Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/2005 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 17, 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. October 3, 2005 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center (2483 and 2497 Maplewood Drive) Conditional Use Permit 7: 15 Carpet Court (Larpenteur Avenue and Arcade Street) Zoning Map Change (R-1 (single dwelling) to BC (business commercial)) Conditional Use Permit for a metal building Impervious Surface Variance NOTE: The applicant requested the planning commission table action on this item until November 7,2005. Therefore, there is no staff report and no action required at this meeting. 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations October 10 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich October 24 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer November 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Grover? 10. Staff Presentations a. Rescheduled 12->05 meeting - now will be on Wednesday 12-7-05 11. Adjoumment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Eric Ahlness Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Roberts requested discussion under Staff Presentations regarding an update on the CoPar Development. CommissionerTrippler requested a discussion under Commission Presentations regarding Best Buy's parking width approval and the idea of revisiting parking width requirements in the city. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Pearson seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Approval of the planning commission minutes for October 3, 2005. Commissioner Trippler had a correction on page 9, under staff presentations, in the last sentence, changing the word They to The. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the planning commission minutes for October 3, 2005. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-17-05 -2- Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Abstention - Ahlness V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center (2483 and 2497 Maplewood Drive) (7:10 - 8:57 p.m.) Mr. Ekstrand said Jim Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, is proposing to build an office/warehouse condominium development on the west side of Maplewood Drive (Highway 61), between Acorn Mini Storage and the Hmong American Alliance Church. This project would consist of three buildings. Building #1, closest to Highway 61, would be a 9,120 square foot, two-story building, Building #2, the center building, would be a 13,440 square foot, one-story building and Building #3, the westerly building, would be a 16,320 square foot, two-story building. The front of each building would have the appearance of offices. The rear elevations would be the dock door and delivery areas. Building #1, facing the highway, would have an office fal{ade. The back side of Building #3, facing the residential neighbors, would have a service fal{ade with overhead garage doors. The current plans are different from the original plans submitted to the city by the applicant. Plans were presented to the neighbors at a neighborhood meeting this summer. The original plans were for a four-building project of the same nature. The primary differences were that the west elevation facing the neighbors had an office fal{ade (now overhead doors) and the proposed building setback was to have been 165 feet (now 250 feet). Some of the neighbor replies and the applicant's narrative speak to this four-building layout. The primary reason the applicant revised the plans was to address grading and drainage concerns by the city's engineering staff. Staff recommended approval of this proposal with the conditions on page 4 and 5 of the staff report. Mr. Ekstrand distributed the city engineer's report he received prior to the start of tonight's meeting so the commission could review it. The applicant also gave staff a revised landscaping plan at the meeting. Mr. Ekstrand said Commissioner Trippler e-mailed six questions to staff regarding this proposal. Here are the questions and staff's responses to the questions. 1. What is the position of the city for applicants that move ahead with site preparation and/or construction prior to being granted permission? Is there an administrative penalty for such action, and if so, has the city assessed the applicant in this case? Answer: Mr. Ekstrand said the city does issue grading permits prior to full approval of a project. The city doesn't prefer that it be done that way but it has happened. In this project the applicant hasn't begun grading yet. The ground disturbance you see on site is due to the demolition of two homes that were on the site and the foundations that were dug out. But nothing has been done that is a city violation of any sort. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-17-05 -3- (Commissioner Trippler's questions continued) 2. I found a crushed fuel oil tank lying on the ground and there is evidence of several fuel oil spills near the tank. I have attached a picture of a crushed fuel oil tank that is lying on the ground near several spots with spilled (or dumped) fuel oil. Has someone at the city contacted the MPCA spills unit or the State Duty Officer about this? If not, I have. Answer: Mr. Ekstrand spoke with a representative of the MPCA and they are investigating that. The applicant has explained the situation and there was some leakage from that tank but it doesn't sound like a large leakage. The applicant can address that issue when he has the opportunity to speak. 3. There are a half dozen or more tires piled up in the middle of the property. I hope the applicant will be properly disposing of them. Answer: Mr. Ekstrand said there is trash on the property and during the construction process the site will have to be properly cleaned up and materials properly disposed of. 4. There are two large holes on the property without any barriers around the perimeters. They pose a safety danger to anyone on site, especially children. Either they should be filled in or some kind of barrier tape should be installed around them. Answer: Mr. Ekstrand said the holes on the site are from digging the foundations of the two homes out during the demolition process. 