Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/03/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesdav, January 3, 2006, 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. December 19, 2005 5. Public Hearings None 6. New Business a. Special Construction Agreement - Edgehill Road b. Concept Plan Review - Comforts of Home Assisted Senior Living (Highway 36 and Hazelwood) c. Noise Ordinance Review - Mr. Ahlness 5. Unfinished Business a. C. Kings Addition (Jessie Street, south of Ripley Avenue) Street right-of-way Vacation Preliminary Plat b. In-fill Study Update 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations December 26 Council Meeting: (None needed - cancelled) January 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Tushar January 23 Council Meeling: Mr. Ahlness February 13 Council Meeling: Mr. Kaczrowski 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjoumment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JANUARY 3, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 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 Staff Present: Absent Present Present Present Present Present P rese nt Present Absent Chuck Ahl. Public Works Director Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Desai seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler Approval of the planning commission minutes for December 19, 2005. Commissioner Trippler had a correction to page 9 and a word addition to page 10. On page 9, in the second paragraph, delete the extra word was at the end of the sentence. On page 10, in the fourth paragraph, it should read after the women who bought a home in Stillwater. Commissioner Dierich had corrections to pa~e 3 and 6. On page 3, in the last paragraph, change the word bares to bears. On page 6, in the 9 h paragraph, change the spelling of cognoscente to cognizant. The word cognizant has two different spellings and different meanings. That word is also found on pages 14 and 15. Also on page 6, in the last paragraph, rephrase the wording and not be any more watering that direction to read: and not be any water moving in that direction. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the planning commission minutes for December 19, 2005, as amended. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -2- Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler V. PUBLIC HEARING None. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Special Construction Agreement - Edgehill Road Mr. Roberts said Mark and Jacqueline Trapp, until recently, resided at 1784 Edgehill Road. Their house was old and they recently arranged with the Maplewood Fire Department to burn the house down. The applicants' property is on Edgehill Road east of Southlawn Drive. Edgehill Road is a platted city street but is not paved. Section 12-1 of the city code states thatthe city shall not allow the construction of a house fronting on an unpaved street, unless the city council first approves of this construction by a special agreement to construct the house. The owner must record this agreement to run with the subject property. The city has approved eight such requests, dating back to 1978. The most recent of which was for James and Cynthia Harrison to build their house on undeveloped Jessie Street, south of Ripley Street. (The Harrisons, however, did not build their house.) The applicants have submitted two site plans for comparison while reviewing their request. Plan A is their preferred plan, but Plan B fits the site meeting all setbacks. Plan B shows the proposed house 29 feet from the westerly lot line, which is the edge of the neighboring backyards. Plan A moves the house toward unpaved Edgehill Road resulting in a setback of 16 feet from Edgehill Road and increases the setback from the neighbors to 44 feet. Plan A is better from the standpoint of increasing the house setback from the neighbors. It would require an approval for a reduced front setback even though the setback would be from an unpaved street. Commissioner Trippler asked if the city never intends to build a street here is there any thought of vacating the land? Mr. Roberts said staff looked that. The problem is half of the property would go to one set of property owners and the other half would go to Ramsey County then the applicant's land becomes landlocked. The city does not want a private drive over someone else's private property. The city would prefer to have the driveway on public right-of-way verses having another driveway on another person's property so Mr. Trapp can access his property. Staff was also concerned how emergency vehicles would access the property. The city doesn't want to be responsible for allowing this to be built and then have an emergency vehicle that couldn't access the property properly. Commissioner Trippler asked if the northern % of the drive could be vacated? Mr. Roberts said that could be possible but staff hadn't discussed that option. Commissioner Trippler said staff recommended Plan A because that plan moves the home farther east to be farther away from the other homes. If you vacated the right-of-way, and the lot became larger, you could slide the home over five to ten feet. However, not knowing the topography of the property it may not be possible if the back part of the lot drops off too much. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -3- Mr. Roberts said the back yards of the two homes on County Road C have frontages on Edgehill Road so he didn't know how that would work if that part of Edgehill Road was vacated. He also doesn't know the topography of the land there so there may be other obstacles. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Mark Trapp, the applicant representing the lot in question at 1784 Edgehill Road, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Mr. Mark Trapp and his wife Jacqueline currently reside in Vadnais Heights during this process until they can build their new home. Mr. Trapp said he likes the idea of vacating the street. He said he would like to purchase the home between him and South lawn Drive someday if the opportunity arises. Vacating the street would allow them to position the house more to the east but that gets close to the drop off. They looked at developing the lot into two lots and putting a turn around in but were told no by the city. If they had more room they could shift things east more. There is a lot of buckthorn and sumac bushes there. As far as the fire or emergency access, this area has been accessible for over 100 years already and he's sure it would be accessible for another 100 years. They are looking at the possibility of installing residential sprinklers in this home. Commissioner Trippler said when he visited this site he noticed a depression that is to the north of where the stakes are and he asked if that is where the old home was before it was burned down? Mr. Trapp said the house was staked out but they have since decided to shift things around. The property used to be heavily screened by 5 pine trees but the neighbor decided since the house was gone, now would be the time to remove the pine trees to allow more sunlight to come onto his property. Eventually he will re-Iandscape the area so there is some type of landscaping between him and the neighbors property. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal to come forward and address the commission. Nobody in the audience came forward. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve a special agreement allowing the owners of the property at 1784 Edgehill Road to rebuild their house on this unpaved city right-of-way. Approval of this special agreement is because: 1. The request is to rebuild the applicants' house. A house on this lot is already in character with the neighborhood. 2. The city has granted such approvals in the past for private drives on public rights-of-way. This approval is subject to the applicants doing the following before getting a building permit to rebuild: 1. Signing an agreement with the city that: Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -4- a. Holds the city harmless from any liability for the use of the right-of-way or any delay in emergency vehicles finding the house. b. States that the owner of the property is responsible for maintaining the driveway. c. States that the city may change this agreement if the city approves another house on this driveway. 2. The city attorney shall draft and record these agreements. 3. Provide the city engineer with a grading, drainage and erosion control plan for the proposed house and driveway, subject to city requirements. 4. The driveway must meet the requirements of the fire marshal. 5. The applicants' plan labeled Plan A is the approved plan. The applicants must provide a six- foot-tall, 100 percent opaque buffer along the westerly property line to buffer their driveway from the adjacent neighbors. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the reduced front setback from Edgehill Road since this setback reduction will result in a greater setback from the neighbors to the west. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on January 23, 2006. b. Concept Plan Review - Comforts of Home Assisted Senior Living (Highway 36 and Hazelwood Street) Mr. Roberts said Matthew Frisbie of Frisbie Architects, Inc., is requesting the planning commission review and comment on a proposed assisted living housing development to be located on the southeast corner of Highway 36 and Hazelwood Street. The existing uses on the property are the vacant Auto Glass store and an electrical contractor shop. The proposed use will be a 42-unit, two-story assisted living, memory care, respite care, and hospice facility with 24- hour, on-site homecare staff. In order to develop the Comforts of Home, the city would require Mr. Frisbie to get the following approvals: 1. A comprehensive plan change from business commercial (BC) to high multiple dwelling residential (R-3H). 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a multiple dwelling facility in a business commercial (BC) zoning district. 3. A reduced parking space authorization to allow 38 less parking spaces than city code requires. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -5- 4. A building setback variance in order to allow the construction the building closer than the required 30 feet to the Highway 36 right-of-way. 5. As an alternative, the city could process the above-mentioned land use requests as a CUP for a planned unit development (PUD), alleviating the need for a reduced parking space authorization and building setback variance. 6. Design review. Staff recommended the planning commission review the Comforts of Home concept plan for the property on the southeast corner of Highway 36 and Hazelwood Street and give feedback on the land use aspects of the development. The applicant has not made any formal application yet, they are strictly looking for feedback from the commission. Commissioner Pearson asked if MnDOT or Ramsey County were still considering a pedestrian bridge at Highway 36 and Hazelwood Street or possibly going under Highway 36 to get across to Hazelwood Street. There had been discussion of having a pedestrian bridge over Highway 36 to Hazelwood Street for the safety of the pedestrians and he wondered if that was still on the future spectrum? Mr. Chuck Ahl, Maplewood Public Works Director, addressed the commission. He said Highway 36 is going to be a major reconstruction project in 2007 at McKnight Road, Margaret Street and First Street in North St. Paul. By the end of 2007 Highway 36 will be in freeway form from Highway 35W to Century Avenue with two exceptions. The first exception will be a signal light at English Street and the second exception is at Hazelwood Street where there is a right in only and right out only. In Maplewood's Capital Improvement Plan there was a plan to put in an interchange at Hazelwood Street until about 3 years ago. MnDOT does not have the funds for that any longer. The Hazelwood Street interchange was supposedly a concession made to the Maplewood City Council back in the 1970's when Hazelwood Street was a full intersection. As time passed and Highway 36 became a full expressway and now will go to a full freeway design MnDOT no longer wishes to make that commitment to the City of Maplewood so this has been removed from the Capital Improvement Plan. MnDOT is $1 billion dollars short per year. If MnDOT had $1 billion dollars extra per year they would still not get to projects like the Hazelwood Street project. From Maplewood's position there needs to be a plan and the city needs to figure out if they want or need an interchange at Highway 36 at Hazelwood Street. If you look at this intersection one of the problems they have now is there is a crosswalk painted on Highway 36 as a pedestrian crosswalk. If there is someone in the crosswalk you are required by law to stop! That means if you are going 55 to 60 miles per hour on Highway 36 and there is a pedestrian waiting by the side of the road you need to come to a complete stop and allow the pedestrian to cross. This is a very dangerous situation for the drivers and for the pedestrians. This puts the city in a difficult position. The city needs to discuss how to get people and vehicles from south of Highway 36 to north of Highway 36 other than using White Bear Avenue which is very very congested. Staff does not know if there will be an interchange at this intersection. That decision will be made in 2006. Staff believes that this proposal for Comforts of Home development precludes the city from putting the interchange in. Commissioner Pearson asked staff if the city knows how much pedestrian traffic there is at this intersection if the money were spent to put in proper pedestrian crossing such as a bridge. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -6- Mr. Ahl said there are a number of students that attend John Glenn Jr. High that cross over the highway at that intersection. The discussion ended up with MnDOT recommending the city remove the painted crosswalk off of Highway 36. The City of Maplewood doesn't think that would stop the junior high students from crossing overthe Highway and doesn't solve the problem. The city is looking for a long term solution and one solution is to create a barrier and an alternative way for pedestrians to get over the freeway. His recommendation is not for a full interchange but certainly some sort of pedestrian facility or bridge over Highway 36 so the city doesn't have a safety concern. That is something the city council will have to decide in 2006. Commissioner Pearson said the reason he asked the question is if that pedestrian crossing or bridge was going to be provided would the city, the county or MnDOT need part of this property for this pedestrian crossing? Mr. Ahl said MnDOT is not willing to make any commitments because of their funding. The city is arguing with MnDOT that MnDOT has a responsibility here to do