Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/15/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15, 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. May 1, 2006 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Carver Crossing of Maplewood (Henry Lane and Carver Avenue) Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) - Findings of Fact and Negative Declaration Comprehensive plan change - R-1 (single dwelling residential) to R-3(L) (multiple dwellings - low density). Zoning map change - F (farm residence) and R-1(R) to R-3 (multiple dwellings) Conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). Vacation of easements and right-of-ways Preliminary plat 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations May 8 Council Meeling: Mr. Trippler May 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Hess June 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Kaczrowski (Note - to be held at Carver School - Upper Allon Road) June 26 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich 1 O. Staff Presentations Reschedule June 5 meeting - June 6 or June 7? Annual Tour Date - July 31, 2006? 11. Adjoumment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MAY 15, 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 Harland Hess Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Staff Present: Absent P rese nt P rese nt P rese nt Present Absent Present Present Present Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Trippler seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Approval of the planning commission minutes for May 1, 2006. Commissioner Trippler had corrections to page 4, in the 4th paragraph, third line, delete the word UAtiI and change it to on. In the th paragraph, second line, it should read or basement area ei-or if there will be a basement, will it be serviced by an elevator? Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for May 1, 2006, as amended. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Dierich, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Abstentions - Fischer, Grover Planning Commission M i n utes of 05-15-06 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Carver Crossing of Maplewood (Henry Lane and Carver Avenue) (7:03 -10:36 p.m.) On March 14,2005, the city council authorized the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed development of the former Schlomka property by the CoPar Company. The project is called Carver Crossing and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA), (one of the city's consultants) prepared the EAW. The city council approved the EAW and staff routed it for public comment (as required by state law). The city has received several comments from the public, and staff has attached responses to those comments and responses in the context of applicability toward the final development plan proposal is recommended. Comments on the EAW as they relate to the site development plans also are appropriate, as the city will be considering final action on the EAW. The City Council ordered the EAW for this project area due to concerns about the impacts from the originally proposed 386-unit development. At the time the city ordered the EAW, staff suggested that the EAW might provide significant findings that could require the developer to make substantial revisions to the proposed project plans. The EAW found significant issues with site development plans, and the developer has been cooperative in revising their plans to accommodate and address the environmental concerns. The long preparation time, (over 1 year) for the EAW and development plan process is due to the findings and the developers revisions to the project plans. The findings of the EAW have required the developer to revise the plans and to reduce the housing unit count from 386 units to the current plan of 299 units. As now proposed, the 299 housing units on the 73-acre site is the lowest density development level provided within the Maplewood Land Use Plan (at 4.1 units per acre). Mr. Roberts introduced Jeanne Whitzig, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2550 University Avenue West, Suite 345N, St. Paul; she addressed the commission and went through a power point presentation regarding the Carver Crossing of Maplewood proposal which was a review of the EAW and the comments and responses for this proposal. The power point presentation reviewed the purpose of the meeting, the review of the EAW process, the review of the project definition, the project location, summary of comments, general issues raised in comments, summary of responses - water resources, development east of 1-494, storm sewer updated figures, summary of responses - traffic, noise, vegetation and parks, demographics, decision at hand, and the planning commission action. Commissioner Yarwood asked for more detail regarding the parameters for determining that an environmental impact study (EIS) isn't required? Ms. Whitzig said she could go through the specific criteria. First is item A., the type, extent and reversibility of the environmental effects, item B. is the cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects. Item C. is the extent to which the environment effects are subject to mitigation, and item D. is the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled. Regarding items C. and D. that is essentially saying are there other approvals, permits and reviews that will take place on the project that will essentially carry on from the findings of the environmental review. This is not the final decision. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -3- Ms. Whitzig said there will be other permits that will be required that will provide more detail as the project design becomes further flushed out that will mitigate any type of impact on the project. An example would be a wetland permit that would be required for the wetland impacts on the site to make sure the issues are addressed. Item B. asks the question is this part of a future development and have we appropriately looked at what may be done in a few years to make sure all the impacts are addressed. This is a full build out ofthe project site. Regarding the type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects, the EAW discloses there will be impacts associated with the development on a primarily undeveloped parcel but that these impacts aren't unique to a site of this nature if you compared it to another project of similar nature. What the project has done in terms of site design is to try to accommodate and minimize those impacts. Commissioner Yarwood said that answer is not as specific as he would've liked but we can cover that more in depth later. Commissioner Dierich asked staff to show a zoning map on the screen. She asked ifthis property remained as R-1 (R) what would the density be for the 53 buildable acres? Mr. Roberts said the density would be 1 unit for every 2 acres which would equal 26 units for the site. Commissioner Trippler asked about the public meeting that was held at the south Maplewood fire station on March 30, 2006. He asked if there was a general consensus of the proposal from the people that attended the public meeting? Mr. Roberts said this was an open house and introduction of the project to the neighbors and the people on the mailing list. Staff, the developer, some members of Kimley-Horn, and about 30 neighbors were present. There was a 10 to 15 minute overview/presentation of what was proposed and then the discussion was opened up for a question and answer session. The meeting was from 6:00-8:00 p.m. at the Londin Lane fire station. The public was inquisitive about the project and what was being proposed. There were questions regarding noise and traffic, and concerns about storm water etc. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Roberts to point out the overlay area for the Mississippi River Critical Area. Mr. Roberts pointed the area out on the map on the screen. Commissioner Trippler asked staff to review how an overlay district was dealt with compared to regular areas? Mr. Roberts said overlay districts are things like flood zones and shoreland districts. In this case with the Mississippi River Critical Area overlay it requires the city to give any development proposal within that area an extra review or set of criteria to make sure that the project is in fact meeting those goals and standards. For example, in flood zones there are special rules regarding building at certain elevations. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -4- Mr. Roberts said in this case the critical area as outlined in the comprehensive plan is another set of criteria that the city is supposed to look at for development to make sure it's consistent with the state and federal standards that were started in 1976 for the Mississippi River area that runs through the whole Twin Cities area. This part of Maplewood falls under that and it is staff's belief and recommendation that this plan will meet all of the criteria. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Ahl about Erin Laberee's memo on page 56, item 5 of the staff report. In the Carver Crossing staff report it says The project plans shall show the outlet from this basin being rerouted to the central wetland via Henry Lane storm sewer instead of discharging directly into Fish Creek. But he said he didn't see anything addressing the possible negative or possible impacts that could have on Fish Creek. The presenter said by taking some of the water out you would expect the water quality to increase and the TSS to decrease, but what about volumes? Mr. Ahl said that is exactly the intent. With the original design the EAW did identify that this probably wouldn't meet the phosphorous and TSS goals for the site in the original design. By rerouting it into the pond we are able to take the direct discharge that currently goes to Fish Creek and reduce it and slow down the rates, and the TSS and the phosphorous are all going to be less after the project than what exists right now. You have to look atthe site and the number of eroded channels. There is heavy erosion occurring on the site right now. Over the years those large ravines have been cut in with the erosion which will be stopped or slowed down. This area is conducive to infiltration. By engineering the development accordingly, we are able to slow the run- off down. Commissioner Trippler said he understands how it would be possible to decrease phosphorous and TSS by diverting the flow, but according to Erin Laberee's document it looks like we are anticipating 19,000 cubic feet of runoff to be diverted away from Fish Creek. If you take the water out of there, what happens to the flow in Fish Creek? If there is no flow, there is no TSS and very little phosphorous, but then there is no creek. Mr. Ahl said the creek flow is much greater going into the site. When you look at rates you also have to identify volumes. The volume may actually increase although in this case because of the infiltration it really doesn't exist. The rate is less but you certainly aren't going to impact the flow rate of Fish Creek. A lot of that is maintained and controlled by the Watershed District. Last year the dam blew out and lost a lot of the flow upstream, and they had to do a restoration project and reinstall that. There are no concerns expressed from any of the agencies. Commissioner Trippler asked if staff knew what the percentage of the total watershed for Fish Creek was comprised of for the 73 acres on this site? Mr. Ahl said Fish Creek is a fairly large watershed. He would say this site is less than 10%. Commissioner Trippler said he wasn't convinced of some of the responses to the concerns that were raised in the EAW. He doesn't think an EIS study would resolve these issues. If he doesn't agree with say 30% of what is in the EAW, does he vote for a negative declaration or not? Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -5- Mr. Ahl said when you are preparing an EAW and you make a finding that there are no environmental impacts what is being said is there have been findings identified and they have been responded to. The developer has revised the plans significantly based on the number of things that have been identified. The PC should determine if the process is in place. Have we identified the concerns? Is there a process in place for permitting this process that put the appropriate controls in to mitigate those concerns to a standard the PC feels is reasonable? Is this something that has been applied to other projects throughout the city? The second question is regarding an EIS. An EIS looks at a significant number of alternatives. One alternative is what happens if you don't build on this site? Are there other locations for this development? What other controls have you placed on this area in the city? Is this similar to controls the city has enforced and will continue on all the other properties in this section of the city? Those types of evaluations are what the EIS would do. The EIS would not stop the project. It would delay it and state a lot of other alternatives will be looked at. The standards would have to be placed on other areas of the city, not just for this particular area. If the PC has say a 30% concern with the proposal we should understand the concerns. If the issues haven't been addressed, they should be explored and identified, and we should understand them so that future phases can be addressed. The EAW does not stop the process. It just says we have identified these issues. Commissioner Dierich said she feels this review is lacking without an EIS. She said she cannot think of another area in Maplewood that relates to this parcel, so she doesn't think that the process of the EIS is going to be valid to compare one area to another area because there is no other area in the city that is similar to this area. She feels we need an EIS because she does not feel the EAW gave enough information about how we are going to mitigate and what the alternatives are for this particular piece of land. That is more important to her than anything else because the EAW just identifies the problems but does not give alternatives. She is not ready to say this project is a "go" based on the EAW. She would feel more comfortable having the EIS in place so she knows there are no other alternatives and she thinks that would be a much stronger case as a city if we chose to turn this project down or push the project a certain direction because we will have some type of a case for alternatives. There is no justification made just by saying we met the standards. Mr. Ahl said with that type of discomfort there are two options. An EIS is a very large step to take. Before you make any findings you need to make sure you have the information that you need. We need specifics and the commission has said you want more alternatives for noise mitigation, more alternatives on the storm sewer, and other issues. That can be done as part of the EAW process rather than going to the EIS process which is expensive and lengthy. The planning commission can take the action of tabling this proposal or delaying the proposal until your next PC meeting so that we can get the PC the information they are looking for to make a decision. Commissioner Dierich said she thinks we need to identify this not only as planning commissioners but for the neighborhood. This is a huge zoning change for south Maplewood, and due to the environmentally sensitive nature of this situation this area deserves close scrutiny. Mr. Ahl said the intent is to take a look at the information and through this process decide the direction the city needs to go in order for a decision to be made regarding this proposal. