Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/07/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesdav. June 7, 2006, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda . Approval of Minutes a. May 15, 2006 . Public Hearings 7:00 Eldridge Fields (Eldridge Avenue, west of Prosperity Avenue) Right-of-Way Vacation Preliminary plat . New Business Carver Crossing of Maplewood - PUD Revision Letter l' Unfinished Business Planning Commission and CDRB Duties Visitor Presentations Commission Presentations May 22 Council Meeling: Mr. Hess June 12 Council Meeling: Ms. Dierich (Note - to be held at Carver Elementary School - Upper Afton Road) June 26 Council Meeling: Mr. Kaczrowski July 10 Council Meeling: Ms. Fischer 1 . Staff Presentations Reschedule July 3 meeling - July 5 or July 61 Annual Tour Update 11. Adjoumment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 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: Present Present Present Absent Present Present Absent Present Present Ken Roberts, Planner Erin Laberee, City Engineer Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Dierich requested a discussion regarding the expanded EAW discussion for Carver Crossing of Maplewood to be added under New Business as item 6. a. and moving Carver Crossing of Maplewood - PUD Revision Letter to item 6. b. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Desai seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Hess, Kaczrowski, Trippler, Yarwood Approval of the planning commission minutes for May 15, 2006. Commissioner Trippler had changes on pages 6, 7, and 18. On page 6, in the last paragraph, last line; change the words car storeo to karst area. On page 7, in the fourth paragraph, he rephrased the first three lines to read: Commissioner Trippler asked how could the planning commission should make a determination as to whether the EAW is sufficient or not if we don't know if halfthe site is going to be excavated and did not know if the remaininQ over 200,000 cubic yar-ds, is the material is going to support the construction that is likely to be built there? On page 18, in the fourth paragraph, fourth line, it should read EAW instead of environmental impact study. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -2- Commissioner Dierich had changes and additions on pages 5,7, and 16. On page 5, second paragraph, fourth line, remove the word rolati'lo and insert similar. In the fourth paragraph, second line, it should read This is a huge zoninQ change for south Maplewood, and due to the environmentallv sensitive nature of this situation for zoning und ospoeially orwir-onmontally, aAG-this area deserves close scrutiny. On page 7, last paragraph, third line, after Wisconsin, change the words that havo to which has. In the th line, it should read She said she is 49, which is only 6 years away from turning 55, for tho homes 55 If she were to own a home for those 55 and over and she 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. On the last line its should be i(s and the word iflfAAE should be separated as in flux. On page 16, last paragraph, third line, after the words don't have insert to decide exactlv how we wish to develop remaininQ parcels. In the sixth line, after resource, add the words to the citv. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for May 15, 2006, as amended. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Dierich, Fischer, Hess, Trippler, Yarwood Abstentions - Desai, Kaczrowski V. PUBLIC HEARING Eldridge Fields (Eldridge Avenue, west of Prosperity Avenue) Right-of-Way Vacation, Preliminary Plat (7:08 - 7:35 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Keith Frank of Frank Construction, Inc., is proposing to develop a 1.4 acre site into five single-family lots. The lots will be accessed by a new cul-de-sac road constructed in the existing Eldridge Avenue unused right-of-way off of Prosperity Avenue. The developer states that the single-family houses will sell for approximately $400,000. The site consists of two large lots on the south side of Eldridge Avenue right-of-way and four small lots on the north side. These lots are located behind two existing houses on Prosperity Avenue (2095 and 2111 Prosperity Avenue). The new road will be constructed within the 49.5-foot-wide Eldridge Avenue right-of-way which is located between these existing houses. One of these property owners has contacted the city with concerns regarding existing flooding which occurs occasionally in her front yard. She does not have a problem with the development but wants to ensure that her water situation is addressed. A solution to the existing flooding is discussed in the engineering department comments. There is an 80-foot wide vacant lot located on the north side of Eldridge Avenue, east of the new plat and west of 2111 Prosperity Avenue. The owners of this vacant lot would like the opportunity to develop in the future. As such, a condition of the Eldridge Avenue plat approval should be the extension of the utilities in front of the vacant lot. This is discussed further in the engineering department comments. The owners of the vacant lot will be assessed for the public improvements. Commissioner Trippler asked if the trail would be surfaced with black top, crushed rock, or wood chips? Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -3- Mr. Roberts said the city's standard trail in most locations is bituminous which is what staff expects here as well. Commissioner Trippler asked if Eldridge Avenue East would be a public or private street? Mr. Roberts said Eldridge Avenue East would be a public street and the city would build the street as a public improvement project and assess the cost back to the adjacent property owners. Commissioner Dierich asked if the unused 30 foot wide section of the Eldridge Avenue right-of- way would go to the developer or to the John Glenn school? Mr. Roberts said the unused 30 foot section would go to the developer. Commissioner Dierich asked what kind of provision is there if there were a flooding problem? Who would be responsible if there were flooding problems and the plans didn't work out correctly? Mr. Roberts said if the situation got bad enough, potentially it would be up to a judge and jury to decide the responsible party for the flooding problem. Erin Laberee, Maplewood City Engineer, said the city intends to work very closely with the developer to ensure there are no flooding problems. The plan is to make the drainage and flooding situation better and not worse. Commissioner Hess asked how much grade change would be required to make the site work out versus what exists now? He asked if there would be a lot of cut and fill to make this development work? Mr. Roberts said there may be a development representative here in the audience that could answer that. Commissioner Trippler asked why there was a need for so many short retaining walls shown on the plans. Ms. Laberee said the retaining walls appear to be two to four feet in height but are necessary to get the homes built high enough which is needed for positive drainage towards the street. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Keith Frank, 1327 Edgerton Street, St. Paul, addressed the commission. Mr. Frank said he is the owner and developer of the project. He said he is leaving the grading situation up to his engineers and the city engineers but he is trying to fix an existing drainage problem and plans on everyone working together to make this development happen. They are concerned about the runoff coming off the ball fields as well. At this point they are not sure how much fill they will need or how much soil they will have to move around. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal? Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -4- Ms. Carol Mahre, 2095 Prosperity Avenue North, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Ms. Mahre gave photos to the planning commissioners that represent the drainage situation after a rainfall on a Sunday afternoon and the water standing at the site. She said she lives on the south side of Eldridge Avenue and she is very concerned aboutthe drainage problem. She said she has lived here for 48 years and the drainage has been a problem from day one. The water has always drained to the back and out towards County Road B. When John Glenn school fields were redone the grade was changed back there where there used to be a two to three foot deep ditch where water would drain but now that is filled in, therefore, the water settled in the back lot and she is concerned about the drainage problem. The water garden that was mentioned is not going to help the problems here. Commissioner Trippler said the city has been working to resolve flooding issues using rainwater gardens. Does the city have a program to help the neighbors put in rainwater gardens to help with drainage concerns? Ms. Mahre said rainwater gardens would not help at all. She said you would have to see the photos to see the level of water she is referring to. She said her whole back yard gets flooded and she would have to have a ditch 20 feet deep to catch all the water. Ms. Laberee said this is the low area of everything south of County Road B so there is a lot of drainage draining to 2095 Prosperity Avenue. She agrees a rainwater garden would not be able to handle the drainage. The city is not anticipating rainwater gardens on this development to handle all this drainage either but the city wants to provide an overland route for the drainage to possibly make its way to John Glenn school and eventually into Footprint Lake. The city wants to provide a place for the water to go so people are not flooded out. Ms. Mildred Grealish, 2111 Prosperity Avenue North, Maplewood, addressed the commission. She said the water drains like a river to her property and it's like their yards are holding ponds for the storm sewer that comes down because they have a culvert on the north side of the property and then there is nothing there. A rainwater garden would not be able to handle the drainage here. The neighborhood is hoping the new development will take care of the current drainage problems here. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak. Nobody came forward. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the attached resolution in the staff report. This resolution vacates the west 136.75 feet of the 30-foot Eldridge Avenue right-of-way located west of the right- of-way line of the Eldridge Avenue cul-de-sac. The city should vacate this right-of-way because: a. It is in the public interest. I b. The applicant and the abutting property owners have no plans to build a street at this location. c. The adjacent properties have street access. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -5- d. The vacation of the right-of-way will allow the development of the Eldridge Fields plat with five single family homes. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve Keith Frank's preliminary plat date stamped May 3, 2006, for the Eldridge Fields plat to be located along the existing Eldridge Avenue right-of-way, west of Prosperity Avenue and east of John Glenn Junior High School. Approval is subject to the following conditions: (changes made by the PC are underlined if added.) a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering department's May 22, 2006, engineering plan review including the developer entering into a development agreement with the city, extending the sanitary sewer main to the east to allow for future service to the vacant lot on the north side of Eldridge Avenue, and the construction of a swale on the John Glenn property to direct the storm water flow west. b. Revise the plat to show a drainage and utility easement for the storm sewer pipe and the two rainwater gardens over Lots 2 and 3, Block 2. c. Prior to final plat approval, the following must be submitted for city staff approval: 1) Homeowner's association documents to ensure the maintenance of the rainwater gardens, retaining walls, and trees. 2) Revised site plan which shows an 8-foot wide pedestrian trail over the new sanitary sewer line which extends north from the end of the new cul-de-sac to Burke Avenue. 3) Revised landscape plan which includes at least one 6-foot high evergreen tree staggered every 15 feet along the west and south property lines of the southern lots (11 trees along the west property line and 16 trees along the south property line). Further consideration shall be aiven to the tree plan. d. Have Xcel Energy install two street lights as follows: at the intersection of Prosperity Avenue and Eldridge Avenue and at the end of the Eldridge Avenue cul-de-sac. The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. e. Record all easements and owners association agreements with the final plat. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Hess, Kaczrowski, Trippler, Yarwood Commissioner Dierich recommended that the developer look at using other tree species. The trees in the landscaping plan are all dry land trees. She would recommend using tree species like tamarack, coffee, linden and others. The motion passed. Commissioner Hess asked if the city engineer has reviewed all of the flooding potential and rainwater concerns and things of that nature and the sewer placements and capacities so this will alleviate the problems? Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -6- Ms. Laberee said as the proposed development sits now if the drainage from Prosperity Avenue was not looked at, this development is designed to hold two back-to-back 1 DO-year events or two six-inch rainstorms and they have accomplished that. We need to take into consideration the excess drainage that is coming off Prosperity Avenue and have an overland route for that. The city has looked at what is being proposed very carefully and what needs to be done to improve the drainage problems that are occurring. Commissioner Hess asked with the addition of the rainwater gardens what is the depth of the rainwater garden is and if that needs to be fenced for the safety of the children in the area? Ms. Laberee said the city has two sets of rules for rainwater gardens versus ponds. If it is a rainwater garden it can only handle 2 feet of water and it has to infiltrate with 48 hours and has to be dry most of the time. If it's deeper than that, the city requires a 10-foot safety bench or a 10- foot wide vegetated strip around the pond that drops 1 foot over the 10 feet in area. That way if someone got into the pond it would not drop off abruptly. The city has required fences in the past around rainwater gardens but do not recommend them anymore and the city prefers to stay with the 10-foot safety bench around it. This item goes to the city council on June 26, 2006. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. EAW Discussion - Carver Crossing Commissioner Dierich said this afternoon she received a telephone call from a south Maplewood resident who had a different understanding of the EAW discussion at the May 15, 2006 planning commission meeting. She said the commission could have asked for an expanded EAW which means it could remain open until all the questions were answered. Because the planning commission voted the EAW down the EIS was out of the question. I Commissioner Trippler said the commission voted down the need for an EIS which means the commission accepted the EAW. Commissioner Dierich said she misunderstood then because she didn't think that was the commission's intent she thought the commission wanted the questions answered. Commissioner Trippler said as he understood the EAW and EIS process, what Chuck Ahl was trying to explain to the commission was if the commission makes the determination that an EIS is not necessary but they still have questions and concerns regarding what they found in the EAW that does not mean the process has then ended. Staff would still work on resolving the questions and get back to the commission with responses. There was no time table given for when the responses would be given. The commission determined that an EIS would not answer the kind of questions and concerns the commission had and it would be a lot more expensive and would take a lot longer of a proposition so the commission recommended a negative declaration for an EIS at that point and time. Commissioner Dierich said she understood that but she also understood that the EAW was to stay open. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -7- CommissionerTripplersaid the EAW is still open. The commission voted notto require an EIS at that point and time. Commissioner Dierich said she thinks we need to call on the audience to speak then because this person had a discussion with Chuck Ahl today and this person's idea and Chuck's Ahl's idea is different than what was just said by Commissioner Trippler. Mr. Roberts said it's unfair to speculate what Chuck Ahl thinks when he's not present and staff hasn't spoken to him about this. After the planning commission meeting and the comments and concerns that were brought up, the consultant went back and tried to get more information to add to the responses and comments received for the EAW. All of that information is going to the city council on Monday, June 12, 2006. That way the city council will have an enhanced version of what the planning commission had reviewed at their meeting. Because of all the comments and questions from the commission and the neighbors that spoke the report will be more complete which will assist the city council with more information. Chairperson Fischer said the concerns and questions of the planning commission are documented in the minutes and given to the city council to aid in their decision making. Commissioner Trippler said he wasn't sure why the commission is reviewing this proposal again and why they are being asked to reconsider this proposal again. Without knowing the answers to the questions and concerns that were raised at the last planning commission meeting he doesn't see how the commission can move forward on this issue. Mr. Roberts said staff and the developer are not looking for a concrete answer to go forward. What staff and the developer are looking for is feedback from the commission. If the developer made these density reductions, would this help with some of the commissions concerns. CoPar is working on putting plans together and if the commission says they still don't like the plan, the developer mayor may not go back to the drawing board and do something different. If the commission can conceptually think about whether they like detached units and having less density they should pass that information on to the developer so they can go to the next step. When the developer comes up with another plan staff will bring the new plans back to the planning commission to review. Commissioner Yarwood asked if the city council would be determining whether an EIS is necessary or not at this point? Mr. Roberts said yes. If with the EAW was looked at with a plan for 299 units as the worse case scenario and now the developer is given the go ahead for the revised plan for a lower unit count for sayan example 180 units, that density count should have less of an impact on the area compared to the original plan of 299 units. If the city council makes the determination that an EIS is not necessary for a unit count of 299 units then that idea should hold true for a lower density plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -8- Mr. Roberts said there will still be impacts from the freeway noise, impacts on the wetlands and it will still affect Fish Creek, but the impacts should be less with a lower density. Ideally staff was going to provide the plat, the EAW and EIS plan at the city council meeting but because of the comments and concerns that were raised at the planning commission meeting, the developer wanted to go back to the drawing board. They still want to keep