Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/17/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesdav, January 17, 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. January 3, 2006 5. Public Hearings None 6. New Business a. Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan b. 2005 Planning Commission Annual Report c. Cottagewood Development Concept Plan Review (2666 Highwood Avenue) d. Planning Commission Elections 5. Unfinished Business a. Noise Ordinance Review - Mr. Ahlness 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations January 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Tushar January 23 Council Meeting: 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 17, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL 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 Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Roberts requested moving item 6. c. cottagewood Development Concept Plan Review to 6. b. and making 6. b. 2005 Planning Commission Annual Report to 6. c. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Pearson seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Approval of the planning commission minutes for January 3, 2006. Commissioner Grover moved to approve the planning commission minutes for January 3, 2006. Commissioner Pearson seconded. V. PUBLIC HEARING None. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler Abstention - Yarwood Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -2- VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan (7:08 - 8:18 p.m.) For the last two years, the city has been conducting an extensive process for the possible redevelopment of the Gladstone Neighborhood Area (the area near Frost Avenue and English Street). The process has included the hiring of consultants to prepare and evaluate development and redevelopment plans and alternatives for the area. It also included the formation of a task force of citizens and city commission members to provide input to the city and the planning consultants about the proposed plans. Through this extensive process, the city and the consultants recently completed a draft neighborhood redevelopment plan. The city is now asking all the city boards and commissions to each make a recommendation to the city council about the draft plan. Specifically, city staff is asking that the planning commission make a recommendation to the city council about the draft Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan (dated November 14, 2005). A power point presentation about the planning process and the draft plan for the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan was given by Melinda Coleman and Chuck Ahl. Commissioner Grover asked what option B is and where did option B come from? Mr. Ahl said option B started as a discussion between himself and Councilmember David Bartol when they looked at the public investment for this plan. They asked the question "what is the bottom line or minimal amount that could be done and what is the minimal dollar amount that would have to be spent"? We asked is there a housing density under 800 units that make this financially feasible? Instead of redeveloping in a timely manner that pays for the public improvements, your redevelopment doesn't happen and properties sit vacant. Properties would continue to deteriorate even though the public improvements would be done. The city doesn't want to call it a "minimal" plan but the question is what is the minimal value of improvements that you would do in the area. Commissioner Grover said in terms of estimating the actual number of units, if you take $17 million, divide it by the 800, producing a per unit and apply it to the $11 million that gives you the 500 units. Mr. Ahl said that was the basis for the city councilmember who requested this. It is a much more detailed analysis the city has to do and that is what the consultants will work on. Commissioner Grover asked if the staff would be bringing this information back to the consultants at HKGI to have them run the numbers? Mr. Ahl said since they got the request last Monday, the city has started on the analysis to get the complete information to make a recommendation to the city council. Commissioner Yarwood asked if there was any assumption made where the 500 units would be built in relation to where the 800 units would be built in the Gladstone area? Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -3- Mr. Ahl said the tourist cabin site is one where both the 500 and 800 unit plan assumes the same intensity and density. The reduction in the housing density in the plan comes more in the outer fringes. The area closer to the existing residential neighborhoods have the lesser development possibly 6 units per acre in intensity. The core area around Frost and English Street and the north side between Flicek Park and the Maplewood Bowl have a higher density around 15 units per acre. The 1000 unit plan had about 34 units per acre. Does the city want five story complexes in this area? Is that too much for this part of Maplewood? The city has to decide these questions. They also have to decide if they have a maximum density they would use. Ms. Coleman said under the current zoning and the current comprehensive plan, there are certain development rights that are on the books right now that under the 500 units could actually be construed as a down zoning for some of the property owners. To go back through the planning process and reduce the zoning to something less could get the city into some trouble, so the city has to take a closer look at that scenario. Mr. Ahl said if the value of the units is