Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/06/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Thursdav, July 6, 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. June 19,2008 5. Public Hearings 7:00 CarMax Mogren Addition (Highway 61 and Beam Avenue) Easement Vacation Preliminary Plat Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business Roles and Responsibilities of PC and CDRB - Linda Olson (Chairperson - CDRB) 8. VISitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations June 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Kaczrowski July 10 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer July 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Grover Augusl14 Council Meeting: Mr. Yarwood 10. Staff Presentations Reschedule July 17 meeting - July 18 or July 19? Annual Tour Update (July 31,20(6) 11. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA THURSDAY, JULY 6,2006 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 Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present Absent Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Roberts said the applicant for the CarMax/Mogren Addition at Highway 61 and Beam Avenue has withdrawn their request from the city approval for a few weeks. Staff wanted the planning commission to be aware that it's at their discretion to remove this item from the agenda or they can have an open discussion and pass any concerns they have onto staff to bring back to the applicant. The planning commission decided to discuss this proposal so staff can bring the planning commission's concerns and comments back to the applicant. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Grover seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kacrzrowski, Pearson, Trippler Approval of the planning commission minutes for June 19, 2006. Commissioner Trippler had corrections on pages 4, 13, and 17. On page 4, fifth paragraph, reword the paragraph to read: Ms. Hagstrom said that may be. She wanted to pass along that unfortunately the pastor; associate pastor and the chair of the board were out of town this evening. There was supposed to be a letter to the city from the church and she wasn't sure if that had been sent or not. She said the staff members at the church are in favor of this plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-06-06 -2- She said someone from the church will bring the letter in question to the July 10, 2006, city council meeting and hopefully a representative from the pastoral staff can be present. On page 13, item c. 5-8 Club discussion, second paragraph, first line, change the word Re to jLOn page 17, sixth paragraph, change the word tAe-to thev. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for June 19,2006, as amended. Commissioner Grover seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler V. PUBLIC HEARING CarMaxlMogren Addition (Highway 61 and Beam Avenue) Mr. Roberts said staff would not be giving a formal presentation about this request since the applicant has requested the city delay taking action on the proposal. Mr. Roberts noted that staff would do the presentation for the meeting in 2 weeks but staff can take comments and concerns from the commission and pass those onto the developer and the developer can possibly make those changes or get answers for the next planning commission meeting. Commissioner Hess asked if the developer would be amending the specs and plans before the next meeting? He is concerned about the comments he read regarding the entrance to the property near Highway 61 and Beam Avenue and those concerns. Mr. Roberts said staff had comments regarding the architectural and landscaping plans so staff believed the applicant would have revised plans. Staff would make sure the revised plans are sent to the planning commission before their next meeting. Commissioner Trippler had comments regarding Tom Ekstrand's recommended approval of the 9 foot wide by 17 foot long parking spaces shown in the staff report. He said his neighbor has several large vehicles and he was concerned how a large vehicle would fit in and drive out of a 9 foot wide by 17 foot long parking space. Therefore, he measured the length and width of his neighbors' vehicles and found that a GMC Denali SUV is 7 feet wide by 18 feet long, a Lincoln Navigator measures 7 feet wide by 17 feet long and a Ford F150 truck is 7 feet wide by 19 feet long. He determined if the city allows 9 foot wide parking spaces people with large vehicles such as these will have difficulty driving in and out of the 9 foot wide parking spaces. It's also difficult for people getting in and out of the car to keep the car door from hitting the vehicle next to them, especially putting groceries or packages into the vehicle. Mr. Roberts asked if Commissioner Trippler was concerned about the width of the customer parking, inventory parking or employee parking spaces? Commissioner Trippler said he is only concerned about the size of the customer parking spaces. The city is not only altering the "width" of the parking space but now staff is altering the "length" of the parking space and this concerns him. Recently he was driving with someone with a full size truck with the extended cab and the driver had such a difficult time getting out of the parking space that it took 6 times of going back and forth to get out of the parking space because it was so tight. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-06-06 -3- Commissioner Trippler said it wasn't tight when they pulled into the space but when they came back to the truck to leave it was almost impossible to drive out of because of how others parked their vehicles next to them. Chairperson Fischer asked if the parking space was one that had been grandfathered in orwas it a newer parking space? Commissioner Trippler said this a new parking space at a store near the mall. Mr. Roberts said he would pass this information on to the applicant. Commissioner Trippler said the southwest corner of the site is within the Kohlman Lake Shoreland Area. According to the staff report this means the applicant cannot develop more than 60 percent of the site with impervious paving. Forty percent must be pervious and be able to absorb rain water. He asked if the shoreland ordinance meant any property within the shoreland ordinance or did it only apply to the portion of the property within the shoreland ordinance? Mr. Roberts said that would only pertain to the property "in" the shoreland ordinance. Commissioner Trippler said he read that staff, MnDOT, and a Ramsey County Traffic Engineer did not approve of the westerly curb cut along Beam Avenue and that it would be too close to the intersection and would conflict with traffic movement near the intersection of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. He asked if staff was in agreement that the other exit/entrance was okay to go in? Mr. Roberts showed the access point staff preferred and the exit/entrance staff, MnDOT and Ramsey County did not prefer. Commissioner Trippler said he uses that exit/entrance and feels it wouldn't be good if that exit/entrance point was eliminated. He wasn't sure why the applicant couldn't access their property off the city street. Mr. Roberts said the applicant can access the property there but staff assumes that wouldn't be sufficient to the applicant. Commissioner Trippler said he sees a problem with the middle exit/entrance if people are coming off of Highway 61 and want to turn left that will tie up traffic. Mr. Roberts said he would pass that information along to the applicant. Staff knows the traffic engineer is studying this area all the way up to County Road D and hopefully they are looking at that situation already. Commissioner Trippler said the fire truck route emanated from the first entrance on the plan and if that is not allowed now the applicant would need to redo the plan. Staff clearly recommends denial regarding looking at these future lots and he would agree with that denial. He asked ifthere has been any headway regarding the applicant dropping that request? Planning Commission Minutes of 07-06-06 -4- Mr. Roberts said that would be a question for Tom Ekstrand who wrote this report. It's nice to see what's conceptualized for the future but the city isn't comfortable approving anything more than the lot layout and that's it and the applicant will have to come to the city for the individual review for each separate area. Some of those developments won't be ready for three years or so. Commissioner Trippler said regarding the six foot tall screening wall described in the landscaping plan in the staff report, has Maplewood approved anything like this in the past? Mr. Roberts said no. There have been screening fences approved in the past and fences up to 10 feet tall approved but there haven't been any six foot tall block walls approved in the past. He assumes that the applicant is thinking long term that a block wall would last longer and dealing with a fence that may get damaged would require fencing be replaced. CarMax apparently will take in any vehicle to sell and the thought may be that the block wall would help screen the less desirable vehicles from view. Commissioner Trippler said in his opinion that sets a bad precedence and he would not support the six foot tall block wall for this development. Commissioner Hess asked if there would be any pedestrian sidewalks along Beam Avenue? That would be a nice feature to have for pedestrians to access the mall area. He said he personally sees pedestrians walking along Beam Avenue and for safety reasons it may be nice to have a sidewalk connection. Mr. Roberts said he spoke briefly to the city engineering staff and there is an engineering feasibility study being done for this public street and that study will soon be going to the city council along with any other public improvements forthis area. Staff suggested that a trail on the north side of Beam Avenue from Highway 61 to the Ramsey County trail would be nice to include. On the west side of Highway 61, by the Maplewood Toyota storage lot, there is a concrete sidewalk and it would be nice to continue the sidewalk. Staff is hoping that a sidewalk or trail included in the engineering feasibility study. Commissioner Hess said he has heard residents complaining that this area is not very resident friendly so it would be nice to continue the sidewalk all the way to the mall. He was concerned about the screening of the roof-top mechanical units and how that could be seen from Highway 61. He read on page 12 of the conditions in number 18. that all roof-top mechanical equipment shall be painted to match the building. He asked if that was a common practice because he would prefer to see a screening fence around the mechanical equipment rather than just having it painted to match the building. Mr. Roberts said the code states you only have to screen the roof-top units that are visible from residential properties otherwise the units can be painted to match the upper portion of the building. Staff can check into that further. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this item? Nobody in the audience came forward. The public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-06-06 -5- Commissioner Pearson moved to table the CarMax/Mogren Addition at Highway 61 and Beam Avenue until the next planning commission meeting. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler The motion to table passed. Staff will take the comments made by the planning commission and pass them along to the applicant in preparation for the next planning commission meeting. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Roles and Responsibilities of PC and CDRB - Linda Olson (Chairperson for CDRB) Mr. Roberts said the planning commission and community design review board recently asked staff to review the duties and responsibilities of the PC and the CDRB. Specifically, it was pointed out that there should be clarification as to which group should be reviewing which parts of development requests and providing comments on a variety of site-related development improvements. On June 27, 2006, the CDRB reviewed and discussed this subject. They indicated that they wanted to do an in-depth review of the city's parking ordinance with the help and comments of the planning commission. They also agreed with staff that there sometimes is overlap in responsibilities and that is necessary and probably could be a good thing. Finally, they requested to have their chairperson, Linda Olson, attend a planning commission meeting to discuss this topic with the commission. Linda Olson is here to discuss the overlapping of duties. Mr. Roberts invited Linda Olson to come forward and speak to the planning commission. Linda Olson, Chairperson for the Community Design Review Board, addressed the commission. Staff had recommended the CDRB look at parking stall width and size because some ofthe same issues have been coming up at the PC and CDRB meetings it was thought it may be a good idea to discuss review items that overlap. It sounds like it's agreeable with the CDRB and the PC that items are being discussed more than once and that it's better to have both groups give their opinions and comments to ensure that nothing gets missed along the way. Generally the PC receives and reviews the plans first and then the CDRB reviews it the following week. It's rare that the CDRB reviews a proposal before it goes to the PC. It's nice to know what the concerns of the planning commission were and staff usually informs the board of the planning commissions' concerns via the staff report or when introducing the item during the board meeting. Mr. Roberts said both the CDRB and PC minutes are on the website sorted by date and can be downloaded by anyone that would like to know what was reviewed and the comments said. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-06-06 -6- Commissioner Trippler commented that many times when he serves as the PC representative at the city council meeting that is when he hears the concerns that the Community Design Review Board had when the CDRB representative speaks. Board member Olson said she would agree with the comments made by Commissioner Trippler regarding the parking space size and the difficulty cars have when they are parked too closely or the difficulty drivers have pulling in and out of the parking stalls especially because of the large size of vehicles. Even with the high cost of gas these days, people require larger vehicles which require larger parking spaces. The board would strongly recommend that developers use more pervious paver systems for parking. Commissioner Trippler thanked Linda Olson for coming and speaking. He wondered if the PC and the CDRB were spending time reviewing issues that one or the other group should not be spending time on? He knows the board reviews things like lighting, landscaping, screening, and parking. The planning commission looks at how those things affect the surrounding area and the neighborhood and he asked if the CDRB was looking at these things for the same reasons. Board member Olson said she is here to talk about parking and how the CDRB and PC should approach review of these issues. The CDRB looks at screening, lighting, landscaping, signage, rainwater gardens, drainage, and grading. Most of these items are also areas of review for the PC. The CDRB is a group of volunteers with a wide range of backgrounds such as an architect, an environmental consultant, a city planner, and she herself has a civil background. This experience helps with reviewing proposals and brings a different aspect to the table so to speak. With the experience of both the planning commission hopefully things don't get missed during the review process but it is better to have as many different sets of eyes reviewing the proposals as possible. The CDRB reviews the lighting on the site, the style, the height, the number of lights, and the impact the light would have on the neighboring area and this is probably something the planning commission does not need to review. The CDRB prefers the dark sky at night policy. The CDRB looks at roof-top screening on a consistent basis. The board reviews grading and drainage but it can't hurt to have both the PC and CDRB reviewing things. Commissioner Pearson said the PC discusses noise concerns from mechanical units and the location of the units which is really the scope of the CDRB but they still discuss it. The PC also discusses the location of trash dumpsters and the screening of the dumpsters. He feels as long as the CDRB is okay with it the PC and CDRB reviewing the same items we should continue to look at the items rather than taking a chance of missing it during the review