the EAW and EIS questions moving forward so the developer will have answers to assist them in the redrawing of the plans which staff would bring back to the planning commission. Commissioner Dierich asked if the city council approves the EAW, does that automatically mean the city council chooses not to do an EIS? Mr. Roberts said the city council would be making a negative declaration. They wouldn't necessarily approve an EAW, they would say they found no need for an EIS. That doesn't mean there isn't a need for the study and a need for answers to the questions. The developer and staff know there are issues out there and questions are not resolved. Commissioner Dierich asked if the city council made a positive finding then an EIS would need to be done? Mr. Roberts said correct. Chairperson Fischer said the city council would also have the ability to ask further questions on the EAW? Mr. Roberts said correct. The city council will review the comments and the responses and they may think of things that the neighbors and the planning commission did not think of. Commissioner Dierich said there is an issue of the city imposing its will by saying you can expand the EAW and there really is no such thing as an expanded EAW. There is an issue if this is due process or not? We need to be aware of it and this is going to come up at the city council meeting and it would be helpful to have the City Attorney and Chuck Ahl at the meeting on Monday, June 12, 2006, because this is an issue at this point. We need to look at the way this was presented. She did not understand that the planning commission closed the door on the EAW at the May 15, 2006, meeting. She thought that the planning commission could still ask for an EIS if they did not get sufficient answers to the questions that were raised at the planning commission meeting. That is not the case and we need to be clear that the door is closed on the EAW if you make a negative declaration. b. Carver Crossing of Maplewood - PUD Revision Letter Mr. Roberts said Mr. Kurt Schneider, representing CoPar Companies, has submitted a letter to the city proposing revisions to the plans for a housing development called Carver Crossing. He, in conjunction with Rottlund Homes, had prepared plans that showed 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. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -9- As Mr. Schneider notes in his letter on page three of the staff report, they are proposing to remove all the detached town homes and the condominium buildings from the project plans and revise them to have only detached town houses on the entire site. These changes will reduce the proposed project density from 299 units to a number that is significantly lower (probably under 200 units). However, they cannot yet determine the number of detached town houses that will fit the site as they are still working on the revised site and engineering plans. I (Mr. Roberts distributed an e-mail from Mr. Schneider that he received prior to the start of tonight's meeting to the commission and brought a revised site plan for staff to show on the screen.) The e-mail basically shows 7 bulleted items. a. The revisions result in a density of 2.7 homes per acre. b. The intersection of Henry Lane at Carver Avenue was moved 100 plus feet west to accommodate the neighbors concerns. c. They terminated the public portion of Henry Lane south of Fish Creek. The termination of Henry Lane is taking shape as a round-about with two private roadway access points leading further into the site. Henry Lane will essentially be no longer than it is today. d. A total of 37% of the site (27+/-acres) is identified as open space within the site. This open space is in the form of established woodland, grassland, creek frontage and wetland. e. The highest noise measurement area (70dBA) is no longer impacting any homes and is the location of the round-about. f. The daytime noise area (65dBA) previously impacted 137 homes; the revised layout has reduced that number to 36 homes with limited rear yard exposure to noise. Approximately 41 % of the 14+ acres of the site that fall within the daytime noise area are identified as open space. g. The developer is working hard to maximize wetland setbacks and will be meeting a 50 foot average setback. Commissioner Trippler said he isn't sure why we are discussing this proposal again. This is a unique area of Maplewood that is zoned R-1 (R) which means 1 home for every 2 acres and this is a 73-acre site which means the commission should be looking at a plan for 37 or 38 homes in total. Mr. Roberts said he and Chuck Ahl discussed that after the last planning commission meeting and Mr. Ahl said he strongly believes this area will develop with city sewer. Sewer is available on Carver Avenue so it will be available to this area. Mr. Ahl said long term the best use of this land involves having city sewer. Commissioner Trippler said that's good to know but just because there could be city sewer here doesn't mean he wants to see 4.1 homes per acre built here. It seems to him that this area of Maplewood is unique because there are a limited number of homes built per acre. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -10- Commissioner Trippler said to go from 299 to 200 units doesn't even begin to get down to the concentration that he would like to see in this area of Maplewood. This plan eliminates some of the noise issues only from the standpoint from the number of units that are in areas that are constantly exceeded by the noise criteria. But this whole area is in a noisy area. This area is in the Mississippi Critical Area corridor. As he read the criteria for the critical area one of the things he focused on was if you have vistas and areas that are pristine that they should be maintained and kept. The whole development on the north ridge that overlooks downtown St. Paul is just packed with houses and he doesn't see how that is going to maintain the pristine nature of that vista. The development itself would be very nice in another part of Maplewood like in the Gladstone or Hillcrest area but not in this part of Maplewood. If the developer wants to talk about 36 to 40 units on this 73 acres fine, but at 200 units that is way to high of a density for this area. Chairperson Fischer said the request was for a change in the density. As one who voted for the density that is there now her rationale was for an unsewered area that could not support on-site systems for a 10,000 square foot lot size. She was voting for the larger lots not because she thought it was something that was an enhancement or amenity or something we had to have but I