Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/07/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 7,2006, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road 8 East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. July 18, 2006 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Easement Vacation - Erickson (2699 Hazelwood Street) 7:15 Conditional Use Permit - White Bear Avenue Family Health Center (2099 White Bear Avenue) 7:30 Conditional Use Permit Revision - Hill-Murray School (2625 Larpenteur Avenue) 7:45 Cottagewood Town houses (2666 Highwood Avenue) Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Revision Preliminary Plat 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 9. Visitor Presentations 10. Commission Presentations July 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Grover August 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Yarwood August 28 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson September 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler 11. Staff Presentations Annual Tour Follow-up (July 31,2006) Reschedule September 4 Meeting (Labor Day) - September 5 or September 6? 12. Adjoumment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, AUGUST 7, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Acting chairperson Desai 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 Present Absent Absent Present Absent Present Present Present Ken Roberts, Planner Steve Kummer, Civil Engineer II Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Hess moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Pearson seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Approval of the planning commission minutes for July 18, 2006. Commissioner Trippler had corrections to page 5, fifth paragraph, second line, change~to 1/3. Also at the bottom of the page under the approval of the minutes, delete Trippler from the Ayes vote. Commissioner Trippler had left the planning commission meeting to attend the Environmental Committee meeting and was not present during the approval of the minutes. Chairperson Fischer called the recording secretary with her changes to the minutes. On page 17, bottom paragraph, fourth line, in the middle of the sentence, add office/commercial space at this present time. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the planning commission minutes for July 18, 2006, as amended. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -2- Commissioner Hess seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Easement Vacation - Erickson (2699 Hazelwood Street) (7:06 -7:12 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Ronald Erickson of 2699 Hazelwood Street, is requesting that the city council vacate a 15-foot-wide utility easement located on the south side of his property. Mr. Erickson dedicated a 30-foot-wide utility easement to the city in 1986 as a condition of a lot split to subdivide his property. The easement straddles Mr. Erickson's southerly lot line with 15 feet on each side of the line. Mr. Erickson would like to vacate the 15 feet of easement on his property. In 1986, the city felt there was a need for this easement to provide utility service to the abutting land to the west. The city then felt that the best way to do this was by the dedication of this easement. Erin Laberee, the Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, reviewed this request and has determined that there is no reason to retain this easement. Ms. Laberee reviewed city's utility plans and found that water and sanitary sewer can be provided to this property from County Road C via the benefiting properties. The easement in Mr. Erickson's lot, therefore, is not needed. Acting chairperson Desai asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal. Ms. Carol Henkes, 2681 Hazelwood Street, addressed the commission. She said she has no need for the easement and would like it vacated. Acting chairperson Desai closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hess asked if the site description would be rewritten into the plat map? Mr. Roberts said if the city council adopts this once the resolution is updated it gets recorded by Ramsey County and the Recorders Office updates the legal descriptions of the affected properties based on the information the city puts in the resolution. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution in the staff report vacating the unneeded utility easement for Ronald Erickson at 2699 Hazelwood Street and the easement for 2681 Hazelwood Street. These vacations are in the public interest since these easements serve no public purpose. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 28, 2006. Because it was not time to start the next public hearing, Commission Pearson had a question for the engineer. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -3- Commissioner Pearson asked what the determining factor is regarding requiring soil borings or not when somebody applies for a permit for a development? Because one development this evening has soil borings where there are filtration ponds but another development to review this evening does not have soil boring information. Steve Kummer, Maplewood Civil Engineer II, addressed the commission. He said typically he requests soil borings for all developments in Maplewood. Even if there aren't ponding aspects on the project he requests the soil borings anyway. Commissioner Pearson said there was no soil boring information for the White Bear Avenue Family Health Center and he didn't notice a requirement for soil borings in the staff report. He asked if it would be possible to get a copy of the soil boring report for the Cottagewood proposal that the planning commission will be hearing later this evening because the soil borings are typically not included in the planning commission packet? Mr. Kummer said he would forward a copy of the soil boring report to Commissioner Pearson. Commissioner Hess said he would also like a copy of the soil boring report. Mr. Roberts said he believes any time there is going to be public improvements for streets or utilities, soil borings are required. When it's a private site such as the White Bear Family Health Care Center building it hasn't been consistent regarding requesting soil borings. Commissioner Pearson asked if the widening of White Bear Avenue would require soil borings be done? Mr. Roberts said no but that would be up to Ramsey County to do. Commissioner Trippler asked if that meant the city does not have a policy regarding soil borings? Mr. Kummer said the city does not have a "formal" policy regarding the number of soil borings required for each site. Mr. Roberts believed it was an engineer's call on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Kummer said prior to this position he worked in site design and consulting for five years and it is good practice for an engineer to do soil borings before they decide to develop a site so they know what the underlying soil conditions. The developer's engineer has to sign off on the plans and would be taking responsibility. Mr. Roberts said when it's for public improvements especially for new streets to be constructed the city would require soil borings. It was now time to move onto the next public hearing so the discussion regarding soil borings ended. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -4- b. Conditional Use Permit - White Bear Avenue Family Health Center (2099 White Bear Avenue) (7:18 - 8:27 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said DSGW Architects, representing B.I.C. Development, Inc., is proposing to build a 40,000-square-foot metical clinic on the vacant property north of 2055 White Bear Avenue. This clinic, proposed to be the White Bear Avenue Family Health Center, will be a two-story steel- framed structure with an exterior of brick and rock-face concrete block. Staff supports this proposal. This clinic would be a compatible neighbor for the abutting homeowners to the north as opposed to the site's potential for heavier-commercial or light- industrial uses that would be permitted under the M1 zoning provisions. Mr. Roberts said the applicant mentioned to staff prior to the start of the meeting that the watershed district had already met and they approved the permit. Commissioner Trippler said on page 4 of the staff report Lieutenant Michael Shortreed from the Maplewood Police Department encouraged limiting the use of White Bear Avenue for construction-activity whenever possible. He asked if there had been any discussion with the applicant regarding that, and if so, what transpired? Mr. Roberts said staffs aware that the neighbors on Prosperity Avenue don't want a connection here and would prefer that the traffic remain on White Bear Avenue. Tom Ekstrand, was relying on the comments from Dan Soler, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, regarding the traffic. Staff stated in the report that the proposed driveway would also connect to an existing driveway at the west end of the proposed site. This existing driveway would provide a secondary means of access/egress for the site. This driveway wraps around the existing building on the abutting lot and exits onto Prosperity near the Gateway Trail. Staff doesn't see a problem with this since the same party owns both properties. If the owner were to sell either property, he should consider the exchange of cross easements between both properties. Likewise, if the vacant property to the west of the proposed clinic splits off, cross easements and possibly some pavement removal may be required. Commissioner Trippler said there isn't a recommendation for a right in and right out only allowing them to have a left turn exit. He had hoped a representative from the police department would be here to speak regarding this. He said currently White Bear Avenue has a double yellow line painted on the street which means technically you are breaking the law by turning left into the Maplewood Community Center or by turning left into the Ramsey County Courthouse parking lot, the same would hold true if someone was trying to turn left into the proposed medical clinic because you aren't supposed to cross over a double yellow line. Mr. Roberts said will follow up on that. Commissioner Trippler was impressed by the number of pages of engineering information in the staff report done by Steve Kummer. He said he wasn't used to seeing this many pages of information from engineering in the staff report and he asked if there were this many issues for this proposal or if a lot of the information in the engineering report was basically just information for engineers to engineers? Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -5- Mr. Kummer said when he reviews a development proposal he reports on the issues that he sees. He said that is correct that a lot of the engineering report was comments from one engineer to another and this was a pretty straight forward proposal and there weren't a lot of issues with this proposal. Mr. Roberts said what Mr. Kummer is trying to say is the planning commission usually receives engineering information in the staff report that would only pertain to the planning commission and in most cases wouldn't be this detailed. In this case most of the engineering report is engineer-to- engineer. Mr. Kummer said he could reduce the information in future engineering reports so it would only pertain to the planning commission if that's what the commission would prefer. The planning commission said they appreciated the thoroughness of the engineering report and the amount of detail done by Steve Kummer and the commission would like to continue to see detailed information like this in future planning commission reports. Commissioner Pearson said his concern is the discrepancy regarding the computations on filtration flows and the manhole waste disposal layout. Because that terminology isn't in the terminology now, if the city is requiring that terminology then it needs to be stated in the conditions that are passed onto the city council by the planning commission. Commissioner Dierich said she appreciated the engineering detail in the staff report and that Mr. Kummer should keep up the good work and it would be nice to see such detail from other engineering reports. Regarding what Commissioner Pearson was referring to, you could include a summary statement or sentence stating subject to the approval of the city engineer. She asked if the building itself has to be 350 feet to residentially-zoned properties? Mr. Roberts said he thinks Commissioner Dierich is referring to the code which states if you have any use on a property that is zoned M 1 and that site is within 350 feet from residential property it needs a conditional use permit, it doesn't say it can't be there and is just another level of review. Commissioner Dierich said the site is zoned M1 and asked if the homes are guided as M1 because it seems strange that there is a small row of R1 zoning there. Mr. Roberts put the zoning map on the overhead to show that the zoning and the comprehensive plan are consistent. Commissioner Yarwood said he read the concerns in the staff report regarding the drainage problems in the area and he asked if the proposed development would be a positive or negative issue to the area or if it would have no impact on the neighbors? Mr. Kummer said the overall development will have a neutral impact on the residents to the north because they are upland from the site. There is a drainage issue near Burke Avenue and Prosperity, towards the west. The water sheet drains down to the low points of the site. Regarding whether or not the drainage issue is resolved or not, the city won't know that until 2009 when the capital improvement project occurs in this area along with some other improvements to Burke Avenue that residents have raised concerns about. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -6- Mr. Kummer said the applicant's engineer addressed that with a culvert pipe underneath the new driveway as well as infiltration basins along the west side of the parking lot to capture the sheet runoff from Prosperity Avenue in the ditch area. Mr. Roberts said some of the concerns were raised with the development for five single family homes off Prosperity Avenue by some of the residents. With the construction of the street the engineers were paying close attention to the existing drainage and looking into what could be done downstream with the area so there may be overlap regarding neighbors having the same concerns. It's the city's expectation that the storm water improvements will help the problem along with the ponding that goes in. Commissioner Dierich said she assumes the same person owns all the parcels and that the third building will go into the vacant space. She asked if in the future there will be an issue regarding these parcels and the amount of impervious surface for these areas? Mr. Roberts said the city doesn't know that the parcels will continue to be owned by the same owner. In any case any project will have to go through the same application process and they would have to satisfy the city engineering department. That could mean less hard surface along with building another pond. Commissioner Dierich said she is concerned that if the parcels are subdivided there will be too much impervious surface. She noticed in the resolution that staff wanted cross easements but there is no mention of that and in the future, should this other parcel be developed, there should be cross easements in the resolution. On page 29 of the staff report, in number 4. it states The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrica/ interference or other nuisances. However, a medical facility produces a lot of bio-hazard materials so that should be amended in some way in the resolution. Mr. Roberts said it would be best not to touch on the cross easements at this point because they are not needed on the third lot and if that becomes owned by a separate owner and they want to do a lot split, the city would want to condition the lot split to dedicate the necessary cross easements at that time. Or if there is another CUP with a future proposal when the city has a better handle on the layout of the whole site it's clearer for everybody what will or won't be needed as far as easements. Commissioner Dierich said you would also condition the lot split regarding a certain amount of pervious surface so the front lot would be a condition of the lot split. Mr. Roberts said correct. Commissioner Dierich said on page 26 of the staff report, number 6., it states the project engineer shall specify the use of a pick-up broom or vacuum sweeper for street cleaning and she asked how often that should be done? Mr. Kummer said the street should be cleaned or swept daily. That's what the city tries to do especially in the Kenwood area street project area. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -7- Acting chairperson Desai asked if the applicant could address the commission. Mr. Dick Gunderson, representing the applicant, addressed the commission. Mr. Gunderson commended the staff for the work they did for this proposal. Commissioner Trippler said he is very concerned about the customer's ability to get in and out of the proposed medical facility. He asked if there was a likelihood of having a connection with Prosperity Avenue to enter and exit the site? Mr. Gunderson said the property owner has no plans to develop the property to the west or continue the current drive from White Bear Avenue west to Prosperity. Comments from the engineer and Dan Soler were received and they stated that aligning the drive entrance to the medical facility with the drive entrance to the community center would be adequate. Commissioner Trippler said if the planning commission makes a recommendation for a right in and right out only and Ramsey County doesn't restripe White Bear Avenue how are the customers going to get into the site coming from the south and heading north? Mr. Gunderson said the customers would have to find another way to enter such as Prosperity and come through the back otherwise they would have to go around the block. If people can't drive across the yellow lines would that apply to the Maplewood Community Center and to the Ramsey County Courthouse property too? Commissioner Trippler said they shouldn't be exempt. Mr. Kummer said if it's illegal to turn left across a double yellow line, then yes, it would apply to the Maplewood Community Center as well. Mr. Gunderson said they would do whatever is recommended by the professionals. The intention is if this proposal is passed to begin construction later this fall. Acting chairperson Desai asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal to come forward and address the commission. Ms. Carole Lynne, 1723 Burke Avenue East, addressed the commission. She lives in this area and sees many potential traffic problems here. Prosperity, County Road B and White Bear Avenue all connect. Burke Avenue has been a shortcut for people to bypass the traffic lights which is already a safety concern for her. The cars speed and as you climb Burke Avenue you cannot see the end at White Sear Avenue. The homes on this street did not have children living there for 20 years and now there are children living here and she is concerned about the children's safety. Ms. Lynne said she envisions coming up Phalen Boulevard to Prosperity and turning on Burke Avenue and turning right into the clinic because people already drive this route. There are many pieces to this proposal that are problematic. She is afraid people are going to be rear ended because of the speed of traffic on White Bear Avenue. She sees three solutions here. One solution is to put a cul-de-sac at Burke Avenue so people can't use the street as a main thoroughfare, second, put a gate in that could open and close for emergency vehicles, third, making an entrance at Prosperity may help to keep cars off of Burke Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -8- Ms. Lynne said if you were in this neighborhood you would see what she sees. She said she has always had a wet basement and there is a problem with water runoff. Her house has sat on water for 20 years just like her neighbors. When she went to the architects meeting regarding moving the wetlands, everybody assured her that it would be okay to move the wetlands and that the water would run where it should. She said the Phalen Center thought that at one time as well and that did not work. The people telling her this are the people that would be at an advantage. She isn't an engineer but she wants people to know what it's like from her vantage point. Commissioner Trippler said he would recommend that she contact the Maplewood Police Department and let them know about the traffic problems on Burke Avenue and the speeding. They could send someone out there and monitor the traffic situation and hopefully something will change and help with the potential danger for the children and neighbors in the area. Ms. Lynne thanked Commissioner Trippler for the advice. Commissioner Yarwood asked how many trips per day the proposed clinic would generate because he did not see anything in the staff report regarding that. Both Mr. Roberts and Mr. Gunderson said they did not have that information available at this time. Commissioner Yarwood said Dan Soler must have had that information in order for him to make his recommendations. Mr. Roberts