5. If I read the plan correctly and paced off the distance correctly, Building #1 will be about 40 feet closer to the street than either the church of the storage buildings next door. Is that correct, and if so, why would we allow that? Shouldn't the buildings along the street line up? I don't see any mention in your memo to the Planning Commission addressing this. Answer: Mr. Ekstrand said that is correct, Building #1 is 40 feet closer to the street than the other surrounding businesses. There is no code requirement for that. The minimum setback is 30 feet and the applicant meets that requirement. 6. Landscaping: This is the single most important concern expressed by the neighbors. And yet, we won't have a revised landscaping plan to look at until the meeting. This is totally unacceptable! We need time to look at and review all aspects of a development plan. I don't like being asked to review and decide at the last minute something the applicant hasn't gotten ready on time. They delayed their application for one month already. There is no excuse not to have a revised plan ready prior to this meeting. Depending on the number of changes made to the landscape plan, I plan on moving to table this until we have had time to fully evaluate the changes. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-17-05 -4- Answer: Mr. Ekstrand said the landscaping plan was just given to city staff this evening prior to the meeting. (Staff then handed out the smaller scale landscaping plans that the applicant gave to him before the meeting began.) Commissioner Desai asked if there were any special mitigating circumstances why the city would give an allowance of 250 feet verses the code of 350 feet or more from abutting residential property? Mr. Ekstrand said from the standpoint of mitigating circumstances the applicant wants to maximum the use of the property. The applicant has stated that there was a precedence set with the Acorn Mini Storage having a reduced setback of 250 feet and the applicant feels they should also be allowed to have the same setback. Staff realizes that the storage facility is a zero activity use and this proposal would have truck activity and car traffic going in and out of the site. Mr. Roberts said the code doesn't say in the M-1 (light manufacturing) zoning district that you have to be 350 feet away from residential. It states if you are proposing a building that is closer than 350 feet from a residential use, then it automatically requires a conditional use permit (CUP). If the proposal was 350 feet away or farther from residential, then it wouldn't need a conditional use permit and it would only need design review by the CDRB. The 350 foot rule puts an extra layer of review in the code that the city requires, including a public hearing with the planning commission and approval by the city council. If the applicant had a large site and everything was more than 350 feet away from residential there would be no public hearing, it would only go to the CDRB for design review. So basically what staff is trying to relay is the code allows buildings closer than 350 feet from residential but the applicant has to go the through the conditional use permit (CUP) process. Commissioner Trippler knows the CDRB typically reviews landscaping but he asked if the planning commission would have any say regarding the landscaping for this project. Mr. Ekstrand said because of the conditional use permit, the planning commission should discuss the landscaping issues tonight, which is an important element of review. Commissioner Dierich was troubled by the size and type of trees that are shown on the plan for this project. Amur maple trees grow about 15 feet high and she considers them a shrub, Techni Arborvitaes grow to about 10 feet in height and she also considers them a shrub, the Dogwood cardinals are 4 to 6 feet in height and the Spring snow trees grow to be about 20 feet in height and are also considered to be a small tree and have to be planted in great soil. The Amur maple trees are considered by the University of Minnesota to be a "junk" tree and they don't want to see those kind of trees planted any longer. Because the trees appear to be the size of large shrubs and she feels the city needs to be careful selecting trees that will grow to a reasonable size if the neighbors feel strongly about having good screening. Mr. Ekstrand said those are good points and the trees listed are almost all deciduous trees which wouldn't provide screening all year. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody from the city has established if there are any wetlands on this site? Planning Commission Minutes of 10-17-05 -5- Mr. Ekstrand said there are no wetlands on this site. Commissioner Dierich said it appeared there are not enough handicapped parking spaces on the plan. Mr. Ekstrand said there are six handicapped parking spaces on the plan. The planning staff and the building official will make sure there are enough handicapped parking spaces as required by code. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Jim Kellison, President, Kelco Real Estate Development Services, 7300 Hudson Blvd., Suite 245, Oakdale, addressed the commission. He would like to address some of the questions that were raised this evening. The fuel oil tank Commissioner Trippler was referring to was crushed last Friday, October 14, 2005, with the intent of it being hauled away to the proper refuse area. The tank was empty which was certified by the environmental engineer on the project. The spillage that was seen wasn't from the fuel oil tank; the spill was about 15 feet from where the fuel oil tank was and it was actually from a hydraulic line from a piece of equipment that broke on Friday. They have been talking with the MPCA about the situation, the fuel tank was removed, they are filing the appropriate reports with the MPCA and there are no concerns with the site. The large holes Commissioner Trippler spoke of are from the foundations that were removed from the site which were properly disposed of. The tires and debris will be removed from the site. The dirt has been disturbed on the site and is mostly from the removal of the homes. They are actually trying to help the Hmong American Alliance Church to the north by doing some additional moving of dirt. When the church did their parking lot on the south side of the property they have a six foot embankment where the properties adjoin. The city engineer was requiring the Hmong American Alliance Church to put a retaining wall in that area. When they submitted the plans for the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Park, it became evident that they were going to be lowering the grade on this site. Rather than the Hmong American Alliance Church spending $6,000 to $7,000 to build a retaining wall that would be useless next spring, they agreed that while they had to demolish the houses they would pull the dirt back in the area where the retaining wall would have been required at the Hmong American Alliance Church. That way, because of the grade, the retaining wall would not be required. The plan is to safely stock pile the dirt onsite so it will be there to use once they get the proper permissions and permits from the city. Mr. Kellison said the landscape plan that has been submitted tonight has been a long time coming. They had two neighborhood meetings because they wanted to be responsible with the neighbors and get their input. After the first neighborhood meeting they took objecting information from the neighbors back to the office to rework. They made some changes to the plan and submitted the plan to the city with four buildings on the site. Working with the city engineer they found out the ponding was not going to work properly on the site. They asked if their application could be temporarily withdrawn. They tried to get a special easement from the Hmong American Alliance Church to store some of the storm water on the church site but that attempt failed after about two weeks. Mr. Kellison said the plan was changed to three buildings and had to have the new site plan redrawn by the architect. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-17-05 -6- Mr. Kellison said after going back and forth, the site plan finally went to the landscape architect. He apologized for not having the landscaping plan in staff's possession last Wednesday as he just received it on Thursday afternoon at which point the planning commission packets had already gone out, Mr. Ekstrand said to bring the landscape plan to tonight's planning commission meeting which is why the planning commission is receiving the landscaping plan so late. In the original plan they were taking almost all of the berm out. They have been working very hard to push the construction as far to the east as they can to try to retain as much of the berm as they can. If there are trees on the berm that they can save they intend to save them. Further north on the property they are creating a berm that will be about four or five feet high and then plant the trees on top of the berm to help screen the new buildings from the residential homes. Mr. Kellison said the owner has access to spruce trees that are 12 to 14 feet tall so they don't plan on planting six foot tall trees that would take many years to reach maturity. If they need to plant a double row of trees or alternate the plantings to fill in the gaps then that is what they will do. They have offered to the neighbors a fence on their property to help with the screening. The neighbors were told if they wanted more screening the owner offered to plant trees in their yard. Commissioner Ahlness said he is sensitive to noise in residential areas and looking at building #3 the trucks would be unloading on the back side of the property where the residents are, he asked if there was any reason the vehicle traffic couldn't be in between the buildings instead of facing the residents? Mr. Kellison said the back of the building will not have second story offices or windows. On the front of the building there will be a mezzanine area in each of the buildings and offices that would have second floor windows looking out. If you turn the building around the building would have to be moved further to the west to allow for truck dockage and then you would encroach on the setback even more. This way if you have the truck dock on the back side of the building the building would be 250 feet away from residential. From an aesthetic standpoint the courtyard between the two buildings becomes aesthetically more pleasing for the owners and users of the facility. Commissioner Yarwood asked if the commission could require the applicant to plant a double row of trees to achieve better screening? Mr. Ekstrand said yes that is something the planning commission could recommend. Landscapers would probably say planting trees that close together is not good but the goal is to provide screening from the industrial use to the residential homes. Mr. Kellison said they would be willing to plant a double row of landscaping the only thing is when you plant trees so close together you tend to lose the bottom growth and then you end up with unattractive landscaping. They will do whatever it takes to achieve the 80% screening on the west side of the site that is requested by the city. Regarding the number of handicapped parking spaces, there are 155 parking spaces and the code is to have one handicapped parking space for every 25 parking spaces, so they do meet that requirement with the six handicapped parking spaces. Commissioner Trippler asked what the width of the parking stalls would be? Mr. Kellison said he believes the parking spaces would be 9 feet wide. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-17-05 -7- Mr. Ekstrand said the code requires 9% feet wide parking spaces. Commissioner Trippler thought the code for parking spaces was for 10 feet wide? Mr. Ekstrand said 10 feet wide is the requirement for retail or high turnover use. Office use requires 9Y:z foot wide parking spaces but the norm is 9 feet wide. Commissioner Trippler said if the code requires 9Y:z foot wide parking spaces why wasn't that reflected in the staff report and why is the applicant stating the parking spaces would be 9 feet wide? Mr. Ekstrand said he forgot to measure the parking spaces for the staff report. Mr. Kellison said he could be wrong on the width of the parking spaces and in fact they may be gY:z feet wide. Most cities require 9 feet wide parking spaces and that is why he assumed they would be 9 feet wide. The architect is responsible for drawing the plans and for making sure the parking is shown correctly on the plans. We will make sure whatever the code requirement is for the parking space width that they follow that requirement. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the commission regarding this proposal to come forward and the following residents spoke. 