the right thing. MnDOT would prefer to have something built here that precludes MnDOT from having to spend money at this location. The city's position is these types of developments are difficult because it would make it more difficult for the city to provide for the necessary crossing facilities. The city believes they will need some of the right-of- way for a pedestrian crossing. Commissioner Trippler asked why a pedestrian wouldn't take the Bruce Vento bridge? Mr. Ahl said one thing the city provided for in 2003 was a federal application to build the trail and sidewalk system to provide that. The Bruce Vento bridge is aboutfour blocks away. Unfortunately to tell a teenager not to cross the freeway here is very difficult and until there is a barrier and an alternative route they are not going to go a different route and will continue to cross Highway 36. That was the proposal from the City of Maplewood to MnDOT in 2003 that was rejected by MnDOT. Commissioner Trippler said he lives six blocks from Highway 36 and there is a hill between his home and the freeway and in the summer he likes to sleep with the windows open and he can still hear the roar of the vehicles on Highway 36 so he can't imagine the noise level at this location if this assisted living building were built here. Unless the people are completely deaf they are going to hear the noise living so close to Highway 36. Can the city require the developer to build a sound proof building here? Mr. Ahl said that is the city's engineering departments concern which was noted in the staff report. One of the issues for the planning commission is not only the development concept but also the use for a multiple dwelling facility in a business commercial zoning district. This roadway exceeds the night time noise standards at this location. The proposal is for taking a business commercial use that is not subject to those types of noise requirements and creating a residential use. By doing that the state law precludes that and takes that out of MnDOT's hands and responsibility when doing improvements to mitigate noise and puts that back on the City of Maplewood because the planning commission is approving a residential use knowing the noise standards are being violated. You as a city are accepting responsibility to mitigate noise in the future. Planning Commission M i n utes of 01-03-06 -7- Chairperson Fischer said she knows the city is bound by the UBC (uniform building code) in the metro area and the city can't put anything more excessive on the developer but in this instance where there is going to be a noise problem, does the city have the latitude to go to a stricter building code than the UBC or is the city bound by the UBC no matter what the conditions are? Mr. Ahl said his understanding is because you are changing the use you are required to provide mitigation on the site through special construction techniques or greater setback requirements. The city has to ask, can they avoid putting a residential use on this site? You have to go through the entire process and understand the noise levels and make sure it exceeds the noise standards at this location. Staff believes it does but the data would have to be taken. It's a three step process. Things that would make the sound level less would include things like higher level quality windows, noise walls, year round climate control, insulation, burms, etc. Chairperson Fischer said 30 years ago or so builders were encouraged to build apartments near the freeways and she asked how we deal with noise issues in apartments? Mr. Ahl said apartments were built on an existing land use and if the city were able to replan the city we would not put apartments or residential homes so close to freeways. 30 years ago most people could not project the type of traffic levels we would have on the roadways with three, four, and five lane freeways that the metro area has a need for now. The state night time noise standard is from 9 to 11 p.m. and from 6 to 7 a.m. From 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. the noise standard is ten decibels higher and typically roadways meet that standard. Chairperson Fischer asked if there were standards to work with regarding senior housing or assisted living buildings to measure the amount of parking needed ordo we play it by earfor each proposal? Mr. Roberts said it is really a case by case situation. Commissioner Trippler said on the front page of the staff report, in number 4. it states A building setback variance in order to allow the construction of the building closer than the required 30 feet to the Highway 36 right-of-way. Is there some reason why staff didn't direct the applicant to move the building south? Mr. Roberts said mainly because oftime, this came in Wednesday a.m. and the PC packets went out Wednesday afternoon. Staff didn't have a chance to look at that scenario and it could be looked at but it doesn't appear to be a problem. This memo is intended to get some feedback on the concept of an assisted living and memory care building and a quick review by staff to get the planning commission to think about this concept. There mayor may not be other issues that need to be looked at, this is only a concept at this point. Commissioner Trippler asked what staffs position was for granting this to be changed from BC Business Commercial to residential. Mr. Roberts said the developer is going to have to show the city how this can be made to work. If that can be shown through construction techniques and/or a noise study from the developer they will have to show or prove to the city this project can be done here. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -8- Commissioner Dierich said this assisted living home is going to be for heavy care from what she read in the literature provided by the applicant. She wondered how much of the parking will be taken up by employees and visitors. She believes there will be more traffic than the 24 parking spaces that are shown on the concept plan. She believes the only way this could work is to put the common area towards Highway 36 and the apartment units down lower so it is more of a T or V shaped building. She said she was surprised by this concept building being proposed so close to the freeway. Maplewood really needs this type of assisted living and memory care housing in the city but this is not a good location for this type of use in her opinion. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Brian Winges, representing Comforts of Home Assisted Senior Living, addressed the commission. He said he disagrees with the thoughts of the planning commission that this is not a good location for this proposal. The other Comforts of Home Assisted Senior Living buildings are located on very busy roads. Their Blaine location is on Highway 65, their Hugo location is on Highway 61, their North Branch location is at the exit ramp of the freeway, and they are currently building a site in White Bear Lake on Highway 96 and 35E. They have found the rooms that front the traffic are the first rooms to get reserved. People who stay in these rooms prefer something to look at and enjoy the activity. Noise has never been an issue for any of their locations and they have not had one single noise complaint at any of their locations. They have filled each of their buildings up faster than any other company around so something in their planning of building locations is working or else they would have vacancies. There is a strong need for this type of care in the metro area as well. They use a rubber membrane to line the walls for sound abatement. He would encourage the planning commissioners to drive to the other locations and see what the buildings look like and to hear the noise levels. They have received approval from the other cities to build these buildings, the customers keep filling the rooms and they have never had a noise complaint yet, so they must be doing something right for this to be as successful as it has been. The busy location is a positive scenario instead of a negative scenario as the planning commission spoke of. Regarding the parking, there are 8 full time employees and 3 overnight employees. Visitors and family members use the parking spaces as well. The parking formula they have used in each community has allowed them to never run out of parking spaces at any of their locations so far. They provide care for people who need assisted living but the people are not ready to go into a nursing home yet. Their Blaine location was full in two months and their Hugo location was full in 3 months. They work closely with the counties so they set aside a certain number of beds for people who are funded through the county that typically fall through the cracks. Many traditional assisted living homes such as Presbyterian Homes and Sunrise only reserve one county funded bed but that's it. Comforts of Home try to set aside one quarter to one third of the beds that are affordable assisted living beds. They think this is a beautiful location, there is a lake behind, and they could have a patio behind the building with the ability to have some outdoor amenities. They are also currently bidding for a spot in Little Canada right on Highway 36. They would really like to build this building in Maplewood, there is a strong need for this type of housing and it would be a good addition for the community. Commissioner Pearson asked if they ever schedule periodic events where family members are invited to certain events or celebrations at their buildings. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -9- Mr. Winges said everybody is invited to come and visit their building any day, they serve free meals for the visitors, they just ask for a heads up that day so they make enough food. They had a thanksgiving dinner and they may have a picnic in the summer but that is about it. They encourage family members and visitors to visit every day rather than have periodic celebrations. They don't want to pile a large number of people into the building. Commissioner Pearson said the reason he asked the question is Lakeview Commons on Lakewood Drive and Maryland Avenue has a similar parking count as what is being proposed by Comforts of Home but Lakeview Commons holds periodic events. Their parking spills out onto Maryland Avenue on the north and south side for about 1500 to 2000 feet and this location is not going to allow for that kind of parking over flow. Mr. Winges said they do not and would not be holding events like that; they want families involved on a more consistence basis not on a periodic event basis. Maplewood can check with the other city's such as Blaine and Hugo and they will tell you the parking formula they use is sufficient for their needs. Commissioner Dierich asked how long the length of stay is for the patients or clients at Comforts of Home. Mr. Winges said depending on the health of the patient it could be very short but for the most part they find two to four years is the typical length of stay so there isn't a lot of turn around at their locations. They don't provide full scale skilled nursing at these locations. There is a purpose for this type of care before someone needs to go into a full scale nursing home for extended care. This is not a big fancy apartment, it is a nice home for the residents to live with a cozy living area and the common areas are much greater than other places because they encourage the residents to socialize with others in the commons area. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody else wanted to speak regarding this proposal. Mr. Paschke, Architect, Frisbie Architects, Inc. addressed the commission. He wanted to speak regarding the setback requirements and the rezoning of this property. Staff has classified this building as multi family but it's really not multi family. (Because Mr. Paschke did not speak at the podium and stepped away from the microphone I could not pick up anymore of his discussion on tape.) Commissioner Pearson asked if the rubber membrane that was mentioned by Mr. Winges that is used in construction was to dampen vibration or the noise level itself. Mr. Paschke said it is to reduce the noise level but there are other ways to reduce noise levels in construction as well. Commissioner Dierich asked what the city would normally zone nursing homes and hospitals? Mr. Roberts said multi-family zoning is the only zoning the city has for nursing homes or hospitals other than doing a (PUD) planned unit development. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody else in the audience wanted to speak regarding this concept plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -10- Nobody came forward. Chairperson Fischer asked if there were advantages to number 5. which states (as an alternative, the city could process the above-mentioned land use requests as a CUP for a planned unit development (PUD), alleviating the need for a reduced parking space authorization and building setback variance.) Mr. Roberts said the one advantage of doing a PUD is that it locks the developer and the city into a particular site plan where if the city changes the zoning and for some reason this project doesn't go forward, another developer can't come in and use that zoning that is in place and maybe do something different. With a PUD that references a specific site plan, in this case the city can tie in the reduction in parking and possibly the setback variances. The city has found PUD's offer some advantages in cases like this. It ties up a use and it ties up a site plan, which are two reassuring things. If someone doesn't want to follow the PUD they need to come back through the process and ask for a revision, have new hearings, and get new approvals from the city council. Chairperson Fischer said basically a PUD assists you when you have a case where the use doesn't exactly fit with some ofthe ordinances and this is the best way to cover the possibilities of what may occur in the future. Mr. Roberts said yes that is one way to look at it. Commissioner Dierich said she is struggling with this plan. She is more concerned ifthe city may need this space for the pedestrian crossing issue that was raised by Chuck Ahl more than the noise issue if this concept was built in this location. She was the Director of Nursing at a nursing home that was located 25 feet from Highway 494 and Mr. Winges is right, the elders like to watch the traffic and they are not as bothered by the noise such as people living in a single family home would be. She is just concerned the city may need this space in the future. She votes the city uses a PUD on this proposal to allow the city to suggest how the site should be oriented and placed on the property. Commissioner Grover said he would agree with Commissioner Dierich's comments. He asked staff if they have offered the idea of a PUD to the developer. Mr. Roberts said this came in on Wednesday and there wasn't enough time to discuss