer irreparable harm." Mr. Gallagher said his judgment is because the City of Maplewood hasn't decided to do it yet. It is not timely. When the point and time comes where it isn't and a decision is made, arguably the harm would then be vested. Mr. Roberts said Mr. Gallagher's points are all well taken but this doesn't help the planning cornrnission. The city is bound by the 60 day rule and city staff was directed by the city attorney this afternoon that the city has to process this application. The final decision is not made by the planning commission, it is made by the city council. All this testimony is much better heard by the city council when they get to make the final decision and the attorneys have more time to talk. He would disagree with Mr. Gallagher's point about the city code, the amendment to the zoning map may be initiated by city council, planning cornmission, city staff or by petition of the affected property owners. The city can rezone property if they want to whether the property owner likes it or not. The property owner may not like it and they may sue the city, but the city has done it. The city likes to resolve things and work with people and not end up in court. But to say just because the property doesn't want a zoning change doesn't mean the city isn't going to do it is not true either. The most important point is there is a lot of legal stuff going on and some of it was just heard today. Mr. Roberts said Mogren Landscaping, LLP, says don't do it and Maplewood Financial Corporation, LLP, says keep going ahead with the action and the city attorney says the city is bound by the 60 day rule. If it turns out this was a mistake, which is something the city council and the attorneys will have to answer to, but at this point staff would recommend the planning commission proceed and make an action for or against this proposal. Chairperson Fischer asked if there was any history of stopping the clock before the 60 days rule for legal actions? Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -22- Mr. Roberts said he's sure it has been done but the order today doesn't say that and unless it states the city should not proceed because of a judge's order that would be fine. The city staff has not received that yet. Commissioner Ahlness said he is still wondering what the concerns are for Mogren Landscaping, LLP. Anything legal is not the planning cornrnission's role so all the legal jargon is not for the planning commission to review and the city attorney is not here to assist the planning commission. Cornrnissioner Dierich said on page 4, under C. Discussion it states "Plaintiff's motion to enjoin the City's rezoning process" has been denied. She would submit that is illegal to try to stop the city frorn going about it's business on rezoning or not rezoning. The judge is correct in not allowing this motion to go forward but that doesn't rnean the planning cornmission can't look at the rezoning. She would agree with Mr. Roberts that the planning commission need to look at the rezoning and allow it to rnove onto the city council. Then let legal counsel fight it out in the courts if indeed that is where it ends up. Comrnissioner Trippler asked if Mogren Landscaping, LLP, owns the property why doesn't Mogren stop proceeding with the development with Walgreen's. If he owns the property doesn't he decide who can build on the property? Mr. Gallagher said Mogren Landscaping, LLP, owns the property but its leased to the applicant Maplewood Financial, LLP, over 30 years ago so they control the property under the lease. Commissioner Trippler said then Mogren Landscaping, LLP, gave up their right. Mr. Gallagher said that is another legal issue and he doesn't put that before this body of commission members. Commissioner Trippler said now he understands the situation better. Mr. Gallagher said it's not his intention to plead a case here and he understands the planning cornmission is charged with making recommendations and he wanted on behalf of Mogren Landscaping, LLP, to be aware of some of the situations here. This is just sorne of the history. Commissioner Dierich said unless Mogren Landscaping, LLP, states the reason they don't want this done isn't enough of a reason for the planning commission to understand the opposition to the rezoning and why they don't want this Walgreen's proposal built here. The planning commission wished they could hear the real reasoning behind this request to be rezoned and have a Walgreen's on this property. Mr. Gallagher said just to point out this is a partnership. He wanted to point out that there is an error in the staff report on page 2, it states May 12, 2005: The City of Maplewood received a court order which directed the city to proceed with the rezoning request as proposed by the applicants. That is not true. In the third document that he handed out was the actual order that was issued and had nothing to do with rezoning. Commissioner Pearson said there is no information on what the long term lease conditions were with the Maplewood Financial Corporation, LLP. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -23- Mr. Gallagher said that would be ernbodied in the lease itself and he didn't think the planning commission would have an interest in reviewing leases. Comrnissioner Pearson said the question comes up because of the legal inforrnation that was handed out by Mr. Gallagher. Mr. Gallagher said he understood. Chairperson Fischer opened up the public hearing. Mr. Regan said their legal counsel is present this evening if the planning commission has any questions for thern. Mr. Don Regan, Partner of Maplewood Financial Center, and Chair of Premier Bank, addressed the commission. He asked if Mr. Gallagher could offer the same handouts that were offered to the planning commission so they can respond to it? He asked if they could take a 10 minute recess so they could review the documents and have a chance to respond to them? He doesn't want to rehash old wounds and good friends who are now deceased. He doesn't want to embarrass anyone in the process or do anything improper but he would like to have a few minutes to review the documents. Commissioner Ahlness offered his handouts to Mr. Regan. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if taking a 10 minute recess is allowed during a public hearing? Mr. Roberts said that was up to the planning commission members. Commissioner Trippler did not want to take a recess and was ready to make a recommendation. Commissioner Ahlness said he thought he made hirnself clear before those legal argurnents are outside the realm of what the planning commission reviews here. Based on the merits of the project and the staff report and how it relates to zoning and planning he does not see where the legal argument would serve a purpose in advance his decision making on this. In all due respect, he thinks the corn mission has to make a decision here unless there is other public rnernbers that want to come forward on this subject matter. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody disagreed with Commissioner Ahlness' comment? Commissioner Grover agreed and said while the legal issues are very great in this case they don't cloud his perspective on the zoning application moving forward. Mr. Regan asked if the commission was going to take a recess? Chairperson Fischer said no. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -24- Mr. Regan said since there would not be a recess he wanted to continue with his comments. A little bit of history might be appropriate regarding this situation for the planning cornrnission. This has gone on now for 33 years. Mr. Regan said he applied for a bank charter at the corner of White Bear Avenue and Beam Avenue in 1972. In those days, unlike now when you could get a bank charter if you have money without much problem, in those days it was extremely difficult to put up a bank charter. Mr. Regan said he went to his good friend Jerry Mogren and asked hirn about the property at the northeast corner of White Bear Avenue and Beam Avenue. They agreed on a selling price, it was zoned as LBC (Lirnited Business Cornmercial) as it is today. As he understood it at that time, Jerry and Bob Mogren (both of whom are now deceased) were the owners of the property. When he went to close on the property Mogren Landscaping had a third partner named Richard Schreier. Even though the Mogren's were the rnajority owners of the partnership they couldn't get their partner Mr. Schreier to agree to sell the property but Mr. Schreier would agree to lease the property. Mr. Regan said he was between a rock and a hard place because he would not have been allowed a bank charter had he looked elsewhere for a site. He told Jerry and Bob Mogren they couldn't do this and the Mogren's responded that they have no alternative and that's the way it's going to be. Very reluctantly Mr. Regan proceeded with the lease. As time went on Mr. Regan got a very bad vibe frorn Mr. Schreier and had negative responses to anything that would happen. Mr. Regan said he was able to get the fee ownership for the property across the street and he moved his bank charter with the approval of the Minnesota Commerce Commission. At the time he signed this lease all three parties wanted Mr. Regan to take all the LBC property which includes the strip center to the north. He said he would have all he could handle with the 120,000 square feet building, so he declined. A few years later Mr. Schreier carne to Mr. Regan and asked him to support his request to change the LBC zoning to BC (Business Commercial) where the strip center now stands. Mr. Regan did not contest the request for BC zoning and that is where the strip center is now. That left his site with what would be known as a spot zoning situation. They were the only party in that location with LBC zoning. Mr. Regan said since then they have paid the lease and the real estate taxes and has about 1 million dollars tied up in this. They are 33 years into a 99 year lease and every condition has been complied with. They have tried to be reasonable, fair and a good neighbor. They have been paying the real estate taxes on the western driveway on Beam Avenue. The courts have decided that his position has prevailed and that is why they are here today, 33 years later. He believes this request should go forward and thinks they will prevail over Mogren Landscaping, LLP, and Richard Schreier. Mr. Gallagher said he objects to a fee owner trying to safeguard his rights and characterizes this as intimidation. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner Dierich moved to adopt the land use plan change resolution attachment 19 in the staff report. This resolution changes the comprehensive land use plan map for the west 290 feet of the vacant property located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenue from Limited Business Commercial (LBC) to Business Commercial (BC). The city is making this change because it will: a. Provide for orderly development. b. Protect and strengthen neighborhoods. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -25- c. Prornote econornic developrnent that will expand the property tax base, increase jobs and provide desirable services. d. Minimize the land planned for streets. e. Minimize conflicts between land uses. f. Prevent premature use, overcrowding or overuse of land especially when supportive services and facilities, such as utilities, drainage systems or streets are not available. g. Help to implement the goals of the comprehensive plan including: 1) The city will not approve new developrnent without providing for adequate facilities and services, such as street, utilities, drainage, parks and open space. 2) Safe and adequate access will be provided for all properties. 3) Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developrnents. 4) Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas separated by rnajor rnan-made natural barriers. 5) The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. 6) Group compatible businesses in suitable areas. 7) Promote the joint use of parking areas, drives and trash containers. 8) Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas. Adopt the zoning map change resolution on attachment 20 in the staff report. This resolution changes the zoning map for the west 290 feet of the vacant property on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues from Limited Business Cornmercial (LBC) to Business Commercial (BC). The city is making this change because: a. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. b. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood and the use of the property adjacentto the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. c. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences ofthe community, where applicable, and the public welfare. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -26- d. 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. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 8, 2005. VI. NEW BUSINESS LAND USE AND DENSITY REVIEW - EAW STUDY AREA (9:18 -10:00 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said on May 23, 2005, the city council reviewed the preliminary concept plan for the proposed Copar Companies development on the Schlomka property and authorized the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the development. As a part of the city council's review, it was discussed that the EAW analysis also should consider the future possible development of the property east of 1-494 in the area. Staff believes this is important since this future development may impact the city infrastructure (sewer, water) required for the Copar development. City staff and the consultant selected for the EAW (Kimley-Horn & Associates) are now requesting input from the planning commission on possible land uses and densities for the properties east of 1-494. Staff and the city's consultant will use these land use designations in the EAW analysis. Staff would like the planning commission to provide direction as to the proposed land use and zoning assumptions for the area south of Carver Avenue and east of 1-494. Staff will then use these land use assumptions for preparing the EAW for the area. Commissioner Ahlness asked what dollar amount is the city thinking about for this land per acre? The reason he asked is because if for example the land would cost $500,000 per acre then he knows what kind of development could be built there. Chances are single family homes couldn't be built because it would be too costly. Mr. Roberts said the big factor regarding the price is would sewer and water be available here? Developers would buy the land one way if there was sewer and water and the developers would pay a lot less if there isn't going to be sewer and water. He has heard if sewer and water is available the land could sell for $100,000 to $150,000 per acre for raw land. Staff needs input regarding the density the commission would like to see. He asked if the commissioners could see medium density in this area. Chairperson Fischer asked if city staff could foresee any reason that sewer and water services could not be provided because of the topography and length of extensions? Mr. Ahl said staff foresees having sewer and water some day. Currently the city is looking at extending sewer and water services underneath Highway 494 from the west side to the east side so that a future extension could be made. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -27- Commissioner Trippler thought he remembered the city did a sewer study for this area and that because of all of the lift stations that were required, economically sewer and water services would be too expensive and wouldn't be possible. Mr. Ahl said the sewer study was done about two years ago and they determined that because of the lift stations needed it would take 20 years before there would be sewer and water in the area. But because of the pressure to develop this area the city needs to be prepared for the potential amount of density that could be built in this area. Commissioner Trippler said he spoke to Mr. Roberts on the phone about this and he feels very uncomfortable making any decisions that would give anyone the slightest hope they could have R-3 density. He would like to see this part of south Maplewood retain the open space character and he would like to see R-1 zoning as the highest zoning in this area. Commissioner Dierich said she doesn't see how highway 494 could be conducive to allowing runoff from one area to another. Traffic is a huge issue and unless the city has the right of way for Henry Lane or Sterling Street to go four lanes wide she doesn't see how the city could let more development other than R-1 zoning solely because of the traffic. Because of the watershed district and the easements that run across the properties back there she doesn't think you could develop a whole lot at this point, especially along Carver Avenue. Sterling Street isn't regulation wide and it has a deep drop on either side of the street. She asked why Baileys Nursery wasn't included in this study? She asked who was paying for the EAW study? Mr. Ahl said the funding for the EAW study costs $35,000 and CoPar, the developer, is paying $25,000, the city, through the utility fund, is paying the other $1 0,000 to update the utility plans for the area. The city excluded Baileys Nursery from the study for sewer, drainage and roadway reasons and is outside the scope. This is something that would have to be coordinated through Woodbury. When the property for Bailey's Nursery develops that would have to have its own EAW study. Commissioner Dierich asked why the property owners along Carver Avenue were not included in the study? Mr. Ahl said those areas could be added into the study and the city is looking for direction from the planning commission for densities in the area for traffic and utility reasons. Commissioner Pearson said it doesn't show on the maps what the zoning for these homes is currently. Mr. Roberts said Commissioner Pearson is correct and that should have been included in the staff report. From 1491 Sterling Street and south, the zoning was changed to R-1(R) because the city did not think the sewer and water would happen anytime in the near future. Commissioner Pearson said to continue to fit in with the area he would recommend R-1 (R) zoning. Mr. Roberts said two years ago staff thought that too. The question is, does the planning commission feel comfortable with that. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -28- Commissioner Pearson said while talking to some of those homeowners a few years ago the highway noise was so loud you couldn't carry on a conversation unless you walked around to the front of their house. This area is going to be right on top of the highway and it doesn't make any sense to build so close to the freeway noise. Commissioner Dierich asked if the city would put the sewer and water in all at once or would the city do it in stages? How far up would the city go with extending the sewer and water? Mr. Ahl said the sewer and water would be done for the whole area so they can do it one time and do it right the first time. Commissioner Dierich asked if the city planned to widen roads and what does that do to the property owners that can't afford the assessments? Mr. Ahl said this process would identify some general traffic volumes with Sterling Street. The plan the city is going to be working on should guide the city over the next 20 years to 30 years. In 30 years Sterling Street would be upgraded. The way the city finances roads by assessing property owners. If someone can't afford the assessments the city does grant deferments for people that have hardships. If a property owner can't afford the assessment sometimes it forces people to sell their property in order to payoff the assessments. Commissioner Dierich asked if the property owner is assessed, by frontage or land size? Mr. Ahl said the city currently assesses roadways per unit size or by lot and not by frontage. Chairperson Fischer opened the discussion to the public. Nobody came forward to speak. Commissioner Grover said it may be appropriate to have some degree of flexibility here. Some areas could be R-1 zoning and some sections closer to the highway could be a higher density just to give greater access. Commissioner Trippler said once you put the sewer pipe in and you size it for a condominium that is the sewer size you get. If you construct the sewer pipe based on single family homes than you have limited the development options. Personally he would prefer R-1 zoning. Commissioner Pearson said he would prefer R-1 (R) zoning. Chairperson Fischer said she comes from an area platted in the time where the average property size was one acre. Depending on what the acre will cost will depend on the size of the lots for sale. Commissioner Dierich asked if we could hear from the consultant from Kimley-Horn Associates. Mr. Jon Horn of Kimley-Horn Associates, addressed the commission. They felt it was very important to consider vacant property on the east side of Highway 494 as part of the analysis for CoPar development while going through this process. As engineers they like to be conservative and in the discussion with staff they arrived at assuming 6 units per acre. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -29- Commissioner Dierich asked what total amount of area they are looking at developing? Mr. Horn said they are looking at about 60 acres and if it is 6 units per acre they would be looking at about 360 units. Commissioner Dierich said if you looked all the way up to the Woodbury border it would be about 900 units. That is a lot of houses that the city would have to plan for. Commissioner Trippler said he realizes this is just a planning process but he can almost guarantee it if the city goes through the process of looking at a higher density in 1 or more years a developer will come back and say the city was looking at this as R-3(M) density so they must have been thinking about R-3(M) density. He wants it made clear that he would recommend no more than R-1 or R-1(R) density. Chairperson Fischer said she would agree with the engineer's estimate of 6 units per acre. What the city thinks is the best plan isn't necessarily what ends up happening. Commissioner Trippler said if the city has a vision then that is what the city needs to do and hold on to that. If a developer comes in and asks for R-3(M) density the city can say no to the developer and have them go back to the drawing board for less density. Chairperson Fischer said she is uncomfortable with keeping the R-1(R) zoning. Commissioner Dierich said if the zoning changes to R-1 (R) zoning, people would probably subdivide the lots and development would occur haphazardly. She prefers the R-1 zoning but the R-1 zoning is the highest density she would be happy with. Commissioner Ahlness said he likes the R-1 zoning. Chairperson Fischer said regarding the freeway noise, does the UBC building code require higher standards when building close to the freeway? Mr. Ahl said part of the reason the city is requiring the EAW study to be done is because of the noise levels in the area by the freeway. The study that was done in the Legacy Village area showed there were some areas that exceeded the noise level. The UBC code requires the home cannot have a deck facing the noise level, they must have a higher class of window and insulation in the home, the home has to have air conditioning and if there is going to be a play area the area must be screened to help with the noise level. These standards hold true whether it is for single family homes or for multiple housing. Commissioner Trippler asked the chair to ask each commissioner what zoning they would prefer. Chairperson Fischer individually asked the highest zoning each commissioner would prefer. Commissioner Grover: R-1 zoning Commissioner Dierich: R-1 zoning but is not opposed to attached town homes as long as the density would be similar to the density in the R-1 zoning. Planning Commission -30- Minutes of 07-18-05 Commissioner Trippler: R-1 zoning Commissioner Pearson: R-1 (R) zoning but would be okay with R-1 zoning. Chairperson Fischer: No less than R-2 zoning but would keep options open. Commissioner Kaczrowski: R-1 zoning or R-2 zoning okay to include town homes. Commissioner Ahlness: R-1 zoning or R-2 zoning okay to include townhomes. Mr. Horn said the schedule for the EAW study is to bring the document to the planning commission on September 6, 2005, then bring it back with comments received by the planning commission on October 17, 2005, and to the city council on November 14, 2005. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Yarwood was scheduled to be the planning commission representative at the July 11, 2005, city council meeting but was unable to attend. Mr. Roberts reported the Lot Width and Setback Variances at 1774 McMenemy Street was passed by the city council, the Lark Avenue Right of Way vacation (between Hazel and Van Dyke Streets was passed by the city council, and the Richie/Anondson four-plexes at 1349 and 1359 County Road C East for the Land Use Plan Change and the Zoning Map Change was passed by the city council with some conditions. b. Mr. Pearson will be the planning commission representative at the July 25, 2005, city council meeting. The only item to discuss is the Jensen Estates Preliminary Plat (Hoyt Avenue, east of McKnight Road). c. Mr. Trippler will be the planning commission representative at the August 8,2005, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the Woodlands of Maplewood (McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue) for the Land Use plan Change, Zoning Map Change, Street right-of-way vacation, CUP and Preliminary Plat. Utility Easement Vacation (Heritage Square Fourth Addition), and the Walgreens Pharmacy Land Use Plan and Zoning Map Changes. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-18-05 -31- X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Annual Tour Update Mr. Roberts said the annual city tour is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. at city hall on Thursday, July 28, 2005. b. Gladstone Update Mr. Ahl gave an update regarding the Gladstone area. The next public meeting is scheduled for August 11, 2005, at the Maplewood Community Center. More information regarding the Gladstone area and the meeting dates is available on the City of Maplewood's website. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.