less, than there would be less taxes and less money available for public improvements. The dollar figure the city is using as a reference now is $22,500 per unit. Commissioner Grover said the assumption is that the developers may be less amenable to coming back if they see an option such as an option B where they don't have some of the options they wanted to be able to work with. He asked if the consulting group was going to talk to developers as well to see if option B would even be something a developer would be interested in working with? Mr. Ahl said yes. There are five or six developers that have called the city in the last week that are interested in this Gladstone Redevelopment Area. Commissioner Grover asked if the city would quantify the risk to the TI F as well? Mr. Ahl said yes, that is the main risk. If the city can't support the $350,000 per unit the city will have to reduce the price per unit to $250,000. That may not generate as much money for this project but the city has two choices, either cut improvements or increase density. Ms. Coleman said at the workshop in December, Peter Fischer asked what some of the densities were for housing projects around town. In response to this, Ken Roberts put a list together (which he passed out to everyone) of some of the apartment and townhome projects and what the dwelling units per acre were. She said the last two TIF projects for housing were the Sibley Cove Apartment project on County Road D and Ariel Street and the Van Dyke Village project on Van Dyke Street and County Road B. By the time the land was purchased and the structures were built there was a gap in the affordability component to make this work financially. That's what you will see here too. The city will have to look very carefully at the cost of the land, the cost of the street and the cost of the other improvements. With the help of HKGI (the consulting company), the city hopes to have a good analysis in place to help the commission and board members work through the details to help make a recommendation on development levels. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -4- Commissioner Trippler said he has been on the Gladstone Task Force for two years now representing the planning commission and he thinks it's really sad that in the ninth inning, with two out, we get this option B plan that came out of left field. It's too bad the city couldn't go ahead with the plans they already had in place and either vote it up or vote it down. He asked if the density of this development matches with the Legacy Village development or with any other of the high density developments? He thinks there's a misconception out there with the 800 unit proposal that far exceeds any other density in the city and that is not his understanding. Staff asked what kind of direction the commission would like to see? He thinks it's very important to have the trails and the walkability in this development. If this development is going to provide a living environment that is going to attract a full range of people such as young people with families through retired people, developing the trails and making the connection between the north part of Frost Avenue to the Savanna and to the Gateway Trail is critical to make this plan work. He has also been a strong advocate maintaining as much open space as possible. Once you lose the open space it's gone. He knows there are a lot of issues regarding funding parks and he has been opposed to that being a short term fix. That is putting off the inevitable that the city is eventually going to have to face. He said the consultant did a number of economic evaluations of the three proposals, the garden city plan, the mid point plan and the village plan. He asked how far off the garden city concept was to this left field proposal of 500 units? Mr. Ahl said the question is how can the city tweak the improvements down to the $11 million dollar mark? The city is getting those numbers together and then we can tell if $11 million dollars will work with 500 units or not. The original garden city concept plan was for 300 units and that just wasn't financially feasible. The original garden city plan had the extent of the improvements from Highway 61 to Hazelwood Street. The 500 unit starts at Phalen Place and goes to Ide Street. Commissioner Trippler said most of the improvements that he has seen are pretty essential in order for this to be a "high quality" development. The more you cut back on the plan the more you are going to have to cut back on the "quality" of the product the city could offer. It could be done but then do you want it to look nice or of higher quality or do you want it to look like inexpensive or of lower quality? At 8:00 p.m. Bruce Anderson took the open space committee members and the park and recreation members out of the city council chambers to have their own meeting and discussion. Commissioner Trippler said he thinks it's critical to make the Savanna usable and based on his past work experience at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, that there are funding mechanisms that are available. He doesn't think the city will need to come up $2 million dollars for clean up. He thinks the city can tap into the Petro Fund and some of the other clean up funds and maybe drop the projected dollar amount by $1 million dollars. Mr. Ahl said the city is aware there are funds out there you can apply for but the city can't get into all of those details at this time. The city does have about $700,000 of the environmental fund in the project budget. Commissioner Desai asked about the Tourist Cabins. He asked if that area would be developed as medium or high density? Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -5- Ms. Coleman said from the plan with the 800 units that area was at about 120 to 150 units and in the plan B option that site would carry about the same density. Commissioner Desai asked if the city has received inquiries regarding redeveloping that area? Ms. Coleman said there is a developer in place, they have the property under options, and they have begun meeting with the residents there. She said she has a meeting on Thursday, January 19,2006, with that group to start talking about the master plan and when it could be adopted. Currently there is a moratorium in place, so the city is working with the timeframes with them. The city is not at liberty to discuss the name of the firm yet and she is not sure the developer wants his name released at this time. The phone calls from developers she has received have picked up dramatically since the beginning of the year because the developers that have been attending the meetings regarding the Gladstone Redevelopment Area and anticipate the master plan will be adopted real soon. Commissioner Desai said it wasn't clear why the plans changed since the last meeting at the Maplewood Community Center with the commissions and groups. He asked what has changed and why? Ms. Coleman said on Monday, January 9, 2006, one of the city councilmember's requested that the city staff consider an option B. They want to know what the minimal level of development is that the city can support doing $11 million worth of public infrastructure improvements and what density do we have to have in order to do that. The city is trying to find a balance. The city council directed city staff to amend the contract with HKGI (the consultants) to do this additional work and bring it back to the city council. Commissioner Desai asked where the magic number of $11 million was derived? Ms. Coleman said that $11 million number was derived from the density that the city councilmember who proposed this option B felt comfortable with. Mr. Ahl said the $11 million number was developed from a meeting between the city councilmember, David Bartol and himself that took many hours. They discussed what could and couldn't be cut. The numbers were basically tweaked and the figure came down to $11 million. Commissioner Desai said it seemed to him this was a unilateral decision by the city council members. All this activity had already occurred with the Gladstone Redevelopment Area with the task force and all the city meetings. It was presented to all the commissions and boards at the Maplewood Community Center and it seems inappropriate that one city council member can dictate a change to the whole plan and delay things even longer seems unfair. Commissioner Trippler said it was a 3 to 2 vote by the city council to research this further for the option B plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -6- Ms. Coleman said because of this concern city staff is bringing this back to the commission once again so you can understand what the cost of option B would be and understand the character changes that may result for taking this project to a different level. How does the city know they need 800 units of density? City staff is going to take this through the process and bring it back to all of the groups. This delay has extended the decision on the master plan for another month to two months. Commissioner Desai said even if the consultants come up with a revised recommendation and the planning commission and the other boards and commission say 800 units is the density to go with, this could still go back to the city council and the council could still say 500 units is the maximum density the city is going to have for this project? Ms. Coleman said that's a possibility. What you are going to see, and what the city councilmember's are going to making their decision on, could be based on many different recommendations. There could be a different recommendation from each of the commissions or boards. There will be a spread sheet of what the public improvements costs would be and what is going to have be taken out of the plan to make the 500 units work. You are going to have to make a recommendation to the city council on what you think will work. Ultimately the city council will make a decision on all of the information they have received. Commissioner Grover said he likes the idea of a spread sheet. He thinks the spread sheet is a good comparison of numbers and statistics to compare the information. He agrees the city does not want to do something cheap when they could have had a good plan with some of the amenities that would attract certain developers to this area of the city. He thinks it would be nice to compare this plan to the Legacy Village area to see why certain amenities were included in that master plan and why certain amenities or ideas would not work in this plan compared to the things that were done or not done in the Legacy Village master plan such as parks, statues, trails, etc. Ms. Coleman said the underlying premise for the Legacy Village project was similar to the 800 unit plan. The city knew what the improvements needed to be, what the price was, what the density was, and it was all done in one package with a tax abatement plan. That is what the city is trying to do here. Now the city staff has been directed to take a different turn and analyze things in another way. Commissioner Grover said the Legacy Village plan was before his time on the planning commission. The thought process of why things were included in the Legacy Village plan would be interesting