Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/19/2005 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, December 19, 2005, 7:30 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. November 21,2005 5. Public Hearings 7:30 C. Kings Addition (Jessie Street, south of Ripley Avenue) Street right-of-way Vacation Preliminary Plat 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business In-fill Study Update 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations November 28 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler December 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Grover December 26 Council Meeting: (None needed - cancelled) January 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Tushar 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjoumment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairperson Desai called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. (Tonight's meeting was delayed because ofthe joint Gladstone Redevelopment Plan meeting that started at 6:00 p.m. at the Maplewood Community Center.) 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 at 7:35 p.m. Present Present Present Present Present Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Michael Thompson, Staff Engineer Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Ahlness requested discussion about the city noise ordinance during commission presentations. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Trippler 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 November 21,2005. Commissioner Trippler had corrections to page 4 and 5. On page 4, in the ninth line, change the word raising to razing. On page 5, in the last paragraph, in the first line, delete the words for M1 (light manufacturing). Commissioner Grover moved to approve the planning commission minutes for November 21, 2005, as amended. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -2- Commissioner Grover seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Trippler Abstentions - Pearson, Yarwood V. PUBLIC HEARING a. C. Kings Addition (Jessie Street, south of Ripley Avenue) (7:36 p.m. - 9:57 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Vinh Le, representing Wisdom Development Group, is proposing to develop a four-lot plat for single dwellings called C. Kings Addition. It would be on a 1.8-acre site on the south side of Ripley Avenue, west of Edgerton Street. To build this project, Mr. Le is requesting that the city approve the vacation of an unused street right-of-way (Jessie Street), an unused alley and excess easements within the property and a preliminary plat for four lots for single dwellings. Mr. Roberts said on November 8, 1999, city council approved a building request for James Harrison for this site. Specifically, the city council approved a construction agreement to allow Mr. Harrison to build one house on the property. The city needed to approve this agreement since the property he wanted to build on does not have frontage on an improved public street. In addition, the council approved the vacation of the alley between Bradley Street and Jessie Street that is south of Ripley Avenue. Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. It would be an in-fill plat for new houses on a site surrounded by single-family homes. The proposal also includes the construction of Jessie Street into the site with a permanent cul-de-sac. Mr. Roberts said of the 60 properties within 500 feet of this proposal, staff received 6 replies from neighbors. Commissioner Grover asked if the 2.2 units per acre for the site included the wetland and the right of way in the acreage calculation? Are the lot sizes within the 10,000 square feet minimum for this proposal? Mr. Roberts said yes. The single family lots meet or exceed the standards of Maplewood. Commissioner Trippler asked what the purpose of Outlot A and Outlot B is? Mr. Roberts said Outlot A is a small strip of land. The right of way is 66 feet wide. By vacating this strip of land and replatting it you end up with a small strip of land which would then be dedicated to the property owner to the west making for a 60 foot right of way which is the requirement for the city. Outlot B is a small triangular piece of land that was added in by the developer at the request of the adjoining property owner. If in the future they want to remove the garage that is on the property they would have access onto the new street with some frontage and utility access and they could possibly plat a new lot off their existing property at 1777 Edgerton Street. The triangular piece of property would be deeded over to the property owner for their use at no charge. This would allow them the opportunity for future redevelopment of that property if they choose to do so in the future. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -3- CommissionerTrippler said there were five symbols that were identified as SB 1, 2, 3,4,5 but he did not see anywhere on the plans what that represents. In his background SB stands for soil borings. If SB stands for soil borings that means to him that there is soil contamination but he did not find anything in the staff report regarding soil contamination. Mr. Roberts said that does represent soil borings and his understanding was the samples were done to check the subsurface conditions for the quality of the soil, not necessarily that the developer was looking for contamination. They were looking to see if there was any fill on the site, how much fill was on the site, if there was any bad soils that would limit the type of construction or that would require soil corrections to be done. Staff is not aware of any soil contamination but the applicant Mr. Alan Kretman, can better address this question. CommissionerTrippler said on page 15 in the staff report the applicant states minimum grades of 0.5% and maximum grades of 5.5% will be used for concrete curb and gutters. He thought the city's maximum slope for concrete was 3%. Mr. Roberts said he wasn't sure and he asked the staff engineer, Michael Thompson, if he knew he didn't know off hand either. Mr. Roberts said he would defer that question to Mr. Kretman. Commissioner Trippler said on page 27 of the staff report there is a letter from Tina Carstens from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District and she states the SPRWS provided comments to the applicant and their engineer in September 2005 but the SPRWS had not heard from the applicant. Therefore the SPRWS would not take this application to the Watershed board until those issues were cleared up. Does staff know if those issues have been dealt with yet? Mr. Roberts said Mr. Kretman has been working with the SPRWS but he doesn't know if the questions have been answered. This proposal will go to the watershed district sometime in January. The watershed will not sign off on the project unless they are satisfied with the results or answers. Commissioner Trippler asked what the outcome would be if the watershed district doesn't like the applicant's answer and the commission recommends this project? Mr. Roberts said until the applicant makes the watershed district happy the applicant doesn't have an approved project. Commissioner Dierich asked what that means as far as the number of lots the commission has approved. If the watershed district has issues with the site, and the number of lots can be changed, can the commission direct the applicant to the number of lots the commission would like to see on this site? Mr. Roberts said if it turned out that the only way the applicant could satisfy the concerns of the watershed district is by requiring the applicant to add a ponding area and the applicant had to lose one of the single family lots, than the applicant would have to lose one of the four single family lots. Commissioner Dierich said the property owner at 556 Ripley Avenue said on page 9, number 2, of the staff report that this property needs to be cleaned up. If that is true then who bears the cost of the clean up, the developer, or the city? Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -4- Mr. Roberts said he hasn't read all the soil boring reports but whatever needs to be cleaned up is the developer's responsibility, not the City of Maplewood. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Alan Kretman, CEO and owner of Proterra Design Associates, Inc., 7300 Hudson Blvd., Suite 220, Oakdale. They have submitted a detailed storm water management plan to the city which has examined the hydrology of the wetland basin as well as another low area that is on the site. The existing wetland basin has been delineated by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc. and has been classified by the watershed district as a "utilize" class 5 wetland which has been accepted by the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District. In working with the watershed district and their recommendations, the storm water design for the site will have storm water collected through an engineered storm water system and directed to the delineated on-site storm water detention/retention wetland basin located at the southwest portion of the site. It is naturally designed to NURP standards and has sufficient size to handle the 2-year, 10-year, 100- year, back to back 100-year, and 10-day rainfall and/or snowmelt events for the neighborhood and for all off-site drainage currently flowing to the property. Emergency storm water overflow routing will be taken into account with the design of the site grading and wetland basin outlet. The on-site wetland basin system will have the ability to totally handle the impact of all of the above mentioned storm events and have no effect on the downstream system. A detailed storm water management plan has been completed in order to ensure the existing system has the capacity required for the proposed subdivision. This document has been submitted to the watershed district and is currently under review. An 8-inch water main will be extended from the existing water main in Ripley Avenue to the end of the Jessie Street cul-de-sac and terminated at a new fire hydrant. Connection into the City's existing sanitary sewer system currently exists to the north at the intersection of Jessie Street and Ripley Avenue. The existing 8-inch gravity sanitary sewer within the currently un-built Jessie Street right-of-way will provide service to the entire development with no lift stations needed. 341 lineal feet of the existing sanitary sewer main will remain in place and 154 lineal feet of the existing sanitary sewer will be removed in order to make the vacated portion of the Jessie Street right-of-way usable. The proposed minimum lowest floor elevation required for each residential structure has been established by the elevation of the existing sanitary sewer, the proposed sanitary sewer services, and elevation of the emergency storm water overflow. Mr. Kretman said regarding the soil borings, his company doesn't engineer a site until they know what the ground is like underneath. It appeared there was some fill in the area so they examined that, they also looked at the water elevation in the ground water and found out there is a significant amount of fill that has been placed on this property. They took a soil boring test down to 850 and didn't find water in the borings but there were some higher moisture levels in one of the tests. When they examine something like that they determine what can happen with a wetland like this. The wetland was created because of a glacial deposit in the area where the clay captured the water. Where there is no clay in the soil the soil functions better than the wetland does from a drainage point. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -5- Mr. Kretman said they will be taking this project before the Watershed District on Wednesday, January 4, 2006. He completed a response to the letter from the Watershed District and their engineer. He will send that letter to the city bye-mail on Tuesday, December 20th because he just received confirmation from his soils engineer this afternoon. They have been working with the Watershed District's Engineer and the responses are in line with the Watershed's expectations. They will work through the issues with the watershed district. He found a copy of the letter from the engineer and passed it along to Michael Thompson, Staff Engineer, for Maplewood. Mr. Kretman said regarding the tree plan, he knows the applicant is required to plant 18 new trees. They would like to work with the neighbors to place the trees strategically to provide for their needs as well as for the future residents that will be living in these homes. They talked to a few of the neighbors about this already and welcome additional input from the residents in the area. Mr. Kretman said during the meeting with Mr. Harrison, he also discussed the potential for the subdivision of his property to take advantage of the construction of Jessie Street. Mr. Harrison stated that he would be open to relocating his garage to create that opportunity to subdivide his property. The nice thing for Mr. Harrison is the developer will be putting in the street, the utilities, and giving him the Outlot B a triangular piece of property which will give him the right of way so he won't encroach closer to his house. This way Mr. Harrison could come into the city and apply for a lot split if he wanted to. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Kretman what the intent is for parcel 3 and 4? If he understands the grading plan correctly it looks like there will be a 10 foot drop from the front of the house to the back of the house and another 10 to 14 foot drop off to the back of the lot. Mr. Kretman said that is true for parcel 4 and that is normal for a walkout lot. In the case of parcel 3 the homeowner will be able to walk out a small area of the backyard. That lot will be developed similar to a lot that was developed in Kenwood Oaks that was done in 1989. The end lots there have a wetland they face with a minimal backyard. The intent is that the homeowner would step out onto a deck with a minimal backyard. The homeowner is usually a senior that doesn't want a lot of yard to maintain. The backyard would probably be vegetated with prairie grass to achieve the natural look and it would extend into a wooded area. He knows the neighborhood would appreciate that natural characteristic. Commissioner Trippler said he can't imagine a senior citizen would want that type of lot with that large of a drop off in the yard. Chairperson Fischer said she thinks the intent is for a senior who doesn't want to live in a townhouse and still prefers a single family home but isn't interested in a large yard to maintain. Commissioner Trippler said he assumed the developer would be doing some in-fill. Mr. Kretman said yes. Commissioner Trippler asked if the in-fill would have any negative affect on the drainage or generate more storm water on the site? Mr. Kretman said the storm water management plan shows there is no net runoff from the development in a post development condition. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -6- Commissioner Yarwood said the rainwater garden is very important because the extra drainage area the developer will be adding will be going to the wetland which encompasses existing lots. Secondly, you are turning natural land into developed land which leads to increased concentration. He wants to stress the point that this is a very important part of planning to make sure the runoff and drainage is carefully planned and double checked. Mr. Kretman said when they first started the project he called Tina Carstens from the watershed district and she said this is a class 5 wetland but it is a "degraded" wetland. It's not in good condition and with the additional runoff it will help with the hydrology. With proper landscape management techniques on the edge it will create a stronger buffer and help the wetland out. Commissioner Grover said in terms of the additional lot that could be created for Mr. Harrison from Outlot B, does that meet the minimum size expectations in the city? Mr. Roberts said tonight is the first time staff has seen a plan regarding an additional lot for Mr. Harrison and it's something staff would have to review at the time of a lot split application if in fact the city would even receive an application for a lot split. Tonight the