1. Ms. Melissa O'Connor, 2506 Adele Street North, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Her biggest concern is the barrier between the homes and this area. There will be outside lighting from the Acorn Mini Storage facility, the Hmong American Alliance Church, and now forthis development. There is already the noise from Highway 61 and now there will be many new car dealerships built on Highway 61. Planting 12 foot pines isn't going to screen the lighting and noise for the residents. There are 20 foot pines there now and if they can be saved that would be nice. She is concerned about what they will be dealing with living in this neighborhood with all the changes going on in the area. 2. Mr. Daniel Ward, 2514 Adele Street North, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He would like the building reversed like Commissioner Ahlness mentioned to move the truck docking area noise away from the residential homes. He realizes that would move the building closer to the homes but the noise would move away from the homes and would be in the best interest for the residents. Mr. Ekstrand showed two alternative plans regarding flipping the buildings around and rotating the site along with the pros and cons of changing the site plan and the affects on the residents and or the affects for the developer. Commissioner Trippler said the problem is the commission doesn't know what type of businesses will be using this facility and what volume of truck deliveries they would be receiving on the site so it's hard to decide if the site plan should be changed or left as it is proposed. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-17-05 -8- 3. Mr. Rick Cleve, 2498 Adele Street North, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Mr. Cleve and his wife just purchased and moved into their home a few weeks ago and have not had the opportunity to attend the neighborhood meetings and they are trying to get up to speed on this proposal. He is concerned about the berm on the back side of the property and planting trees on top of the berm. How does one make sure the hours of operation and the noise ordinance is followed? How will the rules be enforced? Regarding the drainage pond, what type of security or protection will there be around the pond to keep children from getting into the pond? Mr. Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director, addressed the commission. The policy in the City of Maplewood is we do not install fencing around ponds. The city has found that fences do not keep people out of the ponds. Fences hinder the rescues and hinder the ability to get into the ponds if one needs to get to the pond. This particular pond is designed at one foot contours so you can walk in and you can walk out and the contours are at a very gentle slope. Commissioner Dierich asked what the height is going to be for buildings 1, 2 and 3. Mr. Kellison said building #3 will be 21 feet high from the slab to the top of the wall and where the truck docks are it will be 25 feet high, building #1 is going to be 22 feet in the front and sloping to 24 feet high, and building #2 will be 22 feet high. Commissioner Dierich said she liked the idea offlipping the buildings around. It seemed to her that building #3 would be best served in the front and she understands the neighbors may not like having the office building overlooking the pond but it seemed to her looking at the pond would be much more interesting to look at. There may be grading issues that prohibit that from happening but that is what she would prefer to see. Mr. Kellison said the site from east to the west slopes dramatically downward so if they had the loading dock to the east they would have to move all the dirt from the east to the west. This property would then be lower than the adjacent Hmong American Alliance Church and the Acorn Mini Storage. There is also the problem of getting the drainage to flow to the back of the property so it reaches the pond. That is the main reason the loading dock faces the ponding area. When they had four buildings on this site the buildings were all at the same grade and there weren't any loading docks. But once they changed the plan from four buildings to three buildings they added a loading dock area because this is the only way they could market these condominium buildings. If they moved the loading docks to the center of the site then they would have to have more retaining walls on both sides of the property because the back property would be much lower. From an engineering standpoint it becomes practically impossible to move the water to the rear of the property. Commissioner Dierich said she is only thinking of what is best for the neighbors. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner Yarwood said he wasn't sure the issue of noise was answered but there is a condition in the staff report that states no construction noise between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-17-05 -9- Mr. Kellison said the city has an ordinance that states no noise before 7 a.m. and no noise after 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday and no construction on Sundays. He understands there is a condition that states the hours of operation. They have to be concerned about the type of users they will have in these buildings because they have to be members of the same homeowners association and the uses have to be compatible. An example of the users they are working with to sign agreements with for these units are a medical supplier, a window and door company, a general contractor and development company, and an accounting firm. Commissioner Trippler asked if it would be possible to join building #1 and building #2 together? The concern he has is building #1 is going to stick out in front of Acorn Mini Storage and the Hmong American Alliance Church by about 40 feet. If you join the two buildings together it would put the buildings more in line with the other businesses. Mr. Kellison said that 40 feet is the exact dimension between buildings #1 and #2 and that is the truck access alleyway that is required to get trucks to the dockage area. Commissioner Grover said what kind of truck traffic are you thinking of for building #3? Mr. Kellison said there will be an occasional over the road truck going in there but it's not going to be a significant number of trucks, maybe 3 or 4 truck deliveries a week. Mostly the city size trucks would be visiting these sites. Because all of the condominium units are not sold yet they are not sure of the volume. For instance, for the window and door company they would receive a delivery once or twice a week. Then smaller trucks would deliver the supply to the customers. Commissioner Grover said given the fact that there would be large trucks making deliveries will there be enough room for large trucks to maneuver around the dock