to know for the plan of the overall development. Such as why were public statues included in the plan, what was the rational for certain types of lighting, design elements, architecture used and other decisions that were made? He thinks these ideas and rationales would be important to compare between the Legacy Village plan in the ideas and plans for Gladstone Redevelopment Area. Ms. Coleman said the rational for the overall development for Legacy Village was one that was negotiated. It was done through the AUAR process. The project started at about 18 units per acre and when the city was done with the AUAR and the public process, the project ended up with 12 units per acre. It has a lot of open space components. The parks commission played an active role in the kind of park and trail system they wanted and that was given to the developers (the Hartford Group) as everyone was going through the planning process. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -7- Commissioner Grover said he understood there wasn't the "nickel and dime" issue that the city has dealt with for the Gladstone Redevelopment Area. Ms. Coleman said correct. That's because there wasn't an existing neighborhood involved nor was there any opposition involved. The questioning and rational for the kind of zoning and density to use came through the city council, the AUAR and the advisory board process for the Legacy Village plan. There wasn't anywhere near the kind of public input with the Legacy Village area compared to what the city is going through with the Gladstone area. It was a single developer, one master developer, it was a lot easier to negotiate amenities, and with a budget that would work with the tax abatement plan. Another thing city staff did not mention is the value of having the higher density number is that gives the city more credence when they go to the Met Council for "livable community grants". The City of Maplewood has applied for two years now and was turned down. The first time the city applied for the grant it was for the Rich McLaughlin plan at 500 units of density which was turned down because the city was told it wasn't dense enough. Ms. Coleman said that's another thing the city has to keep in mind if the city wants to economically be in the ballpark, some of the other communities might be looking for those grants or funding and is another factor to consider. Commissioner Yarwood asked if the overriding concern of the city councilmember's is the density or the cost. Ms. Coleman said the primary concern is the proposed density. Mr. Ahl said it has to be density because even with the 500 and the 800 unit plans they pay for themselves. There is no city expenditure necessary "per se". Commissioner Desai said regarding the density and the expense, has the city asked the developers what density and dollar amount they think could sell in this area the best? Mr. Ahl said the city has to quantify what they can build with the $11 million so they can tell the developers what they have to work with. The city has a general idea but that has to be put on paper to see the numbers and make the comparisons. If the developers come in and say it isn't feasible to build with those numbers, the city has to go back to square one. Ms. Coleman said there will be certain parcels that are more expensive because businesses have to be relocated, or they have contaminants on them, so those costs will be more expensive as opposed to the areas that are under developed or have little on them. Commissioner Grover asked if there has been any resistance to this redevelopment by any of the property owners in the area? Ms. Coleman said businesses such as Gladstone Windows and Webster Dental are the only businesses that have said they are not interested in moving and do not want to move. Rich's market would love to work with the city on a new project but is not going to take on any new debt. Residents have said they don't know enough about the plan yet to make a decision. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -8- Commissioner Trippler said having thought about the proposal for option B that came in at the last minute, he is concerned if there is an end game here or not with the city council. If the 500 units at $11 million come back from the consultants, and they say it isn't feasible, and then it gets resubmitted as 600 units at $12 million, does it ever end? Ms. Coleman said staff doesn't know the answer to that. City staff will bring more information back to the commissions and boards for further discussion. Commissioner Grover said it would be nice to have the interdependent items listed on a spread sheet, for example, if you take X away then you have to take Y away. Ms. Coleman said city staff will do their very best to work with the consultants on this. The city staff wants to make this as easy and as clear of a decision as possible for all groups involved. Ms. Coleman thanked everyone for their time. The commission took a recess from 8:18 - 8:22 p.m. b. Cottagewood Development Concept Plan Review (2666 Highwood Avenue) (8:22-9:03 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Phil Soby, representing Lauren and Company, has submitted to the city a preliminary concept plan for a proposed detached townhouse development. He has prepared a preliminary site and grading plan that shows 16 detached housing units on a private driveway. This development would be on about 3.71 acres of land that is south of Highwood Avenue (2666 Highwood Avenue). A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. This proposal, if approved by the city, would replace an 18-unit townhouse plan (with three