because it was for the public health and safety reasons that on-site systems could not be supported on standard lots. Commissioner Trippler said he understands when you bring in city sewer that takes away the rationale for having R-1 (R) which protects homes from having cross contamination from too many septic tank systems. It doesn't detract from his wanting to maintain this area with its unique characteristics in fact he would like this area to be zoned Farm. I Commissioner Dierich said as a person who wanted the R-1 (R) zoning here part of that was because of the city sewer and the other part was to prevent subdivisions of smaller lots and also to prevent exactly what Dale Trippler said. The planning commission discussed this long and hard that we wanted to protect this area of south Maplewood. Some people voted for certain density because of the drainage system concerns but some voted because of the nature of this part of south Maplewood. She said she understands what Chuck Ahl is saying regarding city sewer coming into this area but that doesn't change how she thinks about this land. She likes the fact I that the developer was willing to change to single family detached units. Her objection to the last plan was having senior condominiums in the plan which doesn't fit in this neighborhood. Former city councilmember's made a promise that they were not going to allow condominiums this far south in Maplewood. She personally likes the attached town homes because it saves more ofthe land. She would still like to see lower density and more green space. She thinks the plan is an improvement over what it was. She was not a fan of the senior's only housing concept. Commissioner Yarwood said his understanding was that the trade off for developing this as R-1 (R) was to have 1 house for every 2 acres so that more of the land needed to be developed to make this an economically feasible plan. He would like to see low density here and in fact would like to see this area as a park, but we know that isn't going to happen. He is concerned about having more of the land used with single family detached units and there are still a lot of questions and conditions that have to be met. At least the plan is going in the right direction. He asked if the developer could comment on the density and what was looked at for R-1 (R) verses the current land? Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -11- Mr. Kurt Schneider, CoPar Companies, addressed the commission. He said he was surprised this proposal was on the agenda tonight because they were not ready to present anything. They were taken back from the comments, questions and the feedback from the last planning commission meeting. They had received very strong recommendations and direction from city staff during the planning stage and had been working together over the course of 1 year on this plan. Originally they had about 386 units on the plan. They weren't warned that density number was not a possibility, but none the less they heard what they heard at the last meeting and are trying very hard to identify the various issues and concerns and really work with the style of housing in this project which reworks the engineering, grading and drainage for a project of this magnitude. It was a highly developed plan for the stage it was at which was a result of the EAW process. The EAW process was almost 1 year long. They know more about this site than anyone else has known, including the previous owners. They think the revised product with lower density is a good plan but will also raise the cost of the units. He agrees with the comments made and the variety of product offered here but that requires a comprehensive plan change and he was told before that was not possible. That does set a certain precedent level. They have worked hard on the site layout and the site planning issues in a short amount of time to come up with a similar layout to meet the open space dedication requirements. They are dedicating 37% of the site as open space. Mr. Schneider said they are just here for feedback and are not here to make a presentation. The decisions are made on the site conditions; they made the decision to purchase this property because city sewer would be available in this area. The concept plan, before the planning commission, is a progression of the feedback they heard from the planning commission meeting. This is a density reduction at 2.7 units per acre from what would be accepted elsewhere at 4.1 acres in Maplewood. The plan has a great deal of open space and they removed the condominium units from the plan. These units would be estimated to cost from $370,000 to $600,000. This is a high quality, high investment development. The 2002 comprehensive plan identifies this as a site that could be developed at 4.1 units per acre. They make their land acquisition and land use decisions based on that type of information from a city. The details in terms of how you get there, is what they are going through right now. Obviously according to the planning commission this site is not appropriate for that type of density. This site is very unique. The open space plan is quite impressive. 97% of the homes will be adjacent to open space within the project, which is unique. They are trying to harness the natural amenities of the site with the plan which will be presented at a later date to the planning commission. Commission Trippler said you may want to stop spending any more money on this plan. There is a new mayor and two new city councilmember's that campaigned regarding an area called the Gladstone area and that is an area that is currently zoned R-1 and R-2 which could have had as many as 1,500 units built on it. The Gladstone Task Force recommended a plan for 800 units on it and at the city council workshop on June 5, 2006, the city council and mayor said they want no more than 400 units in an area that is already densely populated. If the city council is looking at 1/3 to 1/4 of the density in an already urban area he said he would be very surprised that the city council and mayor thought that an area that has 1 house per every 5 acres is all of the sudden I going to be highly densely populated. Chairperson Fischer said if attaching townhomes is kinderto the environment she has no problem with that. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -12- Commissioner Dierich asked how this plays out if this is a CUP or PUD? Would that be okay to have attached town homes? Mr. Roberts said the comprehensive plan for this area is for single family dwellings. When you attach units you don't have single family dwellings anymore. So the concept the developer is showing is single family dwellings on smaller lots but they are detached townhomes so that would fit within the comprehensive plan designation of single dwellings. When you start attaching units you start talking about a comprehensive plan amendment which we know does not have much of a chance getting approved. Mr. Schneider said with the site plan they have now with a smaller building footprint you have a greater ability to customize a grade than you do with attaching 5 of those footprints together and creating one large surface. Our engineers are working on the premise that the smaller footprint would allow more customized lot grading activities and in the end move less dirt and create more efficiency in terms of saving existing terrain around the immediate building sites and hopefully be a better plan because of that. In terms ofthe multiple dwelling and attached housing Mr. Roberts summarized that already. They are focusing on the detached product line at this point. Commissioner Dierich said she e-mailed staff today and she asked for an overlay on this area. (Staff showed the map on the screen). Mr. Schneider said the current zoning can maintain its status as R-1 (R) or F(Farm) because PUD's can be proposed in anyone of your city's zoning districts. A PUD gives the city a great deal of discretion, to look at a site, to customize a site, to preserve within reasonable measures a site for development. The purpose of a PUD such as this is not to simply allow smaller lots, greater density, and more homes. The purpose is specifically to allow the smaller lots so the developer can preserve over 1/3 of the site as permanent open space managed by a single entity, not by 200 homeowners that might move there some day. The slope areas of the site, the areas immediately adjacent Fish Creek, the wetland areas, the areas surrounding the site leading up to the 120 acres of open space that Ramsey County owns around it, those areas if there were a problem 10 years ago regarding how they are maintained, there is a single entity that controls, maintains, monitors and enforces association regulations and city regulations on that site. This truly is a unique property. On page 30 of the comprehensive plan it points out that the very features this site has which is the terrain, the vegetation and the wetland that should be protected and preserved with the PUD process. The site plan is a little different. This is about all they can do with this site to reasonably use the property as an urban infill site, which is what this is. This is within the Highway 494/694 beltway, it is privately owned, and it's within their reasonable right to propose a project of this nature. They are trying to customize this site the best they possibly can and work with the site features to provide a good housing project for the existing and future residents and neighborhood. He said they look forward to working through the formal plan I process and will have further plans to share with the planning commission at a later date. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Planning Commission and CDRB Duties Mr. Roberts said the planning commission recently asked staff to review the duties and responsibilities of the planning commission and the community design review board. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -13- Mr. Roberts said specifically, the PC thought it important to clarify which group should be reviewing which parts of development requests and providing comments on a variety of site- related development improvements. On April 17, 2006, the planning commission had a discussion about the responsibilities and duties of the planning commission and CDRB. The PC asked staff to put together more information about the duties and responsibilities of the two groups. I The planning commission identified the following items as those that are most often looked at by both groups: Parking (size of spaces and parking lot layout) Screening Lighting Landscaping Rain Water Gardens Site Grading and Drainage (including impervious surfaces) The question for the city to decide is whether the city needs to clarify which group (if not both) should review and comment on these and on other similar items. Commissioner Trippler said he read in the staff report a statute that states the CDRB has the right to make recommendations to the planning commission regarding certain items. But what about the planning commission making recommendations to the CDRB? Mr. Roberts said he read that as an overlay district of a neighborhood where there may be a different set of design criteria for a geographical area such as the Hillcrest or Gladstone area where there is a special set of criteria that is laid out for a specific area. Commissioner Trippler said he believes that is a correct interpretation but that it goes beyond that. There is still the issue regarding should the CDRB be considering the item or should the PC be considering the item. If the PC can clearly understand what items the CDRB should be reviewing so the PC doesn't have to review them that would be helpful and could eliminate the overlap of reviewing it twice. Mr. Roberts said if staff writes the report so all the CDRB and PC conditions are included in the report then everyone knows what will be reviewed by the commission or board. This could be very helpful but the commission members or board members would have to make sure to read through all of the recommendations. The PC could point things out to the CDRB as well as an additional means of checking things. Staff feels the PC is generally outspoken enough that they would bring something to staff's attention if they felt something needed to be reviewed closely. Commissioner Trippler said the Environmental Committee which he serves on is looking at making some changes to the ordinances regarding wetlands, tree ordinances and other things so when those kinds of ordinances are changed the plan would be to come before the PC and CDRB and present the changes in the ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -14- Commissioner Dierich said she was struck by how detailed the CDRB responsibilities were on pages 4-12 in the staff report because the PC which has 9 members lists responsibilities on pages 4-6 and the CDRB which has 6 members lists responsibilities on pages 7-12. She said she has brought this issue up for 3 years now regarding what should be included and what needs to be reviewed and by whom and she really liked Sec. 2-288. She would really like to see the city be more detail oriented because the more eyes that look at things, the better. Each board or commission member looks