said Dan Soler may have made assumptions based on other clinics and the traffic they had generated based on square footage. His sense is no matter what the trips generated would be it would not be enough to overburden White Bear Avenue. The question is the traffic pattern the cars would take to get to the medical clinic. Commissioner Hess asked what the speed limit was on that stretch on White Bear Avenue? Mr. Kummer said the speed limit is 40 mph there and the speed limit lowers to 35 mph as you drive up the hill towards Larpenteur Avenue. Commissioner Hess said he drives that area a lot and wondered about the possibility of having a turn lane to help alleviate some of the congestion and with the speed. Mr. Roberts said Ramsey County has identified having a fifth lane on White Bear Avenue when it's reconstructed but that would be at least five years down the road. Until then there is any funding to pay for that to happen. Mr. Willard Frantz, 1750 Burke Avenue East, addressed the commission. He has no objection regarding the construction of the facility. He was concerned about the lighting of the parking lot, how the high the light poles would be, the hours the lights would be on, and the type of bulbs they would use. In the interest of safety he supports the previous speaker. When he leaves his house 95% of the time he drives west to Prosperity and north to County Road B and back to White Bear Avenue to catch the stop light. White Bear Avenue to Frost Avenue is a racetrack. The faster the cars can get to Frost Avenue the better they are until the light changes and they have to slam their brakes on. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -9- Mr. Frantz said the current two lane entrance to the Maplewood Community Center is a stop gap for traffic driving on White Bear Avenue. Why that entrance wasn't made into a three lane entrance he will never know. But now to put another two lane entrance on the opposite side of the street on White Bear Avenue is an accident waiting to happening. This should actually be an accident prevention site. He and his wife hear the accidents happening all the time following the sound of police cars and ambulances. Mr. Frantz said to plan for a turn lane five or more years down the road is "penny rich and dollar poor". In five years from now it will cost a lot more than it will to put it in now while the earth is being moved around and it would be in the interest of safety and should be taken care of now. Commissioner Dierich asked Mr. Frantz what he thought of putting a cul-de-sac in like what was suggested earlier? Mr. Frantz said he was in favor of it but he didn't think that would work because there isn't enough land to do that and he would be concerned about emergency vehicles being able to turn around and get in and out of the site. Mr. Roberts said the lighting is reviewed during the CDRB meeting tomorrow evening. The city code has a provision that the lights can be no taller than 25 feet in height, there cannot be any light spillage beyond their property, the bulbs and lenses have to be concealed as well and the applicant would have to submit those details in a detailed lighting plan before they can get a permit. Mr. Kummer said public works would support constructing a cul-de-sac at Burke Avenue and dead ending Burke Avenue at White Bear Avenue and obviously there has to be a place for snow removal and vehicle turn around but public works. That is something that would have to be planned ahead with the 2009 capital improvement project. Acting chairperson Desai asked if speed bumps had ever been considered for areas like this to help reduce speeding? Mr. Roberts said Chuck Ahl, Maplewood Public Works Director, has said they will not use speed bumps on a public street because of the issues it causes for snow plows. Acting chairperson Desai said he knows the University of Minnesota campus uses speed bumps to slow traffic down on their campus. Ms. Linda Hallibarton, 2138 Prosperity Avenue, addressed the commission. She has two concerns regarding this project. She thanked the planning commission for raising a lot of the issues the neighbors have had. The drainage is a big concern of hers. If you live there and you experience the water problem, you realize the water does not runoff into the field. She went out last Wednesday morning after the rain and took photos of the water, how long the water stood, where the water stood, and where the water runs, and this is a big problem. Her concern is as the land continues to be developed and the amount of impervious ground continues that this will exasperate the problem and the water table is going to get hirer and hirer. In the winter when the snow melts and then refreezes they have a natural skating rink. She said she is not convinced that these steps that have been raised are going to solve the drainage problems here. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -10- Ms. Hallibarton said the other issue is the traffic on Prosperity along with the other development offive single family homes to be built on Eldridge Fields. We need to do something to control the traffic here. She said she can't tell you the number of people that run the stop signs at County Road B at Prosperity Avenue, including officials from the City of Maplewood. There are major traffic concerns here and as this corridor continues to be developed these two problems have to be addressed and are only going to get worse. She recommended paying for them at the get go because they will be less expensive to take care of now rather than waiting. Commissioner Trippler said he assumed if he requested an outlet on Prosperity Avenue Ms. Hallibarton and the neighbors would not be happy? Ms. Hallibarton said she would not be happy, however, they say that it's a utility road in and out to the buildings that are there. She said she is a realist and it's not realistic that there's only going to be one entrance on White Bear Avenue. The overall traffic condition needs to be looked at, considerations need to be made and solutions proposed to limit the possibility of something negative happening. Commissioner Hess asked if Ms. Hallibarton also has water problems in her basement? Ms. Hallibarton said her home is a split level and doesn't have a full basement. She is confident one of the reasons there is no full basement here is because of the water problems and continuing standing water in the yards. The neighbors told her that the previous owner of her house had water problems before she bought the property 8 years ago. There had been additional grading and build up that was done before she bought the house and she assumed it was a preventive measure to prevent further water problems in the house. Acting chairperson Desai closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hess said he thought he read the engineering report stated the storm water was adequately dealt with but we are hearing so much about the ponding on the properties? He said he thinks we need to go a little further than just "adequate" and this needs further investigative work done to alleviate the water runoff problems. Mr. Roberts said when Erin