six-unit buildings) known as Highwood Farms that the city approved in 2003. The developer has not finalized the design of the buildings, but staff expects that each town house building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick or stone veneer on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have a two-car garage. Staff recommends the planning commission review the Cottagewood PUD concept plans for the property at 2666 Highwood Avenue and provide the applicant and city staff direction and comments about the proposed development. Mr. Ahl said from one side to the other of the site is almost 18 to 20 feet of elevation change from west to east so it drops significantly. He said retaining walls are going to be needed to make this development work. There will be significant issues with how to make this site drain but it is workable. Commissioner Trippler asked what corresponding house number on Dennis Street would match up with unit number 9? Mr. Roberts said he estimated 1004 Dennis Street would match up with unit number 9. He estimates the properties are probably within 10 feet of each other. That would mean the southern half of the property would be untouched. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -9- Commissioner Trippler said he didn't visit the site this time but he did when this proposal came before the planning commission in 2003. He remembered the units on the south end of Dennis Street had jungle gyms and lawn stuff at the rear of the lots. The backyards there weren't that deep to begin with. But from 1004 Dennis Street and north of that have larger backyards. With this proposal he thinks there is ample separation between these eight proposed homes and corresponding homes to the west and he likes this proposal better than the last time he saw it. Commissioner Pearson asked how high the retaining wall would be that would have to be built on the rear of the town home properties? Mr. Ahl said he estimates the retaining wall to be 8 feet tall. The top of the retaining wall on the grading plan is at 1 ,OOB feet and walkouts are at 1,000 feet. Commissioner Yarwood asked if there has been any public or neighbor input on either the previous plan or on this plan? Mr. Roberts said the previous plan in 2003 had a lot of public input and there were a couple public hearings at the city. There hasn't been any input with this plan yet because it is only a concept at this point. The developer is only looking for input from the commission to help guide them before they decide to make a full application for revision. Commissioner Yarwood asked if there was a lot of concern regarding setbacks or how close these other developments may be to each other? Mr. Roberts said that was not an overwhelming concern. The big selling point in 2003 was that the developer was going to dedicate a conservation easement at the southern end of the property and not touch it. Most of the neighbors felt that it would only affect a few backyards and the trade off was worth it because now there was a large area of untouched property which could be enjoyed by many people. This new plan does that in a similar fashion. These buildings were not as close together as the current plan, but were three stories high. Now they are proposed at one story so that is the trade off. Commissioner Grover asked if the plan in 2003 approved as a PUD as well? Mr. Roberts said yes and that PUD approval is still on the books. The conservation easement was a condition. When the final plat is filed, which the developer did not do because the past plan never went forward, the conservation easement would be on the record. Staff suggests thatifthis concept plan goes forward, the PUD would be revised and the city could keep any or all of the conditions that the city thinks are important as part of the revised or new plan. Commissioner Grover said the retaining wall seems tall to him at 8 feet in height. Are there any restrictions with an B foot tall retaining wall or does the city require any fencing to be on top of the retaining wall to keep children from climbing on top of it or to keep people from getting hurt? Mr. Ahl said any retaining wall over four feet tall requires a fence or some type of barrier on top to restrict access on top of the retaining wall so nobody could fall. Commissioner Trippler said Erin Laberee had three issues or concerns regarding the concept plan. He asked staff to address the three issues. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -10- Mr. Roberts said those are questions for the developer. Staff was trying to get engineering's comments to pass onto the developer to let the developer know there are issues to be worked out. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Phil Soby, Lauren & Company Development, 200 East Chestnut Street, Suite 204, Stillwater, addressed the commission. Mr. Soby had four street scenes and color renderings to show the commission of what this development could look like. As Mr. Roberts said, this is only a concept plan at this stage and he is looking for comments from the commission before they go to the next step. These would be one level detached townhome units that would be geared to a senior who is looking for a residential home, but without the yard maintenance. These units would sell for around $250,000 a unit. Commissioner Grover asked what the square footage would be for these units? Mr. Soby said the units will run between 1,000 to 1,200 square feet per unit on the one level. Given the natural grades he is thinking the properties on the east side could be offered the option of a full basement to allow that natural grade to