process. Board member Olson agreed. Many times projects are on a tight time schedule and things can get missed. She said many times one ofthe board members sees something thatthe other board members didn't see or think of and people wonder did they miss seeing that. The over coverage of the review process is a benefit to the city having the different groups offering a system of checks and balances especially because each group looks at proposals from a slightly different angle. When she reviews proposals she looks at them as a Maplewood resident and as someone who would be walking down the street and how the development would impact the neighborhood. Commissioner Pearson said lately he has noticed attention to detail in things like the garbage receptacle at the drive thru at Caribou Coffee on White Bear Avenue. Little details like that get missed and those are the small things that make a difference for a development and help keep the site maintained. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-06-06 -7- Board member Olson said the CDRB didn't review that particular detail for Caribou Coffee and the board cannot take the credit for that. Mr. Roberts said in the next few weeks there will be discussion regarding ordinance amendments for the tree ordinance and the wetland ordinance and he asked if both the CDRB and the PC wanted to be included in the review and discussion of the ordinance amendments coming up? Board member Olson said she knows the CDRB will want to be included in the review process of those ordinances and environmental concerns. The planning commission agreed that they too wanted to be included in on the discussion and review of the proposed code amendments. Commissioner Trippler said as a member of the Environmental Committee they have been working on those ordinances internally and the tree ordinance revisions have gone to the city attorney to check for any legal issues there may be. When that information has been returned from the city attorney's office and the revisions have been made the next step is to give a presentation to the other commissions, boards and committees for their input before the revisions to the ordinances are brought to the city council. Board member Olson said she appreciated the opportunity to have an open dialogue with the planning commission. She would appreciate having a representative from the PC come and speak to the CDRB as well. Chairperson Fischer recommended Commissioner Trippler be the speaker because of his serving on the Environmental Committee and the upcoming ordinance amendments that will be coming in the near future. Commissioner Trippler said the Environmental Committee will be meeting again Tuesday, July 18, 2006, and hopefully there will be information back from the city attorney before that time. Board member Olson thanked the planning commission for allowing her to speak tonight and for the good work the planning commission does and their time serving on the commission. The planning commission thanked board member Olson for her time and service on the CDRB. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Kaczrowski was the planning commission representative at the June 26, 2006, city council meeting. The city council discussed the Eldridge Fields Right-of-Way vacation and preliminary plat (west of Prosperity Avenue) for five single-family homes which was passed by the city council 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-06-06 -8- The city council also discussed the CUP for the Pioneer Press building at 1616 Gervais Avenue regarding the noise concerns. b. Ms. Fischer will be the planning commission representative at the July 10, 2006, city council meeting. The city council will be discussing Liberty Classical Academy, 2696 Hazelwood Street for the CUP Revision, Legacy Village Townhomes, County Road D and Kennard Street for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, PUD Revision, and Preliminary Plat, the 5-8 Club Expansion at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue, for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Change and the CUP revision, and the continuation of the Carver Crossing EAW discussion. c. Mr. Grover will be the planning commission representative at the July 24, 2006, city council meeting. d. Mr. Yarwood will be the planning commission representative at the August 14, 2006, city council meeting. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Because there is a special city council meeting on Monday, July 17, 2006, the planning commission meeting needs to be rescheduled. After checking with the commission it appeared Tuesday. July 18. 2006, worked the best. That is same evening the Environmental Committee meets. If the planning commission meeting could start at 6:30 p.m. there could be a presentation given regarding the tree ordinance and other ordinance amendments. Then the planning commission could begin their meeting at the regular start time of 7:00 p.m. (a few of the planning commission members will have difficulty making it here by 6:30 p.m. but because the committee is looking for input early in order to make changes, the presentation would be given in a work shop style format to those commission members who can make it at 6:30 p.m.) Annual Tour Update for Monday, July 31, 2006 Mr. Roberts said the tour will now be going to south Maplewood. If there are any other areas of Maplewood that are not already on the list of places to visit, please let staff know as soon as possible so they can compile the tour list in a timely manner. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m.