it with the developer but staffs sure the developer is aware of it now. Commissioner Pearson said he would agree this should be done under a PUD but he has a strong concern for the dangerous crossing pedestrian situation Mr. Ahl described. The city may be taking options away from a permanent situation by going ahead with this Comforts of Home proposal in this location. Commissioner Grover said he would recommend the structure be moved away from Highway 36 and move the pond to the north which would increase the flexibility of Highway 36 if that can be done. The setback issues can be dealt with. The developer would take the comments with them and get back to staff at a later date regarding their plans for this concept plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -11- C. Noise Ordinance Review - Mr. Ahlness Mr. Roberts said Planning Commissioner, Eric Ahlness, has requested that a review of the city's noise control ordinance be placed on the planning commission meeting for discussion. However, Commissioner Ahlness was not present for this evening's meeting. The commission decided they did not want to discuss any of the issues until Eric Ahlness is present. Commissioner Grover moved to table the noise ordinance review until a later date because Commissioner Ahlness was absent. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler The motion to table passed. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. C. Kings Addition (Jessie Street, south of Ripley Avenue) 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. On December 19, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing about this proposal. After much testimony from neighbors and questions from the commission, the planning commission tabled action on the requests until their meeting on January 3,2006. Mr. Roberts passed out a letter to the planning commission that was to Tina Carstens, at St. Paul Regional Water Service, dated December 20,2005, which was sent by Alan Kretman at ProTerra Designs to Mr. Roberts on December 29,2005. Mr. Kretman met with Michael Thompson, Maplewood Engineer, and his comments are on page 42 and 43 of the staff report. Staff understands the proposed plans will not add additional runoff to the neighboring ponds and they can engineer that and make sure that is not going to be an issue. That was a strong concern of the neighbors and the planning commission. Since the last meeting the applicant provided a tree plan on page 41 of the staff report which is a preliminary plan but it does meet the city's ordinance. Staff found the four trees shown on the plan would be in the public right-of-way and the city needs those four trees planted on private property and not in the right-of- way on public property. Mr. Ahl said currently this pond does not have an outlet. The city needs to make assumptions for storms in this case. The city assumes when two 1 DO-year storms happen which means two 24- hour events in one day followed by another day. An example is six inches of rain that would fall in one day and then another six inches of rain the following day. This pond would be plum full and would not overflow which would not flood any structures. That means it's going to be designed so there would be 12 inches of rain in a 48-hour time period and this pond wouldn't overflow down to the Edgerton ponding area. Storms of record are another issue that the city needs to deal with. The state climatologist will tell you a storm of historical proportions of more than 12 inches of rain over a 48-hour time period happens somewhere in Minnesota over a year. The city tries to plan for those types of events and tries to make sure that flooding doesn't occur. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -12- Mr. Ahl said if there was a storm event such as more than 12 inches of rain in a 48-hour time period on this development you would have an overflow and that overflow has been designed along the western edge, through an easement, down through the drainage area of record, down into the Edgerton pond. There is a 10-foot wide drainage swale and once that overflow occurs there is still about 2 feet of overflow that can occur before there would be any structure flooding. In this case the developer has provided an appropriate design that meets all of the requirements that the city would put on any development in the area. Mr. Ahl showed the drainage shed forthis area on the map for the Edgerton pond. Drainage problems have occurred in this neighborhood as recent as October 4,2005. High waters occurred around this pond and this pond doesn't have an outlet. The problem with providing outlets is it is a very expensive system and those expensive solutions have been rejected in the past. However, the city has changed the way they deal with and finance storm water system improvements. Each Maplewood resident gets a bill quarterly with a fee forthe environmental utility fund. That money helps the city finance and deal with storm water improvements. Staff estimated in the next three to five years the city will come up with a project that will provide an outlet for the Edgerton pond. Mr. Ahl said on October4, 2005, at 10:30 p.m. he and other public works employees put sand bags out to protect the homes from being flooded. The city has pumped the Edgerton pond three times in the last two years and there was no structure flooding. The city was able to control the pond with the pumping operations. That is a short-term solution and the city hasn't had that record storm of 12 inches of rainfall in 48 hours and if they did, the city would have to use sand bags. The city has procedures in place to get through the time period before a permanent solution is implemented. From an engineering stand point this drainage proposal is appropriately designed and is not a reason to reject this proposal. The city feels this plan meets all the requirements and the watershed district agrees. As an engineer in the 1980's, he was involved in a project installing a water main into Ripley Avenue. There was discussion at the last planning commission meeting regarding garbage found on this site. After working on the water main in the 1980's he can confirm that there was garbage found there at Ripley Avenue and the Jessie Street right of way. The garbage found on the site had to be hauled away. What that means for the city is, that is the city's right of way, however, the requirement to remove the garbage on the site will be on the developer at his expense. The developer will not be able to build a road or do improvements until the developer proves to the city that there is no garbage underneath this property. Because of the preexisting condition, the building inspector will have significant involvement in this area regarding soil borings etc. and it will be an expense for the developer to clean up the site before building permits will be issued. Before a development agreement is signed by the city for this development, the developer will have to prove to the city that the garbage has been completely cleaned up. Commissioner Dierich said after reviewing the previous minutes from this proposal, she decided to drive to the site to see if there was any standing water on the site or on the street from the melting snow and the rain we had but there wasn't any, she was surprised by that after the testimony from the neighbors. The neighbors had testified that the water was going to run down onto Ripley Avenue across and down to the Edgerton pond and she didn't see how that could happen. She saw a potential problem with water running off onto 540 Ripley's yard because that is the low point of the driveway. She said she assumed that the developer is going to grade that driveway differently. She asked how far the developer would have to go to get to the good soil and was a lot of soil going to be removed from this site? If there is how does that change the site plan and will it improve the situation of the site? Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -13- Mr. Ahl said regarding the Ripley Avenue drainage, this will be an urban design section which means there will be catch basins. The requirement is to improve the situation and when the final design details are finalized the city will make the developer aware he has to solve this. The developer will be installing storm sewer that doesn't currently exist and draining it back into the existing pond. It will have to handle 12 inches of rainfall in a 48-hour time period. Part of the sheetfiow will be collected and part will drain off. The developer will have to provide more detailed information regarding the grading plan because of the soils issue. At this point and time the city doesn't have information on the site. The grading plan calls for some significant grading on the site but not to the extent of the extreme grading that was done in south Maplewood at the Linwood area site. The city still needs to get more data on the soil. The soils data the city has seen has shown a relatively sandy mixture which can be compacted and built on. Commissioner Dierich said the staff report states 152 lineal feet of sewer line must be removed and she asked whose expense that would be, the city's or the developers? Mr. Ahl said that would be the developer's expense. Commissioner Trippler asked if there should be something in the recommendations regarding the developer must get a grading permit. Mr. Ahl said when approving final construction and engineering plans, before the developer can proceed with the plans, they enter into a development contract with the city and the grading permit is part of the development contract. The developer must grade the site according to the plans that were approved by the city and the engineering department. Commissioner Trippler said on page 6 in condition 10, it says as little grading as possible north and east of the proposed street. He asked if that was an error because that sounds incorrect to have it north of the proposed street that would be Ripley Avenue. Mr. Roberts said that was a staff error and the words FlQI'tI=l and can be eliminated. Commissioner Trippler said another questionable area is on page 7, condition number 5. The whole second sentence doesn't make sense. Mr. Roberts said that's incorrect as well and should be eliminated from the condition. The first sentence is correct though. Commissioner Trippler said he reviewed the minutes from the previous meeting as well and on page 12 of the minutes, in the first paragraph, it states Mr. Harrison said there must have been a grading permit because someone dumped 500 yards of soil on that property in the last month. Then 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. He asked what staff had to say about that? Mr. Roberts said he heard testimony that there was no grading permit pulled by the developer. Mr. Kretman verified that no grading permit was pulled. Mr. Ahl agreed to no grading permit had been pulled. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -14- Commissioner Trippler said on page 19 of the minutes, in the first paragraph, it states the planning commission said by the next planning commission meeting on January 3, 2006, they would like to have information regarding if this was a dumpsite, what responsibility the city has 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. He looked for that answer in the current staff report and he didn't find the answers to those issues and he would like someone to respond. Mr. Ahl said his experience has been if the city has taken all the reasonable steps and care to make assurances that the site is appropriate the city is "not liable" if a home begins to settle. The building official looks at soil borings to make sure the site is suitable for building on. If the building official takes reasonable steps and care, the city is "not liable". If the drainage doesn't work, that falls under the same standards as the settling, and the city is "not liable". If people's houses get flooded as they did on Valleyview Avenue when three homes got flooded and had six feet of water in their homes, the city is not liable. The city took reasonable care but it was determined there was a blockage in the system. The city had no reason to understand why that happened; it was an "act of god". The city could not assume that the pipe would become blocked. City employees were out at the site between 10:30 p.m. and 2:30 a.m. and the blockage was removed and the drainage went away. It's difficult for people to understand that the city does not serve as someone's insurance company. The same holds true with a sanitary sewer backup, if the city has taken all reasonable care, and for some reason the sewer backs up into someone's basement, the city is not liable. The courts have held that interpretation throughout the years. It's frustrating for everyone involved. It would be easier for the city to open up their checkbook and pay but the city cannot do that. The law says as long as the city takes reasonable care and reasonable assurances the city is not liable. Commissioner Trippler thanked Mr. Ahl for his responses to the questions. He said on page 42 of the staff report, from Michael Thompson it states in number 1. This include having at least 2 feet of freeboard to the lowest proposed floor elevation or 1 foot above the emergency overflow elevation, whichever is greater. He asked if Mr. Thompson was referring to two feet of freeboard above the lowest floor elevation in the development or in the lowest elevation of the homes surrounding the drainage. Mr. Ahl said the freeboard Mr. Thompson was referring to goes back to the discussion regarding the 12 inch rainfall in the 48-hour time period. We would use the overflow to make sure we have at least 1 foot over the overflow so the greater of the condition here is actually 2 feet of overflow or freeboard. Commissioner Dierich said at the last meeting a neighbor stated he made his own drainage system to drain down into the Edgerton pond, she asked how legal that was for a homeowner to do on their own and how does the city handle that? Mr. Ahl said the city ordinance allows people to do landscaping and sometimes as staff they take liberal interpretations of landscaping. The city doesn't preclude people from doing minor drainage systems but if the drainage impacts wetlands, or does something that will impact other properties, the city frowns upon that and the city will go back and use the ordinance to correct things. If someone puts in a small drainage pipe, the city encourages people to do that because the city wants good neighborhoods and good properties and would categorize that as "landscaping". Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -15- Commissioner Dierich said on page 2 staff said the city code requires the developer to save at least 18 trees, she asked what that meant exactly? Mr. Roberts said if the developer can save 18 trees that would meet the minimum city requirements, if the developer cannot save the trees they must replant 18 trees. The developer will also need to plant at least 10 trees within the development site. Commissioner Trippler asked if the city has a minimum grade because on page 6, c. (1) it states a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of the intersection at two percent. He thought he remembered something about a 3% maximum grade. Mr. Ahl said the city has a maximum street grade of 10% which does occur in some areas of Maplewood. An example of a 10% street grade is the city of Duluth has a steeper than 10% maximum street grade. Mr. Roberts said this is not a public hearing. The engineer representing the developer (Mr. Alan Kretman) is here tonight and there are neighbors in the audience but it is up to the planning commission if they would like to hear any testimony tonight or from the applicant for the developer. The planning commission members decided they had received enough information and did not need to hear from the neighbors or from the applicant for the developer, Mr. Kretman. The questions had been answered to the satisfaction of the planning commission by staff and in the staff report. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the resolution on page 44 of the staff report. This resolution is for the vacation of the unused Jessie Street right-of-way, the unused alley and the excess drainage easements on the property for the site of the C. Kings Addition plat. The city is vacating these because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the property owner have no plans to build a street or an alley in the existing right- of-ways. 3. The developer will be dedicating a new right-of-way and new easements with the final plat. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the C. Kings Addition preliminary plat (received by the city on November 23, 2005). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all retaining walls, site landscaping and meet all city requirements. b. 'Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -16- c. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in two locations - primarily at the street intersections and at the south end of the cul-de-sac. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. d. Provide all required and necessary easements (including all utility easements and ten- foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five- foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). e. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification, and no parking signs. f. Provide all required and necessary easements, including wetland buffer easements for all wetlands and the buffers on the site. g. Demolish or remove the existing shed from the site, and remove all other buildings, fencing, truck and automobile parts, scrap metal, debris and junk from the site. h. Cap and seal all wells on site; and remove septic systems or drainfields, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. i. Complete all curb on Ripley Avenue on the north side of the site and restore and sod the boulevards. Commissioner Pearson moved to have 'the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, trail and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo from Michael Thompson dated December 9,2005, and shall meet the following conditions: (changes to the recommendations are stricken if deleted by the planning commission.) a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code and shall be extremely detailed to the satisfaction of the city engineer. b. The grading plan shall show: (1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) House pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. (4) The proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. On slopes steeper than 3: 1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. At a minimum, the slopes shall be protected with wood-fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -17- (6) Include the tree plan that: a. Shows where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. b. Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. c. Shows the planting of at least 10 maples, Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines within the projected site. (7) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than 4 feet require a building permit from the city. (8) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed district or by the city engineer. (9) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (10) As little grading as possible north and east of the proposed street. This is to keep as many of the existing trees on the site as is reasonably possible. (11) The drainage areas, and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the runoff from the surrounding areas. c. The street and utility plans shall show: (1) The street with a width of 28 feet (with parking on one site), shall be a 9-ton design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of the intersection at two percent. (2) The new street (Jessie Street) with continuous concrete curb and gutter, except where the city engineer determines that concrete curbing is not necessary. (3) The completion or replacement of the curb on the south side of Ripley Avenue and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. (4) Repair of Ripley Avenue (curb, street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the new street. (5) The coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). (6) All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (7) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -18- (8) A water service to each lot. (9) A detail of any ponds, the pond outlets and the rainwater gardens. The contractor shall protect the outlets to prevent erosion. (10) The cul-de-sac with a minimum pavement radius of at least 42 feet. (11) Label Ripley Avenue and label the new street as Jessie Street on all construction and projected plans. d. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm water run-off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's engineer shall: (1) Verify inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Submit drainage design calculations. e. A tree planting and landscape plan for the site that shows: 1. The planting areas along the street, wetland and ponding areas. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight feet tall and shall include Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines. 2. All deciduous trees shall be at least 2% inches in diameter. 3. No tree planting in a public street. 3. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. b. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and at least five feet wide along the side property lines. 4. Pay for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. TReso GRoll inolude, Bl,lt not BO IiA'litod to, on easoA'lent for tho oulvort draining tRe ponE! en the north side of the plat and l3oyin!j the oity for tRo easement for tho ponding aroo on tho park prol3erty. 6. The developer shall complete all site grading and retaining wall construction. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage and ponding areas, install all retaining walls, installs the landscaping and replacement trees, install all other necessary improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -19- c. Provide for the repair of Ripley Avenue (street, curb and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities. d. Meet all the requirements of the city engineer. 