city is looking for the plan to be approved with the outlot such that it gives Mr. Harrison the "option" in the future if he wants it. Staff is going to trust that Mr. Kretman has laid everything out to show it meets the city standards. Mr. Kretman said that lot has a 75-foot lot width; the lot is 10,785 square feet with a 5-foot garage setback, a 1 O-foot living side yard setback and a 20-foot rear yard setback and front yard setback. The largest lot in this development is over 23,000 square feet. Chairperson Fischer said if anyone in the audience wanted to address the commission regarding this proposal they should come forward and give their name and address and sign in for the record. There were 18 neighborhood residents in the audience, one city council person, and the mayor elect. Of the 18 neighborhood residents, the following nine people spoke: 1.) Bill Stroeing, 1797 Sunrise Court, Maplewood. Mr. Stroeing said this past summer, on two occasions, the pond on Edgerton Street and Ripley Avenue had to be pumped out 2 to 3 weeks because it overflowed. If this developer is allowed to build 4 homes in this area and the pond would be to the southwest of the property, where is the water going to run from there? Will they pump that pond 2 to 3 weeks at a time to get the water level down to the minimum so someone's backyard isn't floating? Mr. Roberts said Mr. Kretman's storm water analysis ensures there would be no additional water going into the pond then what already goes into it. The elevation would not change and even if there was more water, the pond is low enough below the adjoining homes so there is room for some rise. Everyone is very cognizant of this and the engineers will make sure if there is more water there will be a way to get the water out without flooding the neighbors. Mr. Stroeing said it doesn't seem realistic to have four more homes with rooflines that will drain off and any water moving in that direction. Where did the existing water that flooded the ponds this summer on two different occasions come from then? Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -7- Mr. Roberts said that is the analysis that the developer's engineer along with the city engineer have found and they are confident that will not be a problem. Mr. Stroeing said there is already a problem there and he doubts the engineers are coming truthful with the watershed district because the additional water will have to run somewhere. With the cul-de-sac and Jessie Street going down to Ripley Avenue there is already water standing. Water stands on the street for at least 10 days after a rainfall. There are no storm sewer drains going into the city sewer here. Any water that runs off any existing building or street is supposed to go into these ponds and the ponds all connect. On the west side there is a ditch or channel that would run towards Bradley Street. Mr. Richard Lefebvre has a pond in his front yard and if a lot of water runs through there his house will be flooded. In the report the applicant said the sewer shouldn't be a problem. Well every morning there are two city employees that go to the lift pumping station to check things out every day. Mr. Roberts said there is a sanitary sewer lift station and that is a low point for a sanitary system. It is city policy when there are crews on staff that they check the system to make sure there are no problems. It's a routine practice that is done at all the lift stations that are checked on a daily basis and there are about 6 or 7 lift stations in the city. Mr. Stroeing said if you add four more homes and they connect to the city sewer system in this area, will the pumping station be able to handle another four homes? Mr. Roberts said that is his understanding. Mr. Stroeing said they have lost power several times and within a half an hour there is a Maplewood truck with a generator down there to make sure the system is flowing all the time. If the holding tank in that area is big enough to adhere to this why is the city there that quick to make sure there is power to pump the station? Mr. Roberts said there is no holding tank for the sanitary system. If the pump isn't working, the sewage isn't flowing, and that's why the crew is there with a generator to make sure the pump is pumping and the homes don't get sewage in their basements. Mr. Stroeing said the proposed homes will be sitting higher than the rest of the surrounding homes and he is concerned the homes that are lower in elevation will get flooded. Mr. Stroeing asked what the difference was between a variance and a vacation? Mr. Roberts said vacating a right of way or alley means the applicant is asking the city to take it off the books. The property is currently owned by the public for public use. When the city vacates the property it means the city gives up their interest in the property. A variance is a term used when somebody wants to build with a setback that is different than the norm. For example, the normal front yard setback is 30 feet and if somebody wanted to build at 20 feet that would be a "variance". Mr. Stroeing asked how deep the soil borings were that were done on this property? Commissioner Trippler estimated the soil borings were at about 25 feet deep. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -8- Mr. Stroeing said that property was once a dump so they may have not gone deep enough to see the condition ofthe soil. Do we know what was dumped on that property? There has been a lot of fill put onto this property too. He asked if there were any permits pulled to put fill on that property? Mr. Roberts said typically a fill permit is needed but he doesn't have access to that information at this time to check if a fill permit was ever issued. Fill permits are issued in public works in the engineering department. Mr. Stroeing said that is something that should be checked into. There has been a lot of stuff dumped on that property and the city should investigate this. Last fall someone was hauling fill onto this property. He doesn't agree with the proposal for a 20 foot backyard size. This project is something that needs to be checked into further. The applicant wants to talk to the neighbors to see where the trees should be planted but if you plant the trees too close to the houses, the trees will get too large and cause structural problems. It could also cause moisture problems being so close to the house when you plant a tree 10 feet from a house. He said he would like the opportunity to come back up and speak if he thinks of any other questions or issues to raise. 2.) Kelly Gohr, 540 Ripley Avenue, Maplewood. Ms. Gohr said she has lived in her house for 18 years. After they moved into their house it was flooded twice and the sanitary sewer ended up in her basement as well in other people's basements in this neighborhood. Ripley Avenue is at the bottom of the hill. The water runs down the hill into the pond directly off of Ripley Avenue that's why the pond is full every time it rains. The pond has to be drained off. There are three houses that are threatened by the water that rises from the pond. Her house is going to be at the bottom of another hill when this development is built because the homes will be higher in elevation. She had sewer backed up in her basement and she came before the city council along with the neighbors and requested a new lift station or something be done with the sewer system because of the repeat problems. Monitors were put in so that when there was a power outage and the lift station backed up, somebody from the city would be there right away to fix the problem. That has worked fine so far. There have been four homes that have been added into the neighborhood since then but there has been space forthe four homes. The houses weren't built on top of a hill that will look down onto the rest of the neighborhood like this proposal will. You are asking the neighbors to accept the fact that they are sitting in a bowl and after these four homes are added this will add more water to the bowl. The sanitary system will need to be redone in order for her to feel safe enough that she won't have sewage backed up in her basement again. She has had to file 2 insurance claims because of sewage backing up in her basement. Then she had to file another claim from straight line winds that came through the neighborhood. If this development causes another flood her house will be ruined, her insurance will be cancelled, and nobody will care but her. The developer is trying to force four new houses in an already cozy neighborhood, add another road into this neighborhood, cause more traffic, cut down a lot of trees, and cause a lot of disgruntled neighbors because nobody is happy about this proposal. These houses will be sitting up high and will look down onto her house and backyard. This whole area is built on a dump. She has glass, broken bottles, cans, metal, marble from old tombstones and other rusty stuff coming through the soil in the backyard where the grass doesn't grow and further into the woods. The developer came to her house and said there would be no "usable" backyard for the home that would be built behind her house and there would be a deck overlooking her home. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -9- Ms. Gohr said her house will be at risk for flooding as well as other homes in this neighborhood if this development is approved and she strongly objects to this proposal. She is angry about this and if any of the commissioners has ever had sewage in their basement like she has twice already it is not a pleasant experience and now she has to worry about it happening again. Commissioner Trippler asked when the last time her home was flooded with sewage? Ms. Gohr said the last flood occurred about 16 years ago. Commissioner Trippler asked if that problem occurred before or after the monitors were put in? Mr. Roberts said Ms. Gohrtestified earlier the sewer backups occurred before the monitors were installed. Ms. Gohr said the monitors have helped but there are other problems that still exist. The neighbors were told these homes would be in the $400,000 to $500,000 range. These are large homes which will look silly in this type and size of neighborhood. The neighbors are going to feel like the little people in their own neighborhood, this development does not fit in with this existing neighborhood. Commissioner Ahlness asked if Ms. Gohr has had any flooding due to the runoff in her house or was sewage the main problem. Ms. Gohr said she hasn't had any flooding in her house due to runoff but there is always standing water on the street after it rains or when the snow melts because it has no place to go. Water runs down her driveway. They had their driveway graded so that the water goes off to the side and into the vacated driveway. The pond fills up on the west end of the street. There are constantly three homes on the north side of Ripley Avenue that are threatened by flooding all the time. The city is aware of it; they come with their pumps and hoses and drain the water off the site to Larpenteur Avenue which is about four blocks away. Commissioner Yarwood said he has had some training in civil engineering and it seems they are prepared for what might happen to the wetland according to the report from the applicant. He is concerned with how this site interacts with the larger drainage area and the pond on Edgerton Street. He asked how confident staff is that the surrounding area has been accounted for in the drainage plan? Mr. Michael Thompson, Staff Engineer addressed the commission. Staff is looking at this as anything that is going to be developed is going to be done with predevelopment conditions. That is where the rainwater garden plan would come in or a pond could be built. There are a few issues with the drainage report still such as the in-fill in the depression area that wasn't accounted for so there are some things that haven't been ironed out. The main concern is that this project doesn't add to any existing problems on the site. 3.) Jim Boche, 556 Ripley Avenue, Maplewood. Mr. Boche asked where the soil borings were taken? Mr. Kretman said the soil borings were taken in various places and he showed the approximate locations on the map. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -10- Mr. Boche said he is leery about the soil on the property. He has lived here for 20 years and he had to dig down and build up his property. He walked around this property to be developed and what he found was towards the back of the lots was the area that was exposed. There was a ditch all the way around from Ripley Avenue to the main pond. You could walk through and see there was trash about 10 to 15 feet high on the back of the property. He never saw the landscape before the fill happened but he spoke to people in the area who said that area had been used as a dump years ago. The only reason the dump was filled in was because there were so many rats back there. There was a lot of fill going in there. He is not sure how far from the center of the cul- de-sac is the deepest but he would guess it would be closest to the alley. He doesn't know what the original farmstead looked like. He doesn't care if the developer builds here but he fears the soils and also because of all the top soil put here which was never compacted. There is a lot of junk below the soil, a lot of peat soil, and there is low land here. He has heard horror stories of not having firm foundation underneath a house. There have been houses that have been sinking and cracking around here. He would be skeptical regarding the west and the northwest property regarding the condition of the fill. At one time there were some photographs of the area before it was filled in and he saw the photos. There was a series of ponds there. Where his house is built there is a 25 foot drop. Closer to Ripley Avenue there is a 25 foot deep hole full of junk. He believes that area was filled in the 1950's. For many years he's seen many developers check out this property and walk off the property, but this was before James Harrison bought the property. The developers must have seen something they didn't like on this property. He just wants the city and the applicant to be aware there was a former dump on this site but it's been filled in. He doesn't know who would be responsible if the homes would have any problems with the foundation and or the ground and would recommend the city be very careful with this proposal. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if this was an old dump site what is the city's responsibility for identifying that and what are the requirements if any for something to be done as far as clean up on the site? Mr. Roberts said staff will have to research that with the legal staff. He appreciates the information from the neighbors but at this time he doesn't have a definite answer to that question. Commissioner Trippler said a few years ago there was an article in the newspaper about a woman who bought a home in Stillwater that was built on an old dump site. Unfortunately there are thousands of old dumps all over the twin city area. Mr. Boche said he knows; his house was built on one! Lucky for him he saw a photograph of what was there before. His property intersects with a sandbar so his house is built on firm ground. However, a warning to the wise be very careful with this property. 4.) Tom Owens, 575 Ripley Avenue, Maplewood. He said he and his wife have been building their house for the last 3 years. They had to spend $28,000 for soil corrections when they did the excavating to haul out trash, tree trunks, welding tanks, tires etc. His biggest concern is this is a quiet neighborhood and they specifically built their house on a no outlet street and they don't want a housing project built in this neighborhood. If you squeeze 4 houses in a parcel of land that should have no more than 2 homes on it, in his opinion that equals a housing development. You can use all the fancy terminology you want but the bottom line is you are going to cover at least 14,000 square feet of land which will not allow the rainwater to soak in. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -11- Mr. Owens said the water has to go somewhere and it will go in his backyard as well as others. The water table is also going to go up. When coffins start coming out of the ground from the cemetery across the street there is going to be hell to pay he said. The neighbors don't want this proposal to happen and the neighbors want to know how this is going to benefit the neighborhood. He and his neighbor had to put in their own drain culvert to the existing pond at their own costs because the city didn't want anything to do with it because the city is eventually going to reconstruct Ripley Avenue. The city better come up with a better solution. He gave the city the name of a man who could dredge the pond but the city never called him. The water table is going to go up. He's already lost 10 feet of property in his backyard from the pond water rising. 10 feet of his property has disappeared since he bought this land and he is paying taxes on that 10 feet that is under water. If he looses any more square footage of his backyard he will be petitioning this committee and the city council for a rebate on his taxes because of the water overflow problem in this area. 5.) James Harrison, 1777 Edgerton Street North, Maplewood. He said he was the original owner of the property in question. The applicant, Alan Kretman has been to his house several times trying to get information out of him. This property was in fact a dump in the northwest corner that was owned by the cemetery. You can still see some remnants of the dump on the property. It is the only portion of the property that was not backfilled. Somewhere between 6,000 to 7,000 yards of quality fill was hauled there in a two week period by Frattalone Excavating which he has photos of. He had approached the city to give him access to the property to build a new home there. Now he lives in a house that was built in 1888 which was the original farm house. He knew the city had to give him access because the city had already plumbed Jessie Street for future development. The city council granted him access to the landlocked piece of property under certain conditions that were outlined by the city council. The condition listed stated he could have access to the site if only one home was built on the property. The city made him combine all individual lots together to make one large lot for tax purposes to ensure only one home could be built on this property. That is what fits the property. Not four homes as the developer is proposing. Mr. Alan Kretman wrote inaccurate statements in his report about Mr. Harrison. He believes Mr. Kretman made the report to make himself look better and Mr. Harrison is not for this proposal at all. One home should be built here not four homes! It does not accommodate the neighborhood. The cul-de-sac the developer is proposing to build is not the same size as the one on Ripley Avenue. He has many good reasons the developer is being very selfish with this piece of property. If the city felt it was okay to have a developer build four homes why did the city feel it was so important to put all the parcels together so only one home could be built here in the future? What changed from then to now with the city council? Was there a grading permit issued for the property since they purchased it? Did the developer apply for a grading permit? Mr. Roberts said he doesn't have access to that information at this time. Mr. Harrison asked Chairperson Fischer if he had permission to ask the applicant if the developer applied for a grading permit? Chairperson Fischer asked staff if they had any information relating to the grading issues orwould that have to be researched? Mr. Thompson, staff engineer said that information would have to be researched. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -12- Mr. Harrison said there must have been a grading permit because someone has dumped 500 yards of soil on that property in the last month. Chairperson Fischer asked if this information would be available by the time this proposal gets heard by the city council? Mr. Roberts said most definitely. Commissioner Ahlness said to answer Mr. Harrison's question of why the developer is allowed to build four homes on the same parcel, the city council told him he could only have one lot on this property back in 1999. The reason for that is the applicant is putting in a street at his own expense allowing for more than one home to be built. When Mr. Harrison owned the property he would not be able to access the property from a publicly maintained and dedicated street. Mr. Harrison said his paperwork in 1999 states it was the city's view that a cul-de-sac could not be built because there was not a large enough access for a fire truck to turn around making it unsafe to do that. Chairperson Fischer said the staff report states the design of the cul-de-sac meets the fire standards today. Mr. Roberts said correct. Mr. Harrison asked who will be responsible for maintaining the street that doesn't even front their homes? Mr. Thompson, staff engineer, said his understanding is the city will maintain the public right of way. Mr. Harrison said the city is going to maintain the grass there? Mr. Thompson said in conjunction with the whole plan that will be figured out. Commissioner Dierich asked if Mr. Harrison's garage is right on the property line for this proposal? Mr. Harrison said his garage is within 5 feet of the property line and there is a tree in between the garage and the property line. Commissioner Dierich asked what the setback should be for that? Mr. Roberts said if this was a clean slate it would be a 30 foot setback from the right of way, but there are existing conditions, so it's grandfathered in. Mr. Harrison asked what style of home and what type of garages would be built on these properties? Mr. Roberts said these would be rambler style homes with a two car attached garage. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -13- Mr. Harrison asked why that wasn't drawn on the plan that way then? Mr. Roberts said the homes are shown on the plan as a pad with rectangular boxes but there have been no particular details submitted yet about the design of the houses. Mr. Harrison said his home is listed with the historical society with Maplewood and with Minnesota. He said Mr. Kretman said the developer would try to uphold the historical value of Mr. Harrison's home when these four homes are built. Mr. Harrison is curious what the developer could do to uphold the historical value of his home and the neighborhood. 6.) Bill Stroeing, 1797 Sunrise Court, Maplewood, spoke again. He is concerned about the drainage and he went over the issues he had with the plans on the screen while describing where he thinks the drainage and overflow problems will occur. He believes the DNR trail will be flooded because the pond will never withstand the runoff from the site. As was mentioned earlier, Tom Owens and his neighbor Eric had to dig their own culvert to divert the water into the pond because of the flooding they have in their yards. Ripley Avenue and Bradley Avenue do not have any drains on the street. The water is transformed into the ponds. The city ran drainage pipe into another pond and the ponds join together. He does not believe these four homes would be an asset for the city. The amount of money that has already cost the taxpayers to pump the water for two weeks straight from this site to the St. Paul side of Larpenteur Avenue is ridiculous. Someone was being paid to make sure these pumps were running for two to three weeks at a time. Imagine the noise the neighbors had to listen to day and night from draining the water. There have been many expenses for personal property that the neighbors had to pay from the water problems in this area too. The weather people can't even predict weather 2 days in advance, how can the engineers design sites for a 2 year, a 10 year or 100 year rainfall. As saturated as the area is he wouldn't be surprised if the caskets start rising from the ground. The water and drainage is a huge problem in this area. 7.) Robert Bollar, 1789 Sunrise Court, Maplewood. The community mailbox is in front of his house. This is where the pool of water stays in the summer time and where the ice skating rink from the frozen water is during the wintertime so it is very difficult to get to and from the mailbox. He is concerned about this development. If he was on the planning