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -6- Commissioner Pearson said after reading through the material he doesn't necessarily believe the traffic study information that was provided. The report represents the traffic count for more of a retirement community for people 55 and over and actually that age group is very active. He said he is 65 and he makes about 6 to 7 car trips a day from his residence. He would be more comfortable if the traffic study would have represented a typical neighborhood rather than from a semi-retired community. This will affect the traffic count in the area. Commissioner Hess asked about the erosion issues brought up by Matt Norton, and the concerns about highly erodable soils, the large number of retaining walls and other concrete structures that might be needed to hold back soils. He wondered about the proximity to Fish Creek as far as where the retaining walls would be and if they would be following the state guidelines. Mr. Ahl asked Jon Horn with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to address the commission regarding that. Mr. Jon Horn, representing Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., said regarding erosion control issues, there has been a corridor along Fish Creek that has been protected. The discharge and runoff from the site has been directed away from Fish Creek. In looking at the drainage plan, the runoff is routed away from the creek to try to avoid erosion issues. Mr. Horn pointed to where the retaining walls would be on the site plan. There are a number of eroded areas in the area between the walls and Fish Creek itself that would be repaired as part of the development process to eliminate a number of the eroded areas. Commissioner Dierich said it sounds like instead of putting the creek in an enclosed pipe we are putting it in an open top pipe by putting up the walls. She asked how high the walls would be on either side? Mr. Horn said the height varies. The distance between the walls is about 150 feet or more at some locations to preserve as much of the nature creek flow as possible. Drainage is away from the walls to avoid the erosion issue. Commissioner Dierich said having had Fish Creek in her backyard for 17 years she has some concerns. She said this area is beyond unstable and it percolates very quickly. Maplewood had them move their septic system to a different location. She assumes the soils are very similar to what she had to deal with while building her house. She also asked about the infiltration. Mr. Horn said the area flows to a number of raingardens that run along the back lot line. There is a permanent dual purpose treatment basin and there is a separate infiltration system in several areas, so they are looking at a system where there are raingardens interconnected with storm sewer with treatment basins to try to infiltrate runoff, slowdown the runoff and spread the runoff out rather than having it point to one location to deal with the erosion issues. Commissioner Dierich asked if all of this water is going to stay on-site? Mr. Horn said correct. Commissioner Trippler said as it relates to the infiltration basins, how many soil borings do you anticipate would be put in to ensure you are not putting in an infiltration basin over a karst area? Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -7- Mr. Horn said as a part of the final design process there will be a series of geotechnical borings done to address that issue. That is something they can control here as the project moves forward in terms of identifying the requirements for that. Commissioner Trippler said the EAW pointed out there were two unstable soil groups. His concern is in the areas south of Fish Creek toward the high slopped areas and he asked if those are stable or not? He said there is going to be over 200,000 cubic yards of soil moved here. Has anybody looked at what types of soils there are in the middle of the site? Mr. Horn said that is something that would need to be reviewed as the final design plans are prepared and reviewed. Commissioner Trippler asked how could the planning commission make a determination as to whether the EAW is sufficient or not if we don't know if half the site is going to be excavated and did not know if the remaining material is going to support the construction that is likely to be built there? We wouldn't build buildings on an area that is going to disappear into a sink hole. He asked if an EIS would answer those types of questions? Mr. Ahl said an EIS could answer that if that is a concern. An analysis of this site shows this was a dump site from the construction of Highway 494. The soils do not indicate that we will have the concerns that you have identified. The state agencies looked atthis and commented and said the soils information seems to be relatively consistent that it can be controlled and it would not create sink holes or those types of standards. The building code would apply to the condition of the soils. For roadway construction projects in the city, soil borings are taken every few feet to identify any concerns. If there are some concerns, that type of mitigation comes during the construction process. Commissioner Trippler asked if that information was in the EAW or is that information city staff automatically knows? Mr. Ahl said that is information that is applied to all projects in the city and it would not have been stated in the staff report. Chairperson Fischer said those would be the standard operating procedures that the city follows and the planning commission would not necessarily be aware of. Commissioner Dierich said at the public meeting at the Londin Lane fire station the noise study was from 1999 on Highway 494 and that was long before there was a great deal of development in Woodbury, Afton, and Hudson, Wisconsin which has added traffic along that stretch. She knows they said adjustments were made forthe noise study, but on the other hand, it appeared to her that many people were dissatisfied with the assumptions made and people wanted noise studies from 2006 and not from 1999 because of the level of development that has occurred further east. She said she is 49, which is only 6 years away from turning 55. If she were to own a home for those 55 and over and had to sit in her house 24 hours a day, seven days a week because of the noise outside that would not be a home she would want to live in. She would like more information about noise mitigation and why you chose not to do a study based on the "current" noise levels of 2006. She knows it's in flux and it's an issue but irregardless it's only going to get worse. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -8- Mr. Brandon Bourdon, Project Engineer for Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., addressed the commission. He said regarding the noise analysis, they took some of the noise and monitoring information that was done as part of the Wacouta Bridge project and made adjustments to account for an additional lane. He said they also used traffic volume projections that were documented in that study because that is a relatively extensive study that looks at many in depth traffic models due to the significant changes in that interchange. The model they created took a lot of that into consideration as well as current volumes. They didn't just take the old volumes and assume there were no changes between now and then. They factored that in and estimated what some of the noise concerns may be. There are some periods in the night that the EAW stated noise concerns. Commissioner Dierich said there are not just "some" noise concerns; the noise concerns are for the whole development from what she understood. The noise violates the night time noise standards for the entire development, and for part of the day for half of the development, and it was the part for the single family homes from what she understood. She asked for clarification. Mr. Bourdon said you are correct, the night time noise issue is for a significant portion of the development and that is particularly because the noise periods collected as part of that are just before the peak periods in the a.m. and just after p.m. peak periods. During the day, there are some noise levels just on the east portion of the site that are exceeded which are in the middle of the site. Commissioner Dierich said both of her homes in Maplewood were 1 mile away from Highway 494 with heavily wooded areas, and in her present home significant buildings block the highway noise, yet she cannot leave her windows open at night because it sounds like the trucks are driving through her bedroom wall. During the day it's very noisy. If you stand next to a window or stand in her backyard, which is 1 mile away from the highway, you cannot talk to anyone without raising your voice. She has great difficulty with the statement people are not going to be impacted by the noise when they are going to be living literally on top of the freeway. She said she used to take walks next to the freeway and it was terribly loud. It was so loud you could not stand there for very long. These people are going to be just as close to the freeway as the walking paths are. She said she is not satisfied with the answers she has heard so far. Ms. Whitzig said the EAW is not trying to state there aren't noise impacts. There is a disclosure saying during the evening there will be noise impacts for the majority of the site based on the state noise standards and for part of the site. There is a disclosure which states the EAW says there will be impacts based on the analysis that has been completed and here is what is being proposed to address the mitigation, but it is not saying those impacts are going to go away completely. The purpose of the EAW is to disclose what the issues are so that you have the information and what is a reasonable mitigation. Commissioner Dierich asked if an EIS would give alternatives for mitigation? Ms. Whitzig said the main difference between an EAW and an EIS is that the EIS brings other types of alternatives forward that are deemed feasible. As a point of clarification, the specific issues that are looked at for an EAW versus an EIS really aren't any different. Often times the level of analysis in the EAW is at the same level as the EIS. The main difference is there are different alternatives. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -9- Commissioner Pearson asked if there have been any problems with the individual septic systems installed in Haller's Woods under the R-1 (R) zoning? Mr. Ahl and Mr. Roberts both said they were not aware of any problems. Commissioner Trippler asked what staff recommended the PC do with this proposal. Is staff looking for either a negative or positive declaration from the commission? Mr. Ahl said it would be more helpful if you turned to page 22 in the staff report to the Findings of Fact. If you are not ready to pass this proposal onto the city council you can identify the areas you would like more information on or more clarification on. EAW's can be very simple reports and other EAW's can go to extreme levels. In this case, the EAW is very detailed. Commissioner Trippler said he has concerns about number 2. on page 23, regarding the Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources. The proposed project would converl 32. 1 acres of grassland to impervious surface and urban landscaping. The project site currently includes 26.0 acres of woodland. As the project site includes public land, and there is surrounding open space/public land, the development of the site is not anticipated to cause substantial impact on wildlife populations. Regarding that statement, he said he did not get enough information from the EAW to tell him why that statement is true. He can't understand how you can have a 72-acre site and urbanize 90% of it and not have some substantial impact on the wildlife population. The wildlife can go someplace else but how many times can we do this and still say it will not have a substantial impact on the wildlife? Commissioner Trippler said he has an issue with number 5. on page 24 of the staff report which is Water-Related Land Use Management Districts. He said he is on the Environmental Committee and they have a sub-committee that is looking at the wetland ordinance to see if it needs to be revised. Research and studies indicate that when you have a wetland or shoreland that has steep slopes the setback should be a minimum of 100 feet. The steeper the slopes the more setback you need for the water quality and for wildlife. He understands this setback is proposed at 150 feet which he assumed meant 75 feet on either side. He would really like to see that setback at 200 feet, 100 feet on each side. Commissioner Trippler said regarding number 6. on page 24 of the staff report, it says There are steep slopes on the proposed site, parlicularfy along the banks of Fish Creek. When he read through the materials that had to do with the Mississippi Critical Area it stated this was a special overlay district that needed special considerations and he is concerned about the amount of construction and the kinds of changes that are being proposed on the steep banks along the south side of Fish Creek. He knows there are a number of retaining walls that are being proposed and he would like to have more comfort knowing the retaining walls and the construction that is going to be going on will adequately protect Fish Creek from degradation. Commissioner Hess said regarding the air quality and the pollutants coming off of Highway 494, he read number 12. on page 27 of the staff report that the proposed project would not adversely impact air quality conditions. He said he didn't remember the grade difference between the surface of Highway 494 and where the development finished floor line would be, so he was not sure what impact that would have, but it seemed that the traffic coming off of Highway 494 was higher than the developing area would be that would throw pollutants into the area? Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -10- Commissioner Hess asked if studies had been done to see how those pollutants from the vehicles would impact the proposed homes in that area? Mr. Bourdon said a lot of the results based on the air quality were also in part taken from the . Wacouta Bridge EAW and there weren't any significant impacts on air quality and the development isn't making any significant impacts on the surrounding area. They don't feel there are significant air quality issues compared to other areas like this. Commissioner Dierich said the intersection at Sterling Street and Bailey Road has already failed and this proposal would make things even worse. She disagrees with the traffic flow because it's far easier to drive up Carver Avenue than it is to go around Sterling Street down Bailey and to Highway 494. The issue she sees is that the traffic is going to be very backed up both in the morning and in the afternoon when these people 55 and older are going to work and are sitting in their idling cars because they can't get on Bailey Road because the traffic is so bad coming from Woodbury, and this is going to cause a local problem. She believes this could use an EIS. The grade for Highway 494 is above the grade of the development. The grade is equal to or above it depending on where you are on the site. You look down from Highway 494 onto the proposed development. Commissioner Yarwood said regarding the noise issue he would like to know about the alternatives for dealing with noises for proposals like this. He knows berms and retaining walls are one way. In terms of costs and structure and how effective these are, he would like to know how other communities have dealt with developments that are this close to a highway. Commissioner Oierich said she would like someone to address adverse visual effects. In looking at the height of the town homes, it is significantly out of place with the rest of the neighborhood. This area is higher than west of the neighborhood so people would be looking up at it and she knows the grade could be dropped in order to accommodate that, but she would like more information about that and what the height alternatives are if you spread the condominiums out rather than up and if that would make a difference. If we do that, does that impact the noise issue as well? Commissioner Dierich said the traffic is a huge concern. The assumptions for the traffic are faulty especially if you are talking about having people 55 years of age and older who will be driving back and forth. She is concerned the infrastructure is bad in that neighborhood no matter which way you go. The traffic has to be routed and it will be through the neighborhood, and the neighbors should be made aware of the impact this would have on them. She is concerned about the soil conditions and she would like to see alternatives to moving 217,000 cubic yards of soil. That seems like a significant change to the land. The whole idea for a PUD is to help preserve what is there. Commissioner Hess asked about the roadway to the site. He asked if there would only be a single entrance and exit into the site? Mr. Ahl said that is correct. There is a trail that can be accessed off of Dorland Road for emergency vehicles if they need an additional access. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -11- Commissioner Hess said having only one entrance and exit to the site seems to be a safety issue because if there was an emergency and people had to get out quickly things could get bottlenecked which could be dangerous. He wondered if there was any way to create another entrance/exit to the site? Mr. Bourdon said based on the site location there is quite a bit of open space on the west but the environmental impacts due to introducing another entrance or exit over Fish Creek would be negative. Mr. Roberts said before we take any public comments or questions staff would recommend hearing the rest of the proposal. Mr. Roberts said Mr. Tom Hansen, representing CoPar Companies, has submitted plans to the city for a senior housing development called Carver Crossing. He, in conjunction with Rottlund Homes, has prepared a site plan that shows 299 housing units (in three different types of housing) for persons aged 55 and over. This development would be on about 73 acres of land that is south of Carver Avenue and west of Henry Lane known as the Schlomka property. A homeowner's association would own and maintain the common areas. Chairperson Fischer said the present zoning is R-1(R) and Farm and this is land that did not have access to the sewer system at the time. Mr. Roberts said that zoning was put on the land about 2 or 3 years ago. Chairperson Fischer said the idea was if someone came in for a plat and they met the 10,000 square foot requirement or the 75-foot frontage, the way the law was set up, the city could not have refused it and the city was concerned those lot sizes would not be sufficient to allow for on- site sewer systems. Mr. Roberts said that is correct. For example, if somebody had a 3 acre parcel they could try to divide it into two pieces. At that time the city did not have a minimum standard for unsewered property so the R-1(R) zoning set a 2 acre minimum. Chairperson Fischer said the city hoped that would be sufficient to support on-site systems and this requirement is not used in sewered areas. Mr. Roberts said correct. Commissioner Yarwood asked for a brief overview of what has been considered on this site before this proposal came about. He asked if this property was considered for single family homes or were single family homes ever considered to be financially non-viable? Mr. Roberts said there was a previous proposal for 386 units on this property which was a senior housing development similar to this plan but it had another condominium building and it had more row homes in the plan. Through the EAW process the developer reduced the amount of units, the same product type but reduced the unit count from 386 to 299. But as far as staff is aware there have not been any single family homes proposed for this land. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -12- Commissioner Yarwood said he isn't saying this should or shouldn't be single family homes, he was just asking if there was a reason single family homes were not in the proposal. Commissioner Trippler said he thinks this is a wonderful development and it is well planned out. He appreciates the fact that there is housing for people 55 and over in the plan, but it's planned for the wrong area. If this development had been proposed for the Gladstone area or the Hillcrest area he would have been elated. It seems to him that this proposal was the exact conversation he had been asking to have regarding in-fill developments during planning commission meetings. Hopefully this will bring attention to the fact that the City of Maplewood needs to decide what it wants the city to look like in the next 10 years because we are going to have to revise the Comprehensive Plan. If we approve this development, this will change south Maplewood completely. Once we approve this development, when the next development comes in we won't be able to deny it because this proposal will set the precedence. Development is not necessarily bad, it's just the city has to decide where it wants development and how the development will take place. His personal feeling is he likes the diversity that exists in Maplewood and it's a large draw to Maplewood compared to other communities. He would like to see the south Maplewood leg stay as it is and not become a high-density packed-in community like Woodbury or some of the other communities that are developing around Maplewood. That's something the city council will make the final decision on. The issue is whether or not we are going to change the zoning in this area and as he reads the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan it states you can make zoning changes and changes to the comprehensive plan as long as it is compatible and consistent with the neighborhood. This site is zoned R-1(R) which means 1 unit per2 acres. On a 73 acre site, that means 36 housing units. We would need to change the zoning from R-1 (R) to R-3(L) which would allow 299 units, and he does not see that as compatible. This is not consistent of the spirit, purpose and intent of the project with the current zoning codes. This is too large of a leap to change the zoning. If the zoning were being changed from R-1 (R) to R-2 that would even be a big jump but not as extreme as R-1 (R) to R-3(L) zoning. He has concerns about the environment as well but that is not really the main issue because there are engineers to take care of the environmental issues. The question is does the commission really want south Maplewood to look like this in the next 3 to 5 years? Commissioner Pearson said he would agree with Commissioner Trippler's comments. Even though the development meets the setbacks and various requirements, this is going to completely change the area and it would make the area unrecognizable. The planning commission spent a lot of time on this south Maplewood parcel and came up with the R-1(R) zoning. If we were hearing that many of the existing homes with existing independent systems were failing, he may have a different view. R-1 (R) is the best zoning for the area. He said he doesn't think we need to make every section of Maplewood into high density and mixed zoning. This area of Maplewood is precious and there is hardly any other area like this left in the Twin Cities area and he doesn't see the need to change the zoning to accommodate this development. Commissioner Dierich said she would agree with the comments made. The bigger issue for the planning commission beyond the fact that the land is precious in this area of Maplewood that really doesn't exist anymore, she said she doesn't think this is a very good trade off for the city of Maplewood. The city is not getting anything for taxes and she doesn't see how these homes can be sold for the price indicated by the developer in the staff report based on the requirements of the land to develop and market this area. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -13- Commissioner Dierich said in her south Maplewood neighborhood there are row homes that are very nice which are selling for $350,000 now and not many people can afford $450,000 to $500,000 for a row home which is what these homes are going to cost after mitigating costs of the site. She doesn't think we are going to get a good return for the tax dollar. She said $1 million is not very much money for all of this land. She sees great problems with the social issues down at that end of town because any home that gets built here is going to raise the tax base so high that most of the homeowners that live on that end of town towards Carver Avenue, Century Avenue and McKnight Road will not be able to afford the taxes because this development will raise the tax base. Not because of the infrastructure, but because the cost of the homes that would be going in will drive people out. It's difficult to afford taxes when your taxes are more than your house payment is, and that is what will happen with those homes. She isn't clear who will be paying for this, because we are moving infrastructure to the other side of Highway 494 basically to serve Woodbury because most of the lots on that side of Carver Avenue are not developable except towards Sterling Street. The rest of them are on the watershed district and you cannot build in the watershed area itself. She needs more of a reason why the city would allow this development at the expense ofthe city in addition to the comments made by Commissioner Trippler and Pearson. Mr. Ahl said a vast majority of the infrastructure is going to be paid for by the developer. The only expenses to the city would be for any future planning. This project would not provide any sewer service to Woodbury. If you are going to put infrastructure in for the Carver Crossing development the city does not want to come back 10 to 20 years from now and have to put a sewer extension in underneath the freeway. The city is saying let's plan now. We are just saying let's make the sewer extension now for the future because ofthe impacts. In the next 0 to 75 years that area will need to have sewers installed, and now is the time to put the sewer pipe underneath the freeway, not after the construction is over and it would cause a tremendous impact. Commissioner Dierich asked if that would be at the city's cost? Mr. Ahl said yes. Commissioner Dierich asked whose costs would it be for the Carver Avenue infrastructure including the turn lanes etc.? Mr. Ahl said a feasibility study would need to be done to determine the costs, but it is the city's starting point that would be the developer's costs. The city may need to bill the developer for the costs. Because the developer would not benefit from putting a sewer pipe underneath the freeway, that would be a cost for the city to pay. Chairperson Fischer asked if R-1 (R) to R-3 zoning is the same density in the comprehensive plan? Mr. Roberts said yes. Chairperson Fischer asked if there would be any other tools to allow a PUD in the R-1 zoning at the same density other than the R-3 zoning? Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -14- Mr. Roberts said with both staff is proposing the zoning map change and the PUD. The PUD would be the controlling factor here. The R-3 zoning cleans up the zoning map and makes it clear that it is a multi-family designation and no longer a rural designation if in fact this gets approved. He is not aware of any other tool to use. The question is, is now the time and place to change from R-1 (R) to a sewered urban suburban development? Commissioner Pearson said when the planning commission discussed south Maplewood having sewer systems installed in the future, the commission asked the neighbors what they preferred, and the zoning decision was based on the neighbors' comments. Commissioner Dierich said she knows there was an open house for the neighbors to come and speak but she thinks staff should have sent about 40 more notices out to neighbors on the Carver Ridge to find out what they thought. She knows the residents can read about it in the newspaper but she felt they should have been notified about the meeting which would have been the right thing for the city to do. A few city council groups ago, a promise was made to have no high density below Highwood Avenue in south Maplewood. Now we are bringing high density way down to south Maplewood. She would be more comfortable with this proposal if there were no senior condominiums in this development which would change the character of the development. She is not a big fan of senior housing because she feels senior housing isolates people and because of the location this would isolate seniors even more. She doesn't see the value of having senior housing in this development other than the developer knew traffic was going to be an issue and to label it as senior housing would mean less traffic. However, less traffic could be accomplished by having less density as well. There is nothing for seniors to do down there and without park dedication or walking trails they are not going to be able to get anywhere except by driving there. Mr. Roberts said the developer is proposing to have walking paths and sidewalks on the site, especially along Henry Lane. Commissioner Dierich said that means they would be walking along the freeway. Commissioner Yarwood said he can appreciate this is a difficult site to work with and develop and he anticipated this would be developed at some time. He is a resident of south Maplewood himself so he can appreciate the current character of the neighborhood and he thinks it's a large jump going from R-1 (R) to R-3 without considering any other densities in between. If that had been considered and then discarded for financial reasons he could understand that, but he doesn't see that from what he had heard this evening. He said he cannot support this development as this is proposed. He thinks there needs to be some alternative plans for the site to make it more appropriate for the character of south Maplewood. The planning commission took a break from 9:15 - 9:25 p.m. Chairperson Fischer asked if the public safety personnel were comfortable with a longer than usual cul-de-sac and only having one access to the development? Mr. Roberts said staff specifically pointed that out to the police department and they were not concerned about that as long as there was a second point of entry in case of an emergency from the trail system. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -15- Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Tom Hansen, CoPar Companies, 8677 Eagle Point Boulevard, Lake Elmo, addressed the commission. He thanked the planning commission for their comments and the feedback and thanked staff for the time and effort on this proposal. He said CoPar Companies thinks this is a good plan for a number of reasons but he wanted to answer a few questions and concerns that were brought up by the commission. He said CoPar Companies acquired this property about 1 'h years ago knowing utilities would be available to the site. St. Paul Water is anxious to extend a loop into this area for additional circulation into their system. They have a major collector sewer line on Carver Avenue to service this site and this site was guided for R-1 (R) density. This is not the first development CoPar Companies has done. They have looked at it from a single family perspective. CoPar Companies is an acronym for cooperation for partnering and they believe there are a lot of stakeholders on any project they do. It is CoPar as the landowners, the city, and the neighbors, so there are a lot of people affected by developments. As they looked at this site and understood what would be required to maximize the use of this site for single family homes which this site is guided for, it was very obvious that they would disturb twice as much soil by proposing a single family traditional neighborhood versus working with staff to come up with a PUD that had less impact, and they feel they have achieved that. He said there has been a lot of give and take here. He said CoPar Companies gave up some units, staff has recommended additional buffers, and Fish Creek has a 130 foot buffer on each side. They are very conscious of the environmental impact and have gone above and beyond the storm water management for the site. The density is no greater on the site than what would be guided by R-1. In fact, the area of the neighborhood adjacent to the existing neighbors is 1.9 units per acre so they think they have been conscious of how they have approached this project. Traffic is an issue and it would be whether it was single family homes or attached units at a single family density. He is not sure what the difference in traffic patterns would be. The capacity of Carver Avenue, which is a state aid road, is only operating at 25%, so currently this impact will be minimal compared to the capacity of the road. Intersections need to be upgraded and that is a cost they as the developer will absorb. If they built single family homes here it would require bringing Dorland Court into the neighborhood which would mean additional traffic to the existing neighborhood. This proposal is not the best economical model for this site, and single family homes on that bluff would be much more valuable on the site, but that would not provide the city a variety of housing stock that is needed. This is not high density, it is attached housing, which is important to realize. Commissioner Trippler asked if CoPar Companies considered developing this parcel as R-1 (R) zoning? Mr. Hansen said no, it's not economically feasible. Commissioner Dierich said the city could grant a PUD and limit the number of units. Do we have to change the zoning and allow the PUD with the existing zoning? Mr. Roberts said as long as the city changed the comprehensive plan. The zoning map would not have to be changed if the city approved a PUD. Staff is suggesting itto clean up the map to better reflect it if approved. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -16- Commissioner Yarwood said the density is a misnomer because so much of the land is unusable, so what you have is an average density and is not really functionally reflective what this plan looks like or how close the houses are together. He said he would feel more comfortable knowing what a single family home plan would look like and what the environmental plan looked like for this site. Mr. Hansen said they have not engineered a single family plan to provide for that level of detail. His understanding of the current ordinance is that they can use every inch of land that they own within the legal setbacks from Fish Creek or any wetlands. In order to make the single family land viable they would have to use every inch of land because the unit numbers would be less. One of the reasons they can have larger buffers is that they have the number of units that would help pay for that. If they have to spend the money to engineer a single family site, which he thinks would have a better economic return for CoPar Companies, they will build that. Commissioner Dierich said if a single family site is engineered, the zoning for R-1 (R) would be 36 homes on the site. They would have to be million dollar homes or more in order for the developer to make a profit. Mr. Roberts said unless the city council changed the zoning and agreed to have utilities down there. Mr. Hansen said this site will develop at some point in time. Commissioner Dierich said it's important to acknowledge that the development is not a given. The city is in the phase of deciding whether or not you can use the land as you the developer are hoping to and that doesn't mean the development is going to go forward, it just means you as a developer are asking for approval to do this. Mr. Hansen said the city has a comprehensive plan which says it is R-1 zoning and he would assume development would happen at some point in time. Commissioner Trippler said that's a discussion the planning commission will be having in the near future because the city has to revise the comprehensive plan by the end of 2008, so it's not clear whether it will be changed from R-1 (R) to R-1 zoning. Mr. Hansen said it would be a shame to underutilize the infrastructure that is already in place and that would contribute to the urban sprawl which is the smart development everyone is interested in. CoPar Companies wants to come up with a plan that works for them, the city, and for the neighbors as well. Commissioner Dierich said Maplewood is already smartly developed and that is not a large concern for Maplewood. Maplewood is well developed within the Met Council guidelines and Maplewood has the luxury that many suburbs don't have to decide exactly how we wish to develop remaining parcels. The planning commission would like to come to an agreement for the neighborhood, the city and still meet the developer's economic needs. The city needs to be wise in how they do that and saying it would be a shame to underutilize the infrastructure, this is also a resource to the city, it's not just land, and as a development team you need to realize that. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -17- Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak to come forward and address the commission. 1. Tim Hedin, 2338 Overlook Circle, Maplewood. His letter is enclosed in the staff report on page 77, attachment 29. 2. Georae Gonzalez, 2359 Heights Avenue, Maplewood. He commented on page 68, attachment 24 of the staff report. He fails to see how this development would make Maplewood better and improve the south leg of Maplewood. The letter states Don and Sue Schlomka support extending the sewer and water extension to the east side of Highway 494 and that they have just signed, along with their in-laws, to market their property under 7 acres to United Properties. Once that sewer is in, you know what is going to happen, and the city would be opening the gate for it to happen. He would ask that the planning commission seriously consider this proposal and act accordingly as if you yourself were living here. 3. Terrv Baumaart, 2445 Carver Avenue, Maplewood. His letter is on page 70 and 71, attachment 26 in the staff report. His name and comments are also reflected on page 12 of Chuck Ahl's report. His house sits directly across from the realignment of Henry Lane and they are concerned about the headlights shining into their home. They do not care to have more trees planted and are not happy with the road alignment and would like something changed in the plan. 4. Ron Cockriel, 943 Century Aveue North, Maplewood. He is also known as Ron Cockriel and The Sons and Daughters of Highwood. His name and comments are dated April 11, 2006, shown on page 18 in Chuck Ahl's report. He said he attended the meeting at the fire station and a meeting with the watershed district. 5. Mark Bonitz, 1635 Sterling Street South, Maplewood. His comments are on page 72 and 73, attachment 27. His name and comments are reflected on page 15 in Chuck Ahl's report. Commissioner Grover said he's not in favor of this proposal. He has no problem with the density and the character of the proposal. He has issues with the environmental impact, traffic issues, and especially the noise conditions, and he does not think those were mitigated very well in the EAW. He has a large concern regarding the noise, and he is also concemed aboutthe comments raised by Terry Baumgart at 2445 Carver Avenue. In his opinion, more work needs to be done on this. Commissioner Trippler said he would recommend the planning commission go through each of the recommendations individually and vote on them. Commissioner Trippler moved to recommend making a determination that there is no need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project. If the city determines that the project should not cause significant environmental effects, then the city should make a negative declaration (thus not requiring an EIS) and then proceed with taking action on the project applications. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -18- Commissioner Grover seconded. Ayes - Fischer, Grover, Hess, Pearson, Trippler Yarwood Nays - Dierich, Pearson Commissioner Grover said he thinks it would be helpful to have a full traffic study done to analyze traffic pattems as a single family development. Commissioner Yarwood asked what other alternatives there are that have been used by other communities to mitigate noise and how effective they are. Beyond that, if that development does . not get approved as is, it does not seem worthwhile to do a traffic study based on the current , plan. Mr. Ahl said he is hearing from an environmental standpoint the commission is concerned about the impact of 299 units but he has also heard about stormwater runoff and traffic concerns. The concerns seem to be regarding density and how the density impacts the site. They have done an EAW and there will be an environmental impact with this development. He asked if the planning commission is more concerned about character issues of the area, is this the right style for the area, and is the density too high? If this is more of a "density" concern than an "environmental" concern, staff needs to be made aware of those concerns. Someone said if this development were built somewhere else in Maplewood it would be a fine development. Environmental impacts are here with this development proposal. If you are more concerned about character compared to density, you may want to have more discussion as a commission. We can analyze the traffic for 299 units with a traffic study, but he can tell the commission that Carver Avenue will not need to be expanded to a four lane roadway. There are still going to be the same type of turning movements for the mitigation strategy. Commissioner Trippler said if the proposal gets approved and the city gets more information pertaining to the EAW, the issue he would like more information on would pertain to trying to explain the impact on the wildlife and where the wildlife would go. Commissioner Pearson said typically he is not for higher density but he did vote for the higher density for the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan. However, he is not in agreement for this proposal. Commissioner Trippler said he will vote against this proposal because he feels that many of the criteria which are necessary for making this kind of change are not being met for this proposal. For example, in 6. c. it states The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. To him this development proposal is totally out of character for this neighborhood. You have to go more than 1 mile away to see anything close to this proposal. In 6. d. it states A void disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas. He said he can't see how this wouldn't be disruptive to everyone within blocks or miles of this development. In 6. e. it states Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. He said even if you assume that the Dorland neighborhood development is denser than everything else around, this takes it to another level above Dorland. He said in item 6. g. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. He said he doesn't think that has been accomplished. He said letter k. is a repeat of letter e. so that could be stricken completely. He said these are all requirements from the comprehensive plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -19- Commissioner Trippler moved to appr-o'/o deny the comprehensive plan change from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3(L) (low density multiple dwelling) r-osolution on pa!:les 79 and 80 (I\ttachmeRt 31) of the staff report. This rosellJtieR ShaA!:les the laAEl L1S0 plan for the Carver Cr-essing of MaplewoeEl plat on the west side of 1494, south of Carver NleRlJe. This change is frem R 1 (sin!:lle dwellings) to R 3(L) (low donsity multipla dwelling). The oity is making this ohange eesause it will: Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Dierich, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Nays - Fischer, Grover Chairperson Fischer said she voted against the denial because she felt the R-1 density was a better choice in environmentally sensitive areas and with the larger lot sizes for health and safely reasons for the area. If sewer came into the area she would have voted for R-1 and she doesn't believe R-1 and R-1(L) are that big of a change. Commissioner Grover moved to appr-ove deny the resolution on pages 81-84 (Attachment 32) in the staff report. This resolution would change the zoning map for the Carver Crossing of Maplewood plat on the west side of 1-494, south of Carver Avenue. This change is from F (farm residence) and R-1 (R) (rural residential) to R-3 (multiple dwellings). The r-easons for this chango are these reEjlJired by the oily oode and becaLlse: Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Commissioner Pearson moved to appr-o'la deny the resolution starting on page 85 (Attachment 33) of the staff report. This resolution would have approved a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Carver Crossing of Maplewood development on the west side of 1-494, south of Carver Avenue. Commissioner Yarwood seconded. Ayes - Dierich, Grover, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Nays - Fischer Chairperson Fischer voted nay for the same reasons she stated earlier. Commissioner Pearson moved to appr-o'la deny the resolution on pages 90 and 91 (Attachment 34) of the staff report. This resolution would vacate the unused easements and right-of-ways within the Carver Crossing of Maplewood development (the area west of 1-494 and south of Carver Avenue). The oily is "aoating thesa easements and right of ways beoause: Commissioner Grover seconded. Ayes - Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -20- Commissioner Grover moved to appr-o'lo deny the Carver Crossing of Maplewood preliminary plat (received by the city on April 3, 2006). Tf:1o e1o'loloper Bhall comploto the following bofore tf:1e city Gel.JAcil appr-o'/os tho final plat: Commissioner Hess seconded. Ayes - Dierich, Grover, Hess, Pearson, Trippler Yarwood Nay - Fischer The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on Monday, June 12, 2006. This meeting will be heard at Carver School on Upper Afton Road. Commissioner Yarwood said he would recommend the planning commission offer some ideas of what they would like to see done with this property. Commissioner Trippler said he would like to see the planning commission recommend to the city council what kinds of things they want to see changed in the comprehensive plan. He said in his opinion south Maplewood may be a good starting point. Commissioner Dierich said this area of Maplewood is just as deserving of the kind of care and process the city went through for the Gladstone Redevelopment plan for future development. She thinks this neighborhood is expecting change in the near future but would like to see something reasonable and that the neighbors have a voice in the process. Chairperson Fischer asked while the commission didn't care for the CUP for a PUD are they in agreement that PUDs are not out of the question for future development in this area and indeed may be preferable? Commissioner Grover said yes, especially given the environmental conditions of the area. Mr. Roberts said he would like to know if the planning commission has a strong preference regarding whether this area should have sewer systems or not? That is going to be a driving factor in some of the deciding factors here. Commissioner Dierich said we need to look at the comprehensive plan for this area and in her opinion that will drive the sewer decision. Chairperson Fischer said sewer systems are not going to get cheaper to install. Commissioner Trippler said having a sewer system or not having a sewer system in the neighborhood does not change the "character" of the neighborhood. It might change the cost of the individual homes, but not the character. He is not opposed to having sewer systems here. Sometimes there are negative impacts from having individual well systems. He doubts that area is geologically capable of handling an individual system for 2 acres. European countries have developed systems that don't discharge, so mechanically and physically it can be done but it's very expensive. His preference is to have sewer systems but only to have 1 home per 2 acres as the maximum amount of units per acre. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -21- Commissioner Dierich said the commission is not happy with this level of density. The planning commission spoke loud and clear 2 years ago with the R-1 (R) zoning and now the commission is saying it again. It sounds like the commission wants to maintain the character of the south leg of Maplewood. The city council can make the final decision, but the planning commission has said how they feel, and the commission listens to how the residents feel as well. Commissioner Yarwood said he doesn't want to say that there has to be sewer systems or not. He thinks what is economically and environmentally feasibly safe is what should be done. He wants to leave those options on the table at this point. He isn't opposed to having sewer systems. Chairperson Fischer said health and welfare enter into the consideration and it all depends on the soil conditions in the area. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. vim VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Trippler was the planning commission representative at the May 8, 2006, city council meeting. They discussed changes to the code amendment for the noise ordinance, the first reading for the code amendment for accessory structures, and the easement vacation for 2249 Kenwood Court for a garage addition. b. Mr. Hess will be the planning commission representative at the May 22, 2006, city council meeting. Items to be discussed include Comforts of Home at 2300/2310 Hazelwood Streetfor a CUP, PUD, and Land Use Plan Change. c. Mr. Kaczrowski was scheduled to be the planning commission representative at the June 12, 2006, city council meeting. However, he was absent this evening so Commissioner Dierich said she would switch meeting nights with Commissioner Kaczrowski. (THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD AT CARVER SCHOOL - UPPER AFTON ROAD). Items to be discussed include the EAW for Carver Crossing of Maplewood. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-06 -22- d. Staff will check with Mr. Kaczrowski to see if he can serve as the planning commission representative at the June 26, 2006, city council meeting. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. The planning commission needs to reschedule the Monday, June 5, 2006, planning commission meeting. The city council has called for a special city council meeting to discuss the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan to begin at 6:00 p.m. in the city council chambers. Because it was unknown how long the meeting would last, the planning commission rescheduled their regularly scheduled meeting to Wednesday, June 7, 2006. b. The Annual Tour Date is tentatively scheduled for Monday, July 31,2006, at 5:30 p.m. Mr. Roberts will provide more information about the tour in the future+. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.