at things with a different eye so to speak than another group does. I Commissioner Hess asked if there was ever a time that both the PC and the CDRB review an item at the same time? He also asked when and how often the CDRB meets? Mr. Roberts said depending on the calendar, the CDRB meets the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month so basically the CDRB meets 1 week after the PC reviews a proposal. The one thing that drives proposals and projects is the 60 day clock which by state law says you are required to have a project through to the city council within 60 days of receiving a complete application. If it's , a project like Carver Crossing of Maplewood the normal process would be it would go to the PC, I to the CDRB and then to the City Council, which would be 3 weeks after being heard by the PC. He said staff tries to get the staff report done for the PC including the CDRB conditions or recommendations for the PC to read through. Staff would say 90% of the projects follow this timeline. Occasionally a project may be heard by the CDRB first and then be heard by the PC and then by the city council. In a case like that staff tries to have the completed staff report ready but depending on the timing of the meeting the minutes may not be done in time to get them included in the staff report. However, staff could report to the CDRB or PC what was discussed at the meetings. The city council would have the minutes from each of the meetings and the staff reports to refer to in order to make the final decision. The planning commission decided staff should take this matter to the CDRB for their comments. VIII VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Mr. Ron Cockriel, 943 Century Avenue North, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said he lives in a 70 year home and is the third generation living in the home. He has some questions and concerns regarding the PC meeting of May 15, 2006. He is here to ask the PC to reconsider the motion they made that evening regarding a unanimous vote for a negative declaration for an EIS regarding the Carver Crossing of Maplewood project. The project or area is also known as the CoPar project, the Schlomka project, and the Carver Crossing of Maplewood project which is inconsistent and confusing for a Maplewood resident that is trying to refer to the project. He said it is part of the due process when there was a great deal of questions and concerns that came out regarding the EAW. There were 5 pages of questions and nearly 40 pages of comments and concerns and at that time. The PC decided not to move ahead with an EIS even though there I were so many unanswered questions such as what happened to the 30 acres of upland bluff land I when you remove the prairie land. There is no replacement for the prairie land and no replacement for the upland bluff land anywhere else in the area. This area falls within the critical corridor as well. It should have been pointed out to the PC that they had the option to accept an expanded EAW (which doesn't exist) but ultimately the PC did not need to close out the EAW. The PC could have requested a postponement regarding the declaration and then ultimately you would have gotten the 40 pages of information that was made available June 6, 2006. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -15- Mr. Cockriel said there is a great deal of information in the report. He said he spoke with the Environmental Quality board who is the state agency responsible for the EAW and EIS and how those all work. He told the board how he felt about things and the board said he should come before the PC and ask forthis to be reconsidered. He understands the property owner has rights. The PC has rights and has responsibilities as well. He said he calls this proposal a greased pig because you can't get a hold of it and it keeps changing and changing. He said this proposal started at 400 units, then 300 units and now it's down to 200 units and he hates to see a set up here. If the PC doesn't want an EIS done on 300 units then it's a no brainer then because with 200 units we know it would be less of an impact but that doesn't mean an EIS is any less important. Ultimately he believes they will scrape the property and fill in a smaller footprint itself but ultimately this will have a great deal of impact on this area. It's not his property but he does own the property on all three sides of it as a Ramsey County resident and taxpayer of the open space. He believes there is a greater community interest and there should be community involvement in this area because it is a connector for the Wacouta Bridge and for the trails that exist into Washington County. There is a great deal of interest in seeing this project through. He doesn't know how to tie this project down because the project keeps changing. Ultimately you have to make a decision as what the impact is going to be. Mr. Cockriel said he believes this could be a park south of the creek. The financing could be there, they have done this before. He said he represents the group called the Sons and Daughters of Highwood. The Highwood Park and reserve 10 years ago they got Cargill and the DNR to come up with half of the money and gave the park to the City of St. Paul. Just a few weeks ago Henry Park in St. Paul was purchased for $2.5 million dollars in order to save the bluff land. There isn't this type of land anywhere else. It is the last piece of bluff land that falls within the critical corridor area. Recently St. Paul began reinvesting in the concept of bringing people back to the river and making it a friendlier place. Ultimately you need to think about the 35,000 plus people that live in Maplewood and consider the quality of life, what we pay for homes here and what we have to pass onto the children. He knows the developer is a business man. He said he bought a car that is a Geo and he would have liked to have a Porsche. It is a buyer beware. The developer bought a farm that says there is 32 units on here potentially. He understands the city wants to accommodate the developer and do what is best for the property but things keep I changing. If next week the city council says it can be built with 187 units and it is 37% open space it's a great deal but he doesn't think the city has had a chance to look at this proposal. It isn't fair to the PC; it isn't fair to the residents who depend on the PC who make these kinds of recommendations to the city council. Ultimately he would ask for the PC to reconsider this decision. The city council is going to say this was a unanimous decision made by the PC to make a negative declaration to not have an EIS done and they are not worried about the environmental impact, density issues, the traffic issues, the noise issues, the water retention issues. There is a lot of that is going on at city hall right now and the metropolitan area knows about that and he would hate to see this project slide through without good checks and balances with all the commissions and boards that we have here. The PC should do what should have been told to them two weeks ago that you have the option and the responsibility to postpone this proposal if you are not comfortable with this. A 60 day timeline is fine but if the PC says they have questions and the EAW says there are questions, ultimately you can stop the process and say the PC recommends that an EIS would be in play and hand that information down to the city council. You could even say at this time the PC can't make a decision because there is too much in play. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -16- Commissioner Yarwood said as a south Maplewood resident he can appreciate what Mr. Cockriel said. But as a point of clarification it was not a "unanimous" vote to recommend a negative declaration for the EIS. Commissioner Mary Dierich and Commissioner Gary Pearson voted against it and the rest of the PC members voted for it. This proposal will have to come before the planning commission again and at that time there are many questions that have to be answered before he can make any type of a decision or recommendation. Whether that is part of a formal environmental review process or not it doesn't make that big of a difference he will still need those questions answered. Commissioner Dierich said the city council can vote this up or down or they can table it for more information. Mr. Roberts said correct. Just because the city council makes a negative declaration for an EIS doesn't mean the developer can go ahead and start grading the site and build whatever they want to build. The developer will still have to satisfy the comments and questions that were raised. There are going to be comments made by people such as "save the deer and wildlife" and "don't develop this land" and the city and the developer know that this land is going to be developed at some point and time. Others will be worried about the setbacks from Fish Creek and the bluffs, and the phosphorous runoff which are design details that will have to be worked out. Staff doesn't know that an EIS would bring those issues out. It flushes out the issues in more detail so hopefully the developer goes back and revises the plans to make them better and more responsive to the concerns that were brought up by the PC and the neighbors. If you didn't have adequate time to ask your questions and make a decision at the last planning commission meeting than staff would agree with Mr. Cockriel that tabling this proposal and asking for more information and time could have been an option. Staff thinks they know the planning commission well enough that if they needed more information someone on the commission would have asked for more time and would not have been shy about asking for it. Commissioner Dierich said that is the EAW process and the way the PC voted on the recommendations was they voted on each recommendation individually. Mr. Roberts said staff is bringing the EAW/EIS report to the city council on Monday, June 12, 2006. The developer has withdrawn their former application and once staff gets new plans the 60 day clock will start up again on those plans. Commissioner Yarwood said it was his feeling that it's the PC's prerogative that if the plan comes back before the PC whether the EAW or EIS is in the picture the PC can ask that the concerns and issues be answered. Mr. Roberts said correct. Commissioner Dierich asked if the PC is going to see the expanded EAW because she knows it was sent to the city council recently. Mr. Roberts said it would be expanded comments based on the last PC meeting of May 15, 2006, but you could get a copy of that. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -17- IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Hess was the planning commission representative at the May 13, 2006, city council meeting. The Comforts of Home at 2300/2310 Hazelwood Street for a CUP, PUD was tabled because of a city councilmember's absence that needed to be present to vote on this proposal. This proposal was rescheduled for June 12, 2006, to be heard by the city council. b. Ms. Dierich will be the planning commission representative at the June 12, 2006, city council meeting to be held at CARVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - UPPER AFTON ROAD. Items to discuss include the EAW for Carver Crossing of Maplewood and the Comforts of Home at 2300/2310 Hazelwood Street for a CUP and PUD. c. Mr. Kaczrowski will be the planning commission representative at the June 26, 2006, city council meeting. They will be discussing the Eldridge Fields - Right of Way vacation and preliminary plat (west of Prosperity Avenue) for five single family homes. d. Ms. Fischer will be the planning commission representative at the July 10, 2006, city council meeting. e. Dale Trippler reported on the special city council workshop of Monday, June 5, 2006, regarding the Gladstone Redevelopment plan. No final decision has been made yet and no date has been set for a decision yet. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Reschedule the Monday, July 3,2006, Planning Commission meeting to either Wednesday, July 5, 2006, or Thursday, July 6, 2006, because of the fourth of July holiday. The planning commission decided to wait until all of the planning commissioners were present at the June 19, 2006, meeting before making a decision on changing the date of the scheduled July 3, 2006, planning commission meeting. Annual City Tour Mr. Roberts asked the planning commissioners to look at the list of sites for the annual city tour on July 31, 2006, and get back to him with any recommendations or changes. I Upcoming Planning Commission Meeting of June 19, 2006 Mr. Roberts said there are three public hearings coming up June 19, 2006, PC meeting. The first public hearing is for Liberty Classical Academy, 2696 Hazelwood Street for a CUP revision. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-07-06 -18- The second public hearing is for Legacy Village Townhomes at County Road 0 and Kennard Street for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, PUD Revision and Preliminary Plat, and the third public hearing is for a parking lot expansion of the 5-8 Tavern & Grill, 2289 Minnehaha Avenue. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m.