commission he would be concerned about the decision and the results from the decision. A lot of concerns and questions have been asked tonight and the answers have been "we feel confident" or "we don't know that information yet but we will know that information by January 4th when this goes to the city council". If he was one of the commissioners he would be very concerned about the lack of information before he would make any type decision tonight. He is from New Orleans, Louisiana. There are a lot of people in New Orleans on the city council that were confident about a lot of things before the hurricane but nobody is confident of much anymore. He is asking the commission to gather all of the data and the information before it goes to the city council and that the commission knows beyond a shadow of a doubt, and are very confident that this proposal is going to work and other problems won't occur. He would like to know what plan B is? The proposal is plan A, but what is plan B? There are already existing problems at the site. Everyone wants to get plan A approved, but what is plan B? He is trying to look out for everyone in this neighborhood but also for the commission members who are going to make a decision that will affect many people in this area. He wants to make sure we have checked the data and done all the investigating possible to make sure this proposal is definitely the right thing to do and there will be no regrets when it is all said and done. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -14- 8.) Erica Peterson, 1779 Edgerton Street, Maplewood. She is opposed to this development and doesn't think this fits into the neighborhood or the landscape. There will be 49 trees taken down on a 1.8 acre lot and she wondered how much water those trees absorb and what affect will that have on the water problems? Are there any plans that represent if one house was built, how many trees would need to be taken down? Or if there were two houses built, how many trees would have to be taken down? Mr. Roberts said the grading plans that were prepared by the engineer show the grading for the entire site and the tree removal necessary to fit the street and the house pads. They did not prepare any alternative plans if less homes were built. They were not required to have such plans, so the city does not know the answer to that plan. Mr. Thompson said the removal of those trees would have no affect on a large storm. The trees take up water during normal times but when you are talking about flooding issues that is not going to be a concern. With the development you will have more impervious area and that has to be engineered, looked at and scrutinized. The watershed is taking a look at that as well as the city engineering department. Mr. Kretman said he has been a resident in this area and he is very cognizant of the things that have been proposed by the city in the past that have not happened that will take care of the neighbors concerns. Regarding the standing water on Ripley Avenue. It is in the city's Capital Improvement Plan to improve Ripley Avenue which will entail constructing curb and gutter and putting in storm sewer systems alleviating the issues for storm water drainage that are caused by drainage on Ripley Avenue. That is not something they are impacting. They have storm sewers at the end of their street capturing the storm water before it goes to Ripley Avenue. As a member of the development committee of St. Jerome's Church he remembers back in the mid 1980's the city looked at a comprehensive storm water management plan for that entire area and wanted to put some improvements. The drainage and water problem is much greater than this subdivision. He thinks the neighbors have expressed a great concern about the hydrology in this area and it might behoove the planning commission or the city council that engineering should revisit some of the old plans to see the storm water problems for this general area. Mr. Kretman said regarding the deep gully that Mr. Groeing showed on the screen is shown on their storm water management plans as subcatchment B which they know will not have any discharge out of there. The sanitary sewer capacity is examined when it is designed and the lift station is put together and they anticipate volume and growth. They did the same thing with St. Jerome's Church and figured out where homes could be built for the sanitary sewer. The homes will be a combination of two story and single story homes with a walk out basement and two car attached garages. The four homes will be a craftsman style architecture that will reflect the architecture of Mr. Harrison's home. This proposal will add value to the neighborhood. Mr. Kretman said the construction period will be as short as possible. They plan on getting the street and utilities in this coming spring and the homes built over the summer and then the construction is over. There have been a lot of questions regarding the soil. The five soil borings that were taken the fill on top reached from 11 feet down to 0 feet. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -15- Mr. Kretman said the soils are generally unconsolidated and the recommendation from the soils engineer is to excavate the soil out down to the existing soil and remove the organic layer that was never removed before the soil was put in place. Replace the soil and compact it properly. That entire site will need to be corrected before these homes are built. They are cognizant of that. The developer knows the expense is potentially there. He does not know if a grading permit was pulled or not. He believes there was 8 or 9 loads of sand deposited on that site. If there has been any additional soil dumped on the site, he is not aware of that, but he will check into that with his client. Mr. Harrison spoke up and said there were "18" loads dumped on the property, not 8 or 9. Mr. Kretman said in terms of confidence of the plans and what they have proposed. They are very confident of the plans. His company has designed miles and miles of streets, his company has been doing this for over 20 years, thousands of homes in the twin cities, and they are very confident of this plan. In terms of alternative plans they do not have to do those because these plans conform to the city's codes for a single family development in this area and in fact they exceed the city's codes. 9.) Kelly Gohr, 540 Ripley Avenue, Maplewood, spoke again. Ms. Gohr said Mr. Kretman pointed out he worked with St. Jerome's Church regarding drainage problems. St. Jerome's Church is at the top of the hill and this neighborhood is at the bottom of the hill. So this neighborhood will still have more problems then St. Jerome's does so that doesn't make her feel much better. You do need a plan B because she could lose her insurance and her house and she would like to know what the city is going to do then. The city planned for what was needed when the original homes were built in this area and the area still gets flooded. So saying the developer is confident, and the applicant is confident the plans are going to take care of things doesn't hold much truth to her. Things were well planned before and things still happened. It is hard to feel safe when problems were not supposed to happen but they did. When you cut the trees down that is going to rob the neighborhood of its personality. 10.) Jim McDermott, 1788 Sunrise Court, Maplewood. Mr. McDermott asked if any of the residence would be assessed any taxes for this street going in or for the curb and gutter? Mr. Roberts said the cost of this project is being absorbed by the developer. Mr. McDermott asked about vacating the alley, if the alleyway wasn't vacated, would the developer have enough property to build this proposal? Is it common practice for the city to give the developer land? Mr. Roberts said this alleyway was vacated in 1999 with Mr. Harrison's request but somewhere in the paper shuffle it didn't get recorded with the county. He doesn't have calculations to see if there would be enough land with or without the alleyway. If the alley is vacated, 10 feet goes to the neighbor to the west and 10 feet would go to the development on the east side of the valley. It is common practice for the city to vacate alleys when they are not used and divide it up with the adjoining property owners. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -16- 11.) Scott Farinella, 1760 Bradley Street, Maplewood. He said it seems pretty generous that the city would give this much land away to the developer. He thought it was pretty typical for a street vacation like this that the right of way be divided equally. Mr. Roberts said typically if the whole right of way would be vacated, half would go to the west property and half would go to the east property. In this case they are not proposing to vacate all of the right of way, they are just proposing to vacate the strip on the west side and vacate the other piece that would no longer be needed and have the property replatted to get the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Pearson said when he spoke earlier with Mr. Farinella regarding the pond behind his house he said the pond goes down quickly after a heavy rain. Mr. Farinella said the pond doesn't go down that quickly. Commissioner Pearson asked if he has any encroachment or backup in his basement from the heavy rains? Mr. Farinella said no but said his house is probably 8 or 9 feet above the lowest point. Commissioner Pearson said Mr. Farinella mentioned after a heavy rain that after 2 or 3 days the pond is back down to its original elevation. Mr. Farinella said he wouldn't say 2 or 3 days, it takes a little longer than that for it to reach the normal level. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Grover said it was mentioned that this portion of Ripley Avenue is scheduled for reconstruction; he asked staff when that's planned for and is it still planned for in the city's CIP? Mr. Roberts said this is scheduled for the summer of 2007 in the CIP but the CIP gets reviewed every year and things can change. Commissioner Pearson said this is a primer for everything the commission will be looking in the south part of Maplewood and those who want to develop properties with lift stations at low elevations and 20 years later you can have problems like the one the neighbors have spoken of. Any house that is sitting in a low elevation and served by a lift station ought to be required to put in a backup in the sewer line. Commissioner Ahlness said the applicant indicated in subcatchment B that should hold for two back to back 100 year rain events, but in the event that it goes over it would continue to drain using the regional drainage system. That seems to him that would go more to the westerly ponds rather to the northerly ponds. Is that a fair assumption? Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -17- Mr. Thompson said the ponds are all connected so basically everything from this proposal would either go into the depression area through sheet flow off the hill behind parcels 3 and 4 and there are two inlets that would be proposed that would take drainage down to the wetland area. Engineering's concern is for anything that is going to be developed. That may require that the developer needs to put in their own individual ponding system for retention to get flows back and volumes back down to predevelopment conditions. There have been issues brought up about putting in a force drain for drainage and taking that over the Gateway Trail. The entire drainage system needs to be master planned. Engineering is concerned that they review all the drainage calculations, the hydrology and hydraulics to make sure that everything that is post development meets predevelopment conditions. There are some issues still with the drainage reports such as the infill going into the depression area and the idea of the individual ponds orwetlands that could be put onto the individual properties. The term Subcatchment B referred to by Alan Kretman is the drainage area that is going into the depression. Commissioner Dierich asked if she heard correctly that we want to make sure "post" development is equal to "predevelopment" which means the flooding that exists already will continue to exist post development? She thought the city tries to improve the situation with new developments in the city. Mr. Thompson said two basic drainage areas and the proposed improvements are to mitigate that with a rainwater garden or another pond area so it will be looked at. Commissioner Dierich said "mitigation" in her mind, is to improve the situation. "Equal" doesn't sound like we are going to improve the situation, instead things would stay the same. Mr. Roberts said he doesn't know that the city can require a developer to improve a drainage situation that encompasses an area larger than the property they are developing. The city can make sure that the developer doesn't "add" to the problem. According to what the report says, and if everything that was stated is correct, it sounds like the runoff will not add any more water to the system than what is already draining off. The city can't require the developer because there are other problems a few properties away, you suddenly can't build this proposal because of the existing problems. In 2007 this area will be looked at on a neighborhood basis rather than a four lot subdivision. Commissioner Dierich said she is surprised. On just about every development that has come before the planning commission in the past 8 months the city has required the developers to improve the ponding situation and there are a ton of ponds here that are affected. There is runoff going into the ponds, the ponds that are on the developer's property could be improved and she didn't hear anything about "improving" the ponds. She is not satisfied with the information that the commission has gotten from the engineering department and the developer regarding the flooding and the soils, and she usually likes something more complete to refer to. Commissioner Desai asked if the Jessie Street runoff would drain onto Ripley Avenue? Mr. Thompson said from the improvement plan there are two catch basins on either side of the street towards the bottom that would be taken into a storm drain pipe to the wetland area, so there would be no direct sheet flow of storm water onto Ripley Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -18- Commissioner Desai said that's a long distance away for those catch basins to carry the water. He wondered how quickly that would drain a 100 year rain. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if this was an official city dump? Mr. Roberts said no. Testimony tonight from the neighbors stated it was a dump run by the cemetery across the street. Commissioner Yarwood said he would be more comfortable with this after the city staff has had the chance to review the engineer's drainage plan and have had conversations regarding what needs to be done along with the report from St. Paul Water. He is not comfortable supporting this proposal as things stand now. Chairperson Fischer asked what the timeline was? Mr. Roberts said state law requires the city take action on proposals like this within 60 days of receiving it so that would be by January 21, 2006. If this proposal was delayed it would push the proposal to be heard by the city council on January 23,2006, if the applicant is willing to extend their deadline with the city by two days. Commissioner Trippler said he thought the application had to be complete for the clock to start running with the city? This report was not complete with the Watershed District nor was the engineering report complete. Mr. Roberts said the watershed application is not one of the requirements, the applicant did submit complete plans and calculations. What the city engineer is saying is he is not completely satisfied that the applicant meets all of the city requirements and that is why we do the review process. Were the plans complete to every detail, no. Can the applicant and the engineers get there, yes. Everybody will try and work out the issues and bring this back to the planning commission to be heard a second time. Mr. Kretman said he is willing to extend the deadline by two days making this proposal heard by the city council on January 23, 2006. Mr. Roberts said okay this will be heard again by the planning commission on Tuesdav. January 3, 2006, and then to the city council on January 23, 2006. Mr. Kretman said he would anticipate his client would be agreeable to the two day delay. Commissioner Yarwood moved to table the proposal for C. Kings Addition (Jessie Street, south of Ripley Avenue) until Tuesday, January 3,2006 to be heard by the planning commission. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion to table passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -19- The planning commission said by the next planning commission meeting on January 3, 2006, they would like to have information regarding ifthis was a dumpsite, what responsibility does the city have if something happens once the homes are built if there are settling issues. And secondly if the drainage doesn't work and people's houses get flooded, what is the city's responsibility. Commissioner Ahlness said the planning commission is directed by the city council and the city attorney that the commission has to base their decision on the facts of the matter. As much as possible the commission relies on expert opinion, so when the commission hears things from an engineer and from staff, the commission needs to rely on those facts. If the neighbors want to make arguments counter to that, the commission needs to have similar expert opinion ratherthan just neighbors making statements. A good example may be housing values that may decrease if a development goes in. However, he is not saying this development will decrease the value of their homes. That alone does not carry enough weight according to the city attorney. The commission would need a qualified professional such as a realtor or an appraiser. So when the neighbors talk about issues such as drainage problems, the commission needs more formal documentation from a professional. The planning commission values the opinions and statements of the neighbors but the commission needs to base their decision on the facts. Commissioner Grover said it would be important to have information on the drainage in the neighborhood and the surrounding area if that is available. Commissioner Dierich said she would like the developer to do a true tree planting plan rather than just a tree count. The commission was done discussing this proposal and took a 5 minute recess from 9:58 p.m. to 10:03 p.m. to clear the audience. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS In-Fill Development Study Update Mr. Roberts said in 1997, city staff, the planning commission and the city council conducted a study of possible code changes for in-fill development sites. City staff had identified 28 in-fill sites in Maplewood that staff felt were likely to be developed. The planning commission recently asked to look at in-fill sites and developments that have been constructed in Maplewood in the last few years as a possible training topic. Specifically, the commission noted that city ordinances may need to be updated or changed. The commission also asked if these new developments or changes had affected the neighborhood or any historical characteristics. City staff is now taking a fresh look at this issue and the sites that staff had identified in 1997 for development. The question is how should the city define in-fill development? This can be a real challenge. Should the city use site acreage as a criterion by setting a minimum or maximum site defining in-fill sites eligible for development? Should there be different standards for small sites versus large tracts? Should the city encourage or require the use of PUD's for in-fill sites? Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -20- Commissioner Grover said there are sites such as the one we just discussed that was a past dump and the site has never been developed. There are also sites that have crazy lots that are unusually located and not connected to any sort offrontage or roads. It ends up being a situation where you need to bring in a street in order to get to the lot where the house is proposed to be built. Mr. Roberts said the "easy lots" are built on. There are going to be more and more of these unusual lots that developers want to try to build on which can be a real challenge. Because land is becoming more valuable, people are trying to develop what they can, where they can. Commissioner Trippler thanked staff for the material on in-fill developments. It was very informative. He said the definition of Infill shown in the packet in the section called BUILD comes close to what he thinks in-fill is with the exception of the words "vacant land" in the paragraph. It says Intill development is the economic use of vacant land, or restoration or rehabilitation of existing structures or infrastructure, in already urbanized areas where water, sewer, and other public services are in place, that maintains the continuity of the original community fabric. Commissioner Trippler said he also likes the definition in the (MRSC) Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington page except for the vacant land wording. It says Infill development is the process of developing vacant or under-used parcels within existing urban areas that are already largely developed. He would also like to add the paragraph that says Attention to design of in fill development is essential to ensure that the new development tits the existing context, and gains neighborhood acceptance. A cooperative partnership between government, the development community, financial institutions, non-profit organizations, neighborhood organizations and other resources is essential to achieve intill success. There was miscellaneous discussion shared amongst staff and the commissioners that was not necessary to include in the minutes. This item will be continued for further discussion at a later date. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Trippler was the planning commission representative at the November 28,2005, city council meeting. Planning commission items to discuss included the Easement Vacation for Lot 1, Block 1, Heritage Square Addition (North of Legacy Parkway), which was passed by the city council and the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center at 2483 and 2497 Maplewood Drive, which was also passed by the city council. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-05 -21- b. Mr. Grover was the planning commission representative at the December 12, 2005, city council meeting. Planning commission items to discuss included the Easement Vacation - Legacy Village (west of Southlawn Drive, south of Legacy Parkway), which was passed by the city council, The Tire View Estate Preliminary Plat (east of Highway 61 at the new County Road D), which was passed by the city council, and the Regions Hospital Sleep-Health Center (2688 Maplewood Drive) for a conditional use permit, building setback variance and zoning map change from R1 (single dwelling to M1 (light manufacturing) which was passed by the city council. c. The city council meeting for December 26, 2005, has been cancelled so no planning commission representation is needed. d. Mr. Desai was scheduled to be the planning commission representative at the January 9, 2006, city council meeting; however, there are no planning commission items to discuss. e. Commissioner Ahlness requested some discussion regarding the noise ordinance discussion Commissioner Ahlness handed out the noise ordinance to the commissioners. He had requested this be included in the agenda for tonight's meeting per his request bye-mail on November 23,2005, he said but it was not included. This was prompted from the last planning commission meeting with Tom Ekstrand and the possible noise issue concerns that were brought up regarding the Regions Hospital Sleep Health Center at 2688 Maplewood Drive. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Roberts reminded the commission that the next planning commission meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 3, 2006, because January 2 is the New Years holiday. The next holiday is Martin Luther King Day on Monday, January 16, 2006, so the planning commission meeting will be Tuesday, January 17, 2006. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:48 p.m.