area? Mr. Kellison said yes. Commissioner Dierich said she assumed the hours for truck unloading would be included in the ordinance for hours of operation. Mr. Ekstrand said that's the way the ordinance is intended to work. The city does not want trucks making deliveries before 7 a.m. or after 7 p.m. There shouldn't be semi-trucks idling at the truck docks either. As far as the general contractor business that may occupy one of the condominiums there should not be any materials stored outside. All of these situations that the city is concerned about not knowing for sure what businesses are going to occupy these spaces and could be possible nuisance issues. A conditional use permit would be required if one of the tenants had a special situation. This way the city can control what happens on the site and keep track of situations like this. Mr. Kellison said the city has these ordinances in place to eliminate potential problems. If one of the tenants do not obey the city ordinances the neighbors can call the city to complain and have the situation taken care of. Commissioner Desai asked if the neighbors would still be able to see the buildings with the berm built up and the trees double planted? Planning Commission Minutes of 10-17-05 -10- Mr. Kellison said yes they will. Commissioner Desai said as he sees it the neighbors will be sitting on their decks or in their backyards and hear the noise from this office building area then. Mr. Kellison said even with the berm and the trees double planted you will still be able to see the building even if it were 500 feet away. Sound travels no matter how much planting or screening you do. The plantings will help but it will not eliminate the sound traveling in the area. The property is zoned for commercial construction and for the types of uses they are intending to build here and they are not asking for anything unique for this type of use. They have the right to develop this property under the ordinances of the city. There will be some potential noise from this development but there are other businesses that are operating seven days a week that will make noise at all different times of day or night or on the weekends. He lives 3 miles from Highway 35E and he still hears semi trucks and motorcycles at night so it doesn't matter how far away you live from something outside noises travel. Commissioner Trippler said he didn't do a line of site but one of the residents allowed him to go into his backyard to see what could be seen. The noise is most likely going to be coming from the street or road level. The combination of the berm and the trees will help buffer the sound barrier. If you are on the second level of the home you will see more of the development and may hear more noise but the ground level noise will be helped by the buffer area and the trees. Commissioner Kaczrowski asked if the applicant considered going from three buildings to two buildings and making the buildings larger? Mr. Kellison said that becomes impractical. These buildings are being sold as condominiums and there is a certain size limitation of what people are willing to buy as far as size goes and you can get yourself out of a market. They feel they can achieve things with the type of product they have proposed here. Commissioner Dierich asked how much closer the buildings would be if you flipped the buildings around? She likes the building facades and she likes the three buildings but is struggling with the plan she is looking at. Mr. Ekstrand said if he lived here he would rather look at the front fayade of a building rather than looking at a loading dock but that is for the neighbors to decide on. However, flipping the buildings puts the more decorative office site facing the neighbors and it puts the dock area between buildings 2 and 3 and places the buildings 150 feet from the residential homes compared to 250 feet from residential as the plan stands now. Commercial Dierich asked how feasible it would be to flip this plan around? She would recommend reworking this plan to make it better for the neighbors. Mr. Kellison said he isn't sure what the neighbors preference is but this plan works the best for grading and drainage on the site and the least amount of retaining walls on this site. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-17-05 -11- Commissioner Trippler said he understands the visual benefit of turning the building so the neighbors would see the front facade as opposed to the back of the building but from the standpoint of the visual impact the berm and the trees would help the neighbors not to see the back of the dock area. Commissioner Dierich said she wasn't thinking so much of the neighbors looking at the rear of the building she was thinking of the noise coming from the dock area. Commissioner Trippler said it seems to him that would be defeating the purpose because he would think there will be less noise from the rear of the building at the dock area compared to having cars driving in and out from the front of the office building which would have a higher noise level impact. If you flip the buildings around then the buildings are 100 feet closer to the residential homes. Given the constraints the applicant has, this is the better plan. Commissioner Ahlness asked if the public hearing had already closed? Chairperson Fischer said the public hearing was officially closed. Commissioner Pearson said when looking at the elevations, such as elevation C3, it would be nice if the commission could see the housing elevation with approximate windows on the first and second story with the line of site and any berms on the site. Commissioner Trippler said you can typically assume the second story window would be at about 10 feet high so if you are standing in someone's yard the second story windows would be at about 16 feet high at the line of site. Commissioner Grover said a number of commissioners have been asking questions that would be nice to get answers to regarding how the neighbors feel. Would it be appropriate to reopen the public hearing so the commission can get those answers? Chairperson Fischer asked the commissioners if they wanted to reopen the public hearing? The commissioners agreed. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to come forward and address some of the issues the commission had. Ms. Melissa O'Connor, 2506 Adele Street North, Maplewood, addressed the commission again. Ms. O'Connor said with the original proposal for four buildings and the aesthetically pleasing side of the building facing the homes, if you eliminate one of those buildings why couldn't the applicant keep the buildings back 250 feet and have the building fayade facing the homes as opposed to the 150 feet they said they would have to have the buildings at if we looked at the nice side of the building? The homes here are three levels and will overlook these buildings. Commissioner Yarwood asked which side of the building the neighbors prefer to see? Planning Commission Minutes of 10-17-05 -12- Ms. O'Connor said she prefers the buildings be 350 feet away but if they had a choice between looking at the nice side of the building at 150 feet away and have more vehicietraffic compared to looking at the docking area and having the building at 250 feet away and less vehicle traffic, she would prefer to have the buildings farther away with a lot of screening and landscaping and look at the docking area with less vehicle traffic. Mr. Rick Cleve, 2498 Adele Street North, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Mr. Cleve said Mr. Kellison said they were going to bend over backwards to create a berm and screen the buildings and he wondered how that would be accomplished with working with the neighbors. He just doesn't want to see the berm and the trees taken down one day. He wants to get a feel for what type of interaction is going to take place between the neighbors and applicant. Mr. Ekstrand said the CDRB will be looking at the physical elements such as building design, landscaping, lighting etc. to make sure that it meets city code and lessen impacts on the neighborhood and then it goes to the city council for the final decision. Chairperson Fischer asked when this proposal would be going to the CDRB? Mr. Ekstrand said this was going to go to the CDRB on Tuesday, October 25,2005, but since staff just got these plans tonight it may not be ready in time and may have to be delayed until Wednesday, November 9, 2005, (delayed one day because of election day) and then on to the city council on either November 14, 2005, or November 28,2005. Mr. Kellison said as far as the four buildings versus the three buildings goes the difference is that with the four buildings they had 56,000 square feet of buildings and when they took the fourth building out the third building had to get a little larger so they could get to 52,000 square feet. They are not selling as much product as they had anticipated and they are taking a significant economic impact to build this plan. He said they would be very happy to have a small committee of one to three people from the neighborhood that they could meet with to go over the design and landscaping issues and to answer any questions or fears the neighbors would have. One of the neighbors could write things down and turn the notes into the city so the city is aware of the discussions that took place. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing for the second time. Commissioner Pearson said he thinks under condition number 9. he thinks there should be an addition stating there should be dust control and street sweeping done. An example of this problem is the 3M project to keep the dirt from building up and causing problems. Commissioner Pearson moved to adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permitfor a proposed building setback of 250 feet from the rear lot line for an office/industrial condominium development at 2488 and 2497 Maplewood Drive. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. All construction shall follow the site plan that the city has date-stamped October 11, 2005. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-17-05 -13- 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started, or the proposed use utilized, within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The hours of operation shall be limited to the city's hours for noise control for the westerly building as stated in Section 18-111 of the city code. This means that there shall be no noise generated between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through SaturdaYef and all day Sunday. This condition applies to any and all business activities occurring on the west side of Building #3. The applicant's sale or lease agreements should specify this. 5. The site lights, west of Building #3, the westerly building, shall be turned off after 10 p.m. unless required to e on by the police department for security reasons. The lights on the west side of Building #3 shall also be of a design that conceals the lens and bulbs of these light fixtures. Light-intensity maximums must meet code requirements. 6. Combine the two legal descriptions into one legally-described lot prior to obtaining a building permit for this development. 7. Provide a landscaping/screening plan, includinq a double row of trees alonq the west boundarv prior to the issuance of a building permit, which provides a visual screen that is at least 80 percent opaque and six feet tall. This screen shall be an all-seasons buffer of items like decorative fencing, berming or evergreen trees. This visual screen shall be provided along the rear of the property and extend from there along both side lot lines to the rear of the property and extend from there along both side lot lines to the rear setback line of Building #3. This plan may take into account existing vegetation and existing screening. 8. Meet all requirements of the community design review board and city code for architectural design, landscaping.....aM site lighting and parkinq ordinance. 9. Meet all requirements of the city engineer for site grading, drainage and erosion control, dust control and roadway dirt build-up. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. Commissioner Trippler said he is going to support this proposal. However, he wanted to express his displeasure with receiving two important elements the evening of the meeting. Particularly the landscaping plan that was just received this evening. This was one of the largest concerns of the neighbors and for the commission to have to make decisions on whether to approve of something or not in such short notice is unacceptable to him. Next time he would vote to table the proposal because of incomplete information. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-17-05 -14- Commissioner Ahlness said a statement was made such as truck traffic will be minimal and he is sure the applicant in good faith thinks that is what will happen. Over time condominium ownership could change and things could happen and he would encourage the neighbors to keep a close eye on things. If something should happen in this development the neighbors should call the city with their concerns. It takes a lot of work to get things done in the city because years ago he complained to the city and it took a long time to get things taken care. He would encourage the applicant to be a good neighbor and make sure the tenants know what the city ordinances are and what the association rules of the building will be for the neighbor's sake. Commissioner Dierich said she is not supporting this plan. She agrees with Dale Tripplerthat it is unacceptable to receive two important elements and expect the commission to vote on something with no notice or review of the material. For her there will be no next time. She would have tabled this proposal for incomplete plans. She will be voting nay on this proposal. Even though Mr. Kellison has the right to develop the property he is still coming to the city asking for a conditional use permit (CUP) which means the city has the right to say "how" the property is developed. She thinks this proposal is going to come back and bite the city later. Neighbors should monitor this development once this proposal is finished and she doesn't think the neighbors will get a good response once they do call the city to complain. That happens a lot. She believes you should stop the problems before they start rather than going retrospectively and solving the problems later. She likes the building elevations Mr. Kellison showed the commission and she likes the plan but it could be worked on a little bit more. Commissioner Yarwood asked if it would be appropriate to add a condition as well that requires the developer meet with the designated representatives of the neighborhood at appropriate times during the development of this property so that contact between the parties is maintained? Mr. Roberts said that could be a separate motion to suggest that to the city council to decide on. Commissioner Yarwood moved that the developer meet with the designated representatives of the neighborhood on an ongoing process regarding the landscaping and screening issues of the property. Commissioner Desai seconded. Commissioner Ahlness said that motion is too broad and a more appropriate statement would be that the residents should have an opportunity to comment on the landscaping plan and those comments would be seen by staff and the city and other boards prior to it being approved, but opening it up to other phases of the construction is inappropriate. Commissioner Grover said the way it was laid out by the developer was that this would be an ongoing conversation and not a conversation that would end when the city council made the final decision because the development would be after it was approved by the city council. The trees would be kept or taken out after the fact; given the fact the city council has the final decision on things. Commissioner Grover said it is placing a condition as part of the CUP and what was suggested by the residents and approved by the developer. It's not the commissions desire to establish a timeline but just so the conversation continues as part of the resolution. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-17-05 -15- Commissioner Yarwood said some verbal agreements were made here tonight and to ensure there are no surprises for the neighbors and the developers as this project goes forward he would recommend conversations between the groups. Commissioner Grover said the motion is to alert the city council that this is something the commission is thinking about as well. Commissioner Ahlness said the ongoing nature of talking about the landscaping plan and the aspects of the berm and the grading are very important but he would hate to see this conversation expand into other issues of the construction plan and cause unfair economic cost to the developer to pause the development. He understands the concept but he doesn't agree with the wording. Commissioner Trippler said he didn't hear the developer say anything regarding the citizen committee being able to dictate anything, he said he would be happy to meet with them, discuss things with them, and that a neighbor should keep notes from the meetings and convey issues that were brought up back to the city. He is assuming the developer is willing to listen to what the neighbors say but he may not be able to implement things because of the economic issues. The commission just wants to let the city council know they have a strong need to make that recommendation and encourage the discussions continue with the neighbors. Commissioner Grover said this is not binding on either party but the nature of the landscaping is one of the last things done in a development and it will be an ongoing conversation through most of the development. Mr. Ekstrand said once the city council approves the landscaping the city has a final plan so there should not be any changes to the plan afterwards. The applicant and the neighbors can have a dialogue but if they decide to change the landscaping plan after it was already approved by the city council the applicant will have to come through the city process again with those changes to be approved. Commissioner Trippler said the community development director can make minor changes to the plan without going through the whole process again. Mr. Ekstrand said that is correct. Mr. Roberts said just for everyone to be aware when a development is done and they have their building final the developer looks to obtain final occupancy and requires a certificate of occupancy. In order to get the certificate of occupancy, the planning staff has to go out and check for the proper requirements to be complete and done correctly. Staff goes out to count parking spaces, trees, plantings and checks the lighting etc. then the Community Development Department can issue a certificate of occupancy. Chairperson Fischer called the question. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-17-05 -16- Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Trippler, Yarwood Nays - Ahlness, Pearson The motion passed. Commissioner Ahlness said he voted nay because the motion was too broad and he feels granting the neighbors the ability to influence a project beyond landscaping could possibly delay the project and is unfair to the developer. Commissioner Pearson said he voted nay because the motion allows the possibility to high jack the project. This item goes to the city council on either November 14 or November 28,2005. b. Carpet Court (Larpenteur Avenue and Arcade Street) Mr. Roberts said the applicant requested the planning commission table action on this item until Monday, November 7, 2005. Therefore, there is no staff report and no action required for this item. Commissioner Trippler moved to table this item until Monday, November 7,2005. Commissioner Ahlness seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion to table passed. VI. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Dierich said because of the wash out from all the rain in south Maplewood she asked staff about the Linwood Development and the status of the retaining wall that was supposed to be built to help stabilize things in the area. Mr. Ahl said the retaining wall should be started this week. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-17-05 -17- IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Ms. Dierich was scheduled to be the planning commission representative at the October 10, 2005, city council meeting however, there were no planning commission items to discuss. b. Ms. Fischer will be the planning commission representative at the October 24,2005, city council meeting. The only item to discuss is the Ramsey County Public Library, 3025 Southlawn Drive for the Land Use Plan change and for the PUD revision from BC (Business Commercial) to L (Library). c. Mr. Grover is unable to be the representative at the November 14, 2005, city council meeting so Mr. Yarwood volunteered to take his place. The only item that may be discussed is the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center 2483 and 2497 Maplewood Drive for the Conditional Use Permit. d. Best Buy Parking Stall Width Commissioner Trippler had asked staff to provide information regarding the city council's decision regarding Best Buy's parking stall width. Staff provided a copy of the parking plan to CommissionerTrippler regarding the parking plan which Commissioner Trippler displayed on the monitor for everyone to see. He showed the parking spaces that were 10 feet wide on the site plan; some stalls were at 9% feet wide and some parking stalls were at 9 feet wide. The city council approved all the parking spaces to be 9 feet wide despite what already exists in the parking lot. In the old Best Buy building they had requested permission to have the parking stalls that were at 10 feet wide parking stalls to 9 feet wide and the city council grandfathered in the 9 foot wide parking stall size so the new Best Buy building could have all the parking spaces at 9 feet wide. He would recommend the planning commissioners drive to the site and park your car in a 9 foot wide parking stall and see how much room you have to open your door without getting a ding in your door. He thinks the planning commission should reevaluate the issue of parking stall widths. He believes the city is requiring too many parking stalls for some of these developments and they may not need that many parking spaces, maybe there could be less parking stalls and the parking spaces could be wider at 10 feet wide. Commissioner Yarwood asked if he understood correctly that 10 foot wide parking stalls are required for retail space and office or low turnover retail can have 9% feet wide parking stalls. Mr. Roberts said the city allows 9 foot wide parking stalls if the development puts up an "employee only" parking sign. Commissioner Ahlness said he thinks it's a good idea to revisit the option of having fewer parking spaces and have the parking spaces wider. That would be good for both the business and the customers. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-17-05 -18- Chairperson Fischer asked if staff could think of some situations where the city has given the applicant the opportunity to provide proof of parking in case the applicant needs to add additional parking spaces in the future? Mr. Ekstrand said the biggest example he can think of is Slumberland on County Road D. That building has proof of parking (green space) and still has an excessive amount of unused parking spaces. Commissioner Trippler said he believed another commercial property on County Road D towards the Bruentrup Farm called the Harbor Point Office Condos that had more parking spaces on their plan than what was needed. His concern is allowing developers to have 9 foot wide parking spaces. The city needs to look at requiring 10 foot wide parking stalls but require lesser parking spaces. Of course each site would have to be looked at individually depending on the usage. e. Gladstone Meeting Update Commissioner Trippler said at the last Gladstone meeting they asked task force members how they felt having "some" development on the Savanna or not. It turned out there were more votes for "limited" development on the Savanna as opposed to "no" development on the Savanna. There were a number of conditions they had in order to approve some development on the Savanna. There was discussion on traffic flow and whether or not Glouster Park should become an overflow for the storm sewer or whether it should be retained as an active park. They decided there should be some active park in this area. He personally didn't see enough facilities for the "very young" or for the "very old" on the plan. Chairperson Fischer asked if staff knew when there would be time during an upcoming meeting for the planning commission to discuss the Gladstone Redevelopment Area Plan. Mr. Roberts said he would have to check on that. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Just a reminder that the Monday, December 5,2005, planning commission meeting has been rescheduled to Wednesday, December 7,2005, because of the city budget hearing. b. CoPar Development Update Mr. Roberts gave a quick update on the south Maplewood property for 375 units south of Carver Avenue. He said the EAW report is being done now. c. Update on Training Ideas and Opportunities Mr. Roberts said at the last meeting we discussed training ideas and opportunities and one of the ideas is for Infill Developments. He will bring examples of other infill developments from the past five years back to the commission but two areas he can think of were Olivia Gardens on Stillwater Road and Cahannes Estates on Minnehaha Avenue. Staff will be bringing more information back to the planning commission regarding infill developments. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-17-05 XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m. -19-