Laberee from engineering was reviewing the Eldridge Fields proposal the engineers were going to study the culverts and ditches along Prosperity regarding drainage. As testified by the neighbors during the Eldridge Fields project the city is aware of the drainage problems along Prosperity. Staff believes this project itself is not going to change the drainage that is uphill here. They may be able to tie into the Eldridge Fields project to help with these problems but this would have to be confirmed before this goes to the city council. The main thing is that city doesn't want these continuing problems to continue. He said he can't imagine that if there is proper ponding here that it would affect how the ditches of Prosperity are going to drain, that tie into the Eldridge Field project. Mr. Kummer said the ditch and culvert system that runs along Prosperity is on the west side of the property. This development is low land of what's occurring on the north side of Burke Avenue. There is a high water table there anyway. He doesn't think this project is going to be the "solution" to the problem. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -11- Mr. Kummer said it's a combination of public improvement projects coming up on Burke Avenue and anything that is going to happen upstream on the north side of County Road B and he doesn't think this is going to resolve all the issues the neighbors to the north have at this point. He said he could not verify if there had been a drainage study done as part of the Eldridge Field project. Commissioner Pearson said the Maplewood Community Center has existed a long time already and nothing has been done about the double yellow line on White Bear Avenue so he doesn't have a lot of confidence that something will be changed anytime soon. If you go north on White Bear Avenue to Rainbow foods, despite the fact there is a no left turn sign and you are only supposed to go right out people still turn left onto White Bear Avenue which is known as a suicide turn lane because of the high traffic there. Driving into the Hostess bakery store you would have to cross the double yellow line too. He would think the developer would want to know whether the water table is above or below frost level and what kind of footings they would have to have to support the building but the testing isn't available to give that information and for that reason he is not particularly favorable of this. Commissioner Trippler said regarding the Eldridge Fields project, when the John Glenn school developed the playgrounds that are located on the west side that was a wetland that they filled in to make the soccer and ball fields and that changed the drainage pattern for the whole area and may be what caused the ponding to occur in the area. The engineers discussed diverting the stormwater in the area. This particular area is so far below where the other people are having their drainage problems that he doesn't see how this particular development will make a positive impact on the current drainage problems the neighbors are having. His general concern is the traffic in the area which he thinks is a nightmare waiting to happen. Mr. Gunderson was given permission to address the commission again. Mr. Gunderson said there are 17 soil borings that were taken on the site so they are aware of the water table and the soils. They have a civil engineer and a structural engineer for the development. The east quarter of the property had quite a bit of peat or organic soils that need to be removed and have good soils brought in and the soils improve as you move to the west. Commissioner Pearson asked if the developer could submit a soils report to him. Mr. Gunderson said he believed they provided a soils report to the city as part of the application but they could get a copy of it for Commissioner Pearson. Commissioner Yarwood asked if Mr. Gunderson had any information regarding how many trips per day this building would generate? Mr. Gunderson said Dan Soler's comments indicated that a traffic study was not needed at this point. Commissioner Yarwood said he assumed the developer would have some idea of how many trips this building would generate. Mr. Gunderson said he represents the owner and as part of the development there is another person who is not present this evening that would have that information. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -12- Mr. Roberts said that is information the city would like to have before this goes to the city council. Commissioner Trippler asked how the planning commissioners felt regarding a recommendation for a right in and right out only with an outlet of the parking lot onto Prosperity and or asking Ramsey County to restripe this part of White Bear Avenue? Commissioner Hess said he thought that made sense also. Acting chairperson Desai asked if Commissioner Trippler proposed to have a single stripe painted on White Bear Avenue which would allow cars to turn left and drive north out of the parking lot? Commissioner Trippler said no right in and right out. We would still have to deal with the cars coming north. Commissioner Pearson said they shouldn't have to break the law to enter the lot and many of customers visiting the clinics are elderly. Commissioner Trippler said if we don't have an entrance on Prosperity Avenue and there is a right in and right out then we have to have White Bear Avenue restriped. If we make them have an entrance onto Prosperity Avenue then he doesn't think it's as important to have the restriping because you have offered the clients an alternative rather than struggling to get on and off of White Bear Avenue they could use Prosperity Avenue. Acting chairperson Desai said that is going to increase traffic onto Prosperity Avenue and is that road able to carry that load? Commissioner Trippler asked what type of road Prosperity Avenue is? Mr. Roberts said Prosperity Avenue has been identified as a collector street. He's sure the neighbors have determined the road is over utilized already. Commissioner Dierich said she thinks the engineering staff should study closing off Burke Avenue on White Bear Avenue and the feasibility of that. Mr. Roberts said that could be made as a separate motion. Commissioner Yarwood said he would support the idea of a right in and right out but he doesn't support restriping White Bear Avenue he would rather not have cars stopping there because of the traffic. Commissioner Trippler said the conditions should say interim community development director since the city doesn't have a community development director right now. Mr. Roberts said he would change the conditions to read interim community development director Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07 -06 -13- Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for the vacant property north of 2055 White Bear Avenue. This approval is for a medical clinic in an M1 (light manufacturing) district that would be within 350 feet of residential property. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: (additions are underlined and deletions are stricken.) 