slope because it's an 8 to 9 foot drop which is about right for a full basement walkout. Mr. Soby said the units on the west side would be a slab on grade so no basement would be available there. Commissioner Grover said one of the concerns of the Assistant City Engineer, Erin Laberee, is the amount of visitor parking. Mr. Soby said when the units are placed so the garages and the driveways are next to each other it would create a larger area from the driveway to the next property's driveway. They could re-Iay the units on the plan so there are two or three areas on the plan that are similar to the one space that is there which is a double space. The other thought is where the hammerhead is on the south side the hammerhead could be increased somehow to create additional parking. He is thinking they could get two to three more parking spaces in the hammerhead area. Commissioner Yarwood questioned the small cul-de-sac on the plans verses the hammerhead the developer is talking about. Mr. Soby said the concepts you are looking at were developed prior to their meeting with Ken Roberts. The original set of renderings determined the cul-de-sac was too small so they changed it to the hammerhead version instead. Commissioner Yarwood said it seems visitor parking is always a concern. There is only one outlet and you can't park on the street. If you have parking spaces all the way at one end of the development how likely are visitors who are visiting someone going to park so far and walk? Especially with Minnesota winters. The question is how can you space out additional visitor parking spaces for the development so the parking is spread out evenly. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -11- Mr. Soby said the concept of repositioning the units so the garages are next to each other will allow for more visitor parking spaces. He doesn't know for sure until he lays things out again how many visitor parking spaces he can fit in there. He thinks he may get two to four more addition visitor parking spaces on the site somewhere. He kind of likes that idea better than the idea to put additional parking spaces in the area of the hammerhead. Commissioner Grover said this is a private drive and he assumed it does not need to accommodate city plows. He asked if hammerheads have a minimum size? Mr. Ahl said typically the city frowns on those types of hammerheads even on private drives. When you start seeing 16 units such as this the question gets raised, will children be living here and would a school bus try to access this street and try to turn around? Would the homes require the kids to walk to the end of the street to Highwood Avenue to catch a bus? You don't want a school bus or a garbage truck backing up in a hammerhead. You have to consider fire trucks and emergency vehicles too. This hammerhead design is not necessarily acceptable. The original plan from 2003 had 18 units with a hammerhead but the units were laid out different. This hammerhead design is right on the edge of the city to say the hammerhead will not work. The proposed driveway would be 21 feet wide so it is at the absolute minimum. He said this is pretty narrow and you couldn't have enough room for cars to park on one side of the road. Commissioner Trippler wondered if the applicant had a chance to look at the engineer's concerns dated January 5,2006. Number 1. states the proposed retaining wall is very close to the adjacent properties. It does not seem feasible to construct the wall without disturbing the adjacent properties. 2. There does not seem to be adequate room to construct a swale between the retaining wall and the proposed structures. The proposed swale is too close to the retaining wall, it will not be a gradual swale, but more like a ditch and will result in erosion problems. 3. No additional runoff from roofs or backyards shall be directed onto the easterly property. He asked what the applicant's response is to these concerns? Mr. So by said yes he had read the engineer's concerns. Commissioner Trippler asked what the applicant's response was to the concerns relating to the retaining wall? Mr. So by said they feel the retaining wall is feasible. He did not have a chance to speak with the engineer, Erin Laberee to see why she felt that way about the retaining wall but they feel there should not be any concerns. Commissioner Trippler said he hasn't built an 8 foot tall retaining wall but he has built a smaller retaining wall on his property. He believes the point the Assistant City Engineer, Erin Laberee is trying to make is, if you build a retaining wall you are going to have to build it into the hill so it doesn't collapse and the retaining wall is right on the property line. The question is how do you build a retaining wall into the hill without disrupting the adjacent property. Do you have to ask the property owners along the whole western side for permission to build the retaining wall on a portion of their property? Mr. Soby said that's an option to invite the property owners that abut the property line to share a portion of the property with each other along the western property edge. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -12- CommissionerTrippler asked for a response to Erin's concerns regarding the swale between the retaining wall and the proposed structures. Mr. Soby said they are exploring the options for runoff for the watershed. He isn't sure what the answer is. This is something they would have to explore and they would make it work mechanically and make it look good as well. Commissioner Trippler said her last concern is there should be no additional runoff from roofs or backyards and the runoff shall be directed onto the easterly property. He hopes the applicant addresses all of these issues before bringing this proposal back to the planning commission if it becomes more than a concept plan. Commissioner Pearson said this retaining wall will have to be engineered, but with the narrow area and the drop in the drainage there, how much erosion would it take in that swale before it starts to seriously affect the retaining wall? Mr. Ahl said water and retaining walls don't mix very well. Once you start having erosion and you move the base that is the support for the retaining wall, the wall withstands not the strength ofthe wall but it can only withstand the condition of the soil underneath. The more you erode the soil the faster your retaining wall is going to give in. The soil is critical and it will have to be stabilized. The applicant will have to have an engineered retaining wall as well as an engineered swale. This retaining wall is going to be a very expensive project. Commissioner Pearson said he is very nervous about having an 8 foot tall retaining wall behind these existing properties. It doesn't take much on the part of residents to interrupt the swale. He said he had an experience with his adjoining neighbor has a retaining wall with a 35 degree list towards his property which will certainly go over the swale and he has been seriously flooded once and wouldn't want it to happen again. He could see an 8 or 10 foot tall retaining wall going over with erosion right up against the homes. Commissioner Yarwood asked if retaining walls of this size are typically vertically reinforced or can they be reinforced horizontally as well? Mr. Ahl said until you do a soils analysis you can't know for sure. The closer the city gets to do some value judgments you will have a better idea if the wall will require gerters and beams vertically to support the wall into the slope. He wouldn't expect that but he thinks once the city knows what the soils are, and know the issues, the city would probably work with the developer to adjust the final design plans to see if they could adjust the homes and reduce the height of the retaining wall from 8 feet tall to 4 feet tall. A smaller retaining wall means less potential for collapse. Commissioner Grover asked if the units on the westerly side were slab on grade. Mr. So by said yes. He said there are probably a lot of different ways to design this site. Raising the elevation of the homes and splitting the difference of the retaining wall height and bringing some of the retaining wall to the easterly side to elevate that side may work. He said whatever it takes they are willing to do the right thing. Commissioner Pearson said this is a difficult piece of property to develop. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -13- Commissioner Trippler said he likes the concept plan but is concerned about the lack of visitor parking and thinks this needs to be addressed. If the applicant changes the concept plan to a proposal and brings it back to the planning commission he would hope the visitor parking is significantly increased. Commissioner Yarwood asked why the applicant chose to have 16 individual units compared to 8- two unit buildings or 4-four unit buildings? Mr. Soby said the market responses best to one level detached town homes and he has heard many people are looking for that type of housing. So from a market standpoint this type of product is higher in demand compared to multi-unit buildings. Commissioner Pearson asked what kind of a bond is required between the applicant and the city in case the retaining wall causes problems for the surrounding homeowners' yards? Mr. Ahl said as part of the grading permit the city requires a grading permit and escrow is withheld as part of a maintenance bond. The city engineering department will be checking the site to ensure things are done properly as well. Commissioner Trippler asked if this development would be part of an association? Mr. Ahl said correct. Commissioner Trippler asked how involved the city gets with association rules and documents? Mr. Roberts said he personally reviews the association document and rules for these types of developments and staff also may ask the city attorney to review them as well. Commissioner Trippler said many times town home associations have strict rules that you can't do any landscaping or digging etc. Having the association rules may help avoid the possibility that somebody may dig around the retaining wall and cause problems with the soils which in turn would cause problems for the retaining wall foundation. c. 2005 Planning Commission Annual Report (9:03 - 9:30 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said the city code requires that the planning commission prepare an annual report to the city council by their second meeting in February. This report should include the planning commission's activities from the past year and the major projects for the upcoming year. Commissioner Trippler said there was a large difference between the number of variances that were granted in 2005 compared to previous years. Mr. Roberts verbally reviewed what the variances were for the year 2005 which explained to the planning commission why there was such an increase compared to previous years. Commissioner Trippler requested that staff categorize or give a summary of the variances that were granted in future annual reports so the planning commission can see if something needs to be reviewed in the ordinances or not. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -14- Chairperson Fischer suggested adding under 2006 Activities, number 2., that a staff person from that department or area such as fire or public safety speaks to the commission regarding their certain area of expertise. Commissioner Trippler said he doesn't think having quarterly in-services listed on the list of activities is appropriate since there haven't been quarterly in-services done for as many years as he has been on the planning commission. It seems like it's a standard item that is copied every year from annual report to annual report. He would suggest if there are no proposals in which to meet about maybe this would be a good time to have a meeting, in-service or a discussion about a specific subject. The commission could have a discussion or in-service during the time they would normally meet but not have it cablecast. It may be the time to talk about the comprehensive plan, what is expected to be changed in the plan and when it is due by the Met Council because this is a major project for the planning commission to accomplish. Commissioner Grover said he agreed with Commissioner Trippler. However, he said it may be a logistical problem for staff to fill in a gap on such short notice with a speaker or information on a topic on short notice for in-service training. Maybe staff could send a list of topics for in-service ideas and the planning commissioners could let staff know by ranking the topics the commission is interested in learning or hearing more about. He personally would like to know more about the topic of septic systems and/or wells. Commissioner Pearson said he would like more information on soil borings, perk tests, and septic and drainfield systems. Mr. Roberts said he agreed with Commissioner Trippler's comment about the comprehensive plan. Revisions to the comprehensive plan are due to be complete in 200B so that is something that is very important to discuss. He said we could either survey the commission or you could let staff know what they would like to hear more about. Discussing wetlands and buffers may be another topic of discussion because of the changes with the watershed district. Commissioner Grover moved to accept the planning commission's 2005 Annual Report with the recommended revisions for staff. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on February 13, 2006. d. Planning Commission Elections (9:30 - 9:34 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said the planning commission's rules of procedure say that the commission will elect a chairperson and a vice-chairperson at the second meeting of each year. The current chairperson is Lorraine Fischer and the current vice-chairperson is Tushar Desai. Staff recommends the planning commission elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson to serve through January 2007. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -15- Commissioner Grover nominated Lorraine Fischer to remain as the chairperson and nominated Tushar Desai to remain as Vice-chairperson of the planning commission. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Abstentions - Fischer Both commissioners accepted their nominations to continue their duties on the planning commission. The motion passed. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Noise Ordinance Review - Mr. Ahlness Commissioner Grover moved to dismiss the discussion regarding the noise ordinance review. He feels the noise ordinance is suitable the way it is written. He had a discussion with Eric Ahlness before he resigned from the planning commission. He understood Eric's concerns but he feels the noise ordinance is sufficient. Commissioner Trippler said he thinks as the noise ordinance is written it can be confusing and with a little more work it could be made clearer. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Yarwood Nay - Trippler The motion to dismiss passed. Commissioner Trippler voted nay for the reasons he stated above. Staff agreed that the noise ordinance could be written more clear. Commissioner Trippler said he would pass his recommendations regarding changes he thinks should be made to the noise ordinance to staff and this item could be discussed at a later date. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Tushar was scheduled to be the planning commission representative at the January 9,2006, city council meeting but there were no planning commission items to discuss. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-06 -16- b. Mr. Ahlness was scheduled to be the planning commission representative at the January 23, 2006, city council meeting; however he was not present at the previous meeting and has since resigned. Commissioner Desai will take his place representing the planning commission. Items to discuss include the Special Construction Agreement to build a house at 1784 Edgehill Road. c. Mr. Kaczrowski will be the planning commission representative at the February 13, 2006, city council meeting. The only item to discuss so far is the 2005 Planning Commission Annual Report. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Roberts distributed a letter of resignation from Eric Ahlness prior to the start of the meeting. Mr. Roberts stated the terms for Commissioners Grover, Pearson and Yarwood have expired. Monday, February 6, 2006, at 5:00 p.m. the city council will be conducting interviews for members on the planning commission for members with expired terms. They will also interview applicants for the planning commission opening left by Eric Ahlness. If you have a problem making it by 5:00 p.m. because of your work schedule, you are encouraged to contact Melinda Coleman. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:42 p.m.