7. Record the following with the final plat: a. Any homeowners' association documents. b. A covenant or association documents that addresses the proper installation, maintenance and replacement of the retaining walls. c. A deed that combines Outlot A with the adjacent property to the west for tax and identification purposes. d. A deed that combines Outlot B with the adjacent property to the east for tax and identification purposes. e. A wetland buffer easement for the wetland and for the required buffer easement area around the wetland. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 8. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 9. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 1 O.lf the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on January 23, 2006. Commissioner Dierich thanked Mr. Ahl, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Roberts for answering the planning commission's questions and for getting answers to their previous questions for this proposal. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -20- f. In-Fill Study Update Mr. Roberts said at the December 19, 2005, planning commission meeting, the commission continued their discussion of in-fill development. This review included trying to define what in-fill development is (or is not) and a discussion of information and articles that staff had gathered about in-fill development. Staff included six points for the city to consider with in-fill development and regulations. Staff also included three definitions for in-fill or in-fill development from articles found on the internet. The planning commissioners had miscellaneous discussion regarding what in-fill is and what it means in the city of Maplewood. Commissioner Desai thought it might be a good time to review the city's comprehensive plan again to see what the city as a whole is envisioning they should do about in-fill. Some of the other planning commissioners agreed. Commissioner Trippler thanked Mr. Roberts for bringing some of the in-fill articles to the planning commission's attention. He found the articles very interesting and the articles put in-fill into more of a positive frame work from the standpoint of urban planners thinking in terms of public transportation, providing services and facilities, and providing water and sewer by increasing the number of occupants on a particular piece of property. There are a number of things to think about when considering in-fill. I n-fill is not appropriate for all citys. To him in-fill is like the C. Kings Addition the commission just discussed. You have a piece of property and a developer decides to develop a small neighborhood on this parcel by building a street in order to have four homes. Does the City of Maplewood want to move towards in-fill developments? If so he thinks the ordinances the city has are just fine already and there is no sense changing things or coming up with new ones. The question is does Maplewood want things to stay the way they are or does it want to change to a highly concentrated urban center. Until the city decides that, you are just spinning the wheel. Commissioner Dierich agrees with Commissioner Trippler. She said it comes down to being a policy decision. As a city you have to decide if you want to be urban or continue to be suburban in character. She thinks there are places where you can live side by side with those characteristics but there are others where you can't have that kind of development without making a conscious policy change in the way the city thinks they want to live as a city. She said Commissioner Trippler usually says a PUD is a license to steal. As she was reading this information she was reading how useful a PUD would be in these types of situations for better control on the city's end regarding what goes where and how it looks, as well as how dense it should be and how creative the developer should be. She thinks the city is going to see more of this type of development as you see more in-fill. She drove through South St. Paul recently and some of the homes that were there for many many years are now gone and there are blocks of brand new homes built. Maplewood and South St. Paul are of an age where that could happen here. Chairperson Fischer said that change can be a positive thing too. There may be people who lived in the city in an older house but want to move into a twin home and stay in the city. As people get older their housing needs change and they may want to down size or be closer to stores. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -21- Chairperson Fischer said as homes get older and become run down putting a new set of homes in the neighborhood can be a positive thing for everyone in the area. Some people stay in the same home but add onto their homes because they have outgrown the home but still like the neighborhood or because their kids don't want to leave the school district or neighborhood. Commissioner Grover said the city may not need an ordinance for in-fill. In his 1% years on the planning commission most of the development he has seen have been in-fill developments. These are projects that require a good deal of finesse and planning. We are not encouraging in- fill developments but we are reacting to the fact that it's happening. Property owners are selling to builders or developers who are putting parcels together to make a development. He said he agrees that the city should take another look at the comprehensive plan before making any final decisions. We have a system that seems to work now because we review things on a case by case situation. Chairperson Fischer said the city is coming up on a mandated update of the comprehensive plan by the Met Council. She asked when that may happen. Mr. Roberts said the planning commission will have to have the comprehensive plan updated by the end of 2008. Staff will be thinking of a plan to get that process moving forward in the next few months. More discussion will follow at a later date on the topic of in-fill. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. No PC representation needed on December 26, 2005, because the city council meeting was cancelled. b. Mr. Desai will be the planning commission representative at the January 9, 2006, city council meeting. So far there are no planning commission items to discuss. c. Mr. Ahlness was scheduled to be the planning commission representative at the January 23, 2006, city council meeting, however, he was absent from the meeting January 3, 2006. Chairperson Fischer asked if Commissioner Desai would be interested in covering the PC representation at the January 23, 2006, city council meeting for Commissioner Ahlness. Commissioner Desai said he would have to check his calendar. If he is unable to be the PC representative, he will inform staff and staff will find a replacement. Items to discuss include the Special Construction Agreement to build a house at 1784 Edgehill Road, and the C. Kings Addition on Jessie Street, South of Ripley Avenue for four single family homes. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-03-06 -22- d. Mr. Kaczrowski will be the planning commission representative at the February 13, 2006, city council meeting. It's too early at this time for staff to know what items will be discussed. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Roberts reminded the planning commission that the PC terms of Gary Pearson, Michael Grover and Jeremy Yarwood are coming up. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.