1. All construction shall follow the site plan that the city has date-stamped July 17, 2006. The interim community development director may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started, or the proposed use utilized, within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. All parking-lot lights must have concealed bulbs and lenses so as not to shine into neighbors' windows. This lighting must not give off more light than a typical residential wall or yard light. Light-intensity maximums must meet code requirements. 5. Provide a revised landscaping plan that has an evenly spaced/staggered double row of evergreens along the north property line where the trees are spaced no more than 10 feet on center in each planted row. The applicant shall also revise the landscaping plan to provide 14 trees spaced at 30 feet on center along the White Bear Avenue frontage between the entrance drive and the north lot line. There shall also be two trees planted south of the entrance drive. 6. The grading of the site to the west is not allowed in order to prevent problems resulting from difficulty with turf restoration. Grading shall be limited to that necessary to blend grades between the proposed site and the remaining undeveloped land to the west. 7. The applicant shall comply with all requirements stated in Steve Kummer's engineering report dated July 28, 2006. 8. Prior to getting a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate a uniform 65 feet of roadway easement along the entire property frontage for future street widening. This shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. 9. The developer shall make a riqht in and riqht out onlv with an outlet of the parkinq lot on Prosperitv Avenue. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Commissioner Dierich moved to recommend a separate motion to direct the city enqineerinq staff to study the feasibility of c10sinq Burke Avenue off at White Bear Avenue. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -14- The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 28, 2006. c. Conditional Use Permit Revision - Hill Murray School (2625 Larpenteur Avenue) (8:27 - 8:36 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Rafferty, Rafferty, Tollefson, Lindeke Architects, representing Hill-Murray School, is requesting city approval of the following: 1. Revisions to the conditional use permit (CUP). They are proposing changes to the approved plans for the school. The city code requires a CUP for schools. 2. Design approval for an addition to the east side of the field house on the school. This includes the architectural, site and landscape plans for the project. Specifically, they want to: 1. Put a 31 ,500-square-foot addition onto the east side of the field house for additional gym and locker room space. 2. Renovate and remodel the interior of the existing athletics building. On November 13, 2001, the city council approved a CUP revision and the design plans for an addition for the school. This revision was for plans for an addition on the west side of the school that included a chapel and a student entrance. Acting chairperson Desai asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Joe Peskeze, Hill Murray, 2625 Larpenteur Avenue East, addressed the commission. The addition of this facility is something the school direly needs. When the school first opened in the early 1970's when the schools merged Archbishop Murray and Hill high school together there was no Title 9 so there were only boys' sports so they built the current field house. Now there are equal sports for boys and girls and they need more facilities. Mr. Peskeze said in the late 1980's they added a middle school which has boys and girls sports so for many years they have used a facility that was designed just for the boys trying to keep equal practice and playing times. As a result the parents are picking kids up late at night because of the practice times. There is a real emphasis on the physical curriculum as well as meeting the needs of the programs they offer at Hill Murray School. Mr. Craig Rafferty, the architect working with Hill MUITaywith Rafferty, Rafferty, Tollefson, Lindeke Architects, addressed the commission. The planning commission didn't have any questions for him at this time. Acting chairperson Desai asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal to come forward and address the commission. Nobody came forward. Acting chairperson Desai closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -15- Commissioner Pearson moved to adopt the resolution on pages 30-32 of the staff report. This resolution approves revisions for the conditional use permit for Hill-Murray school and athletic facilities at 2625 Larpenteur Avenue East. The city bases this approval on the findings required by ordinance. This approval is subject to conditions of approval adopted by the city council on November 13, 2001 , subject to the following revisions (Deletions are crossed out and additions are underlined): 1. All construction shall follow the plans as noted below: a. For the athletic fields, follow the plans date-stamped March 6, 1998. b. For the school and parking lot addition, follow the plans date-stamped May 19, 1999. c. For the chapel addition, follow the plans date-stamped October 1, 2001. d. Forthe field house. follow the plans dated June 28. 2006. These plans shall meet all the conditions and chanQes required bv the citv enQineerinQ department. The interim director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction for the chapel field house addition must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit revision shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit annually to monitor the traffic and parking situations related to the use of the athletic fields. 4. Any new lights shall be installed to meet the city code. This requires that they be screened or aimed so they do not cause any light-glare problems on streets or residential properties. 5. Post and maintain signs on the edge of the wetland-protection buffer prohibiting any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. Wetland buffer signs in the mowed area shall be placed at the edge of the lawn. 6. That portion of the proposed walking/running path that is within 50 feet of the wetland shall be built with a pervious material. 7. Ensure that all bleachers and dugouts are at least 30 feet from the Sterling Street and Larpenteur Avenue right-of-ways. 8. The city may require the applicant to plant 30 native species of trees for screening between the playing fields and the homes on Knoll Circle, as may be determined at a future hearing on the conditional use permit. 9. The school shall prepare for city approval a turf management plan for the athletic fields. This plan shall include the mowing, watering and fertilizing practices that the school will follow in the care of their athletic fields and grounds. The school shall prepare and follow the plan so the practices will minimize the impact of the storm water run off on the nearby wetlands. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -16- 10. Submit a grading and drainage plan for watershed district approval to provide sedimentation control at the storm water discharge point before it dumps into the south wetland area. 11. Tho school shall swoeJ3 and rostriJ3e tho west pmkiRg lot bofore August 1 a, 2002. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 28, 2006. d. Cottagewood Town houses (2666 Highwood Avenue) CUP for PUD, Preliminary Plat (8:28 -10:08 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Phil Soby is proposing to build 15 detached town houses in a development called Cottagewood. It would be a 3.71-acre site on the south side of Highwood Avenue, east of Dennis Street. The applicant's statement is shown on page 17 of the staff report and the maps are on pages 18-27 in the staff report. A homeowner's association would own and maintain the common areas. The revised PUD plans have three fewer units for the site than the city approved in 2003. While many of the neighbors would prefer no or little development of the property, the property owner has the right to develop and use his land. The current proposal preserves many of the natural features on the site while giving the owner the opportunity to develop the site. This balance is something the city should strive for with every development. Mr. Roberts said staff received a tree plan for this proposal after the packet was sent out and he distributed it to the planning commission. He said the plan shows 33 trees but the code is going to require at least 37 trees and in fact staff expects even more trees will be required for this site. The applicant has not yet applied for design review board approval. The applicant wants to get the preliminary plat or PUD revision approved first and then will go through the design process. Commissioner Trippler said he noticed the engineering report was done by Michael Thompson but he asked Mr. Kummer if he understood what was being asked on page 30, number 3.? Mr. Kummer said he thought the statement referred to the migration of the groundwater. Commissioner Trippler said he understood that but it didn't seem like the engineer was requiring the developer to make any changes and it seemed like the engineer was just pointing things out. Mr. Kummer and Mr. Roberts thought the engineer was simply pointing some things out as a means of information. Commissioner Dierich said she had a lot of trouble approving this development in 2003 when it came before the planning commission and she had even done a petition to keep the development from happening in this location. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07 -06 -17- Commissioner Dierich said she is happier with this proposal but still felt this was an inappropriate development here for the amount of noise. the size of the lots, the configuration, the traffic, the grading and drainage issues, and there are too many houses packed into a small space. Her understanding of a CUP is that it goes with a use or a building and to her knowledge this is the first time the city has had a CUP that goes with raw land. Mr. Roberts said actually a CUP runs with the property. Commissioner Dierich said she hasn't seen that situation before she has only seen a CUP go with the building or a use and not with raw land. This land is still zoned Farm but it's guided as R-3 but she didn't see that we made a zoning change. Mr. Roberts said the zoning map identifies this as a PUD that was approved in 2003. Commissioner Dierich said keeping that in mind the commission doesn't have to do anything different at this point. With the CUP the planning commission can recommend "what" can go here. Mr. Roberts said correct. Commissioner Dierich asked what the conservation easement is supposed to accomplish since all that is there is buckthorn and box elder so what are we conserving? Mr. Roberts said when it's recorded and put on the property records it prevents a developer from coming in later asking for a lot split and extending the cul-de-sac further down so it prevents further development. Commissioner Dierich said she assumed this area would be mass graded and she asked if it would be mass graded enough so there could be a berm pushed up to block some of the freeway noise? Mr. Roberts said he assumed that would be possible assuming the drainage could be handled correctly. Mr. Kummer said the drainage already goes to the north so it would probably be possible to have a berm there to block the noise. Commissioner Dierich said when she walked the land this evening she jiggled her keys by her shoulder and she could not hear the keys jiggling because of the noise of the freeway and that was at 6:00 p.m. She didn't see a lot of specifics in this project and didn't see a traffic study request or how they are going to mitigate noise and the noise has gotten worse since the planning commission reviewed the proposal in 2003. Something has to be done to address the noise here, it can't be ignored. Regarding the house to the west, the lot looks to be maybe five feet higher then the property to the east and she didn't see an existing retaining wall or anything on the plan to address that drop. She asked how that would be addressed? Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07 -06 -18- Mr. Roberts said it's his understanding the pond will be higher and there would be 3 to 1 slopes on the sides of the pond and they will not be grading off site so they will have to make the slopes work with the site and within the pond. They are not planning for a retaining wall to make that pond work. Mr. Kummer said according to the large scale plans they are showing a bottom floor walkout for units 5,6, and 7 and there is a nine foot drop between the top floor and the basement floor on the east side of the new street. The existing elevation is shown at 992 and the finished floor elevation on the walkout is fairly consistent. He thinks they would be able to make up the grade in the backyard to match the neighbors property on the east side. Commissioner Dierich said she likes the idea of a one story unit but you don't accomplish much giving each unit a small lot which is worthless. She would rather see attached town homes and have the units built as close to Highwood Avenue moving them as far away from the freeway as possible because of the noise level. Mr. Roberts said he believes the applicant would say the market is for detached town homes. Commissioner Dierich said she's sure the developer would say that too but she is concerned about the noise mitigation, the amount of blacktop and the conservation easement and doesn't feel this plan accomplishes much by having detached single town homes. During the last proposal for this area she was concerned about the height of the town homes being more than one story in height. Commissioner Pearson said regarding the two soil borings done in the drainage easement areas he wondered if the third soil boring was done in the area of the retaining wall? He asked how high the retaining wall on the west side of the property is? Mr. Kummer said there doesn't appear to be a soil boring done near the retaining wall location to the west side of the property. It appears the retaining wall height ranges from 6 inches to as high as 3% feet tall. A retaining wall taller than four feet in height would require a building permit, a geo-grid and be an engineered retaining wall. Mr. Roberts pointed out on the plans where four identified locations of soil borings were done. Commissioner Trippler asked what it meant on page 13, number 11.? Mr. Roberts said this is proposed at 15 lots and let's say for example they only wanted to plat the north half of the property, they could do the development in phases. Commissioner Trippler said on page 2, under traffic considerations, it says in 2001 Highwood Avenue near the site averaged 2,450 vehicle trips per day and Century Avenue near Highwood Avenue averaged 2,600 vehicle trips per day and he believes the number of vehicle trips has increased. Mr. Roberts said he would check but wasn't sure there were updated traffic counts on Highwood Avenue. Commissioner Trippler asked what Highwood Avenue was rated as? Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -19- Mr. Roberts said he wasn't sure but he thought Highwood Avenue was rated as a "collector" street, which typically has 6,000 vehicle trips per day. But he would have to check further to be sure. Commissioner Dierich said in 2001 the New Century development was just being developed so not all of the homes were done yet so the traffic was a lot less. Mr. Roberts said just for the commission's information the New Century development Commissioner Dierich is referring to was approved for 178 units and about 150 units are done now. Commissioner Trippler said on page 4, in the first paragraph, it states the town house nearest to the freeway is 320 feet from the freeway right-of-way. Because of this large distance, the developer has told staff that the does not expect the noise from the freeway to be a factor with the proposed plan. He said to him that is like being next door and unless the developer can show us he is confident enough to live here despite the freeway noise and could show us a purchase agreement the planning commission should require a noise study be done before approving this proposal. Mr. Roberts said on page 8, item 5. d. it states Provide the city with verification that the town houses on the proposed site plan will meet the state's noise standards. This shall be with a study, testing or other documentation. If the noise on this site is a factor, then the contractor will have to build the town houses so that they can meet the noise standards. This may be done with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound-deadening construction methods. The developer shall provide the city with this documentation before the city will issue a building permit for the town houses. Commissioner Yarwood said he lived within 1,000 feet from an interstate and he knows the noise is a factor and at 320 feet from an interstate he is positive it will be a factor. There should be noise mitigation factored into this property such as sound protection measures in the construction of the town homes along with berms and landscaping because noise will definitely be an impact. Acting chairperson Desai asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Kip Johnson, Project Engineer with ACA Engineering, addressed the commission. He said is available for technical questions. Commissioner Trippler said the retaining wall on the northwestern edge between units 12-15 concerns him and he asked what that would entail and if there had been soil borings done to establish the soil stability? Mr. Johnson said soil borings had been done but they didn't modify the grading plan in that location to minimize the height of the retaining wall. Originally the submittal showed a significantly higher retaining wall but those first four lots are going to be a tuck under type lots where the back of the lot sits six to eight feet higher than the front of the lot so that brought the back of the grade up closer to the existing grade so there is not a significant wall there. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -20- Mr. Phil Soby, applicant with Lauren & Co. Development, addressed the commission. He said he is available for any questions. Commissioner Hess asked what type of noise mitigation you plan on using? Mr. Soby said they haven't looked at ways to mitigate noise yet so he said he should not be quoted as saying anything about the level of noise. They will take necessary measures when the time comes, they just haven't gotten to that point yet. The platting, zoning and density are the issues he wanted to handle first. If there are construction standards that need to be increased because of noise they will look at all the concerns then. Commissioner Dierich said she understands the use of construction standards to help with noise issues but we are running into several developments where the level of noise is so bad that people can't use their backyards. The developer must have some idea of what he will do to help mitigate the noise concerns if he is planning on having walkout lots and decks? Mr. So by said through market research they have found that people don't really care about the use of the backyard, people want a smaller home without the responsibility of snow removal and yard work, and they don't want to share a common wall and want to live independently. The yard is not as important to them in terms of size, people just want a lawn that is kept up nice and they are not so much concerned about the use of the yard as you would be living in a single family home development. Commissioner Dierich asked who they are marketing these homes to? Is it a specific age group or demographic? Mr. Soby said they do not want to omit any potential buyers and therefore, have not labeled these homes but they feel it would probably be an active adult in pre-retirement stage or retired and it could be called a senior living neighborhood. Based on the overall design and the concept of the maintenance free, detached unit with a homeowner's association these homes would be suitable for "active" seniors. Commissioner Dierich said given the fact that this proposal would be sitting across the street from a development that can't finish developing because the developer can't sell the units and also across the street from an older development of partially detached partially attached town homes which on a routine basis has 10-14 "for sale" signs in front of it, are you planning on building this development in phases or all at once? Mr. Soby said they think this product is different enough to not be in direct competition with any other housing unit that surrounds it and it would be done in one phase. Ironically they discussed this proposal with the developer of the town homes in New Century. The people from the New Century development said they had heard over and over again that people were looking for one level living and if the New Century development had they offered one level living they would not be in the position that they are in now and things would have gone much smoother. Commissioner Dierich applauded the applicant for thinking and researching things ahead of time. She would strongly encourage the applicant to put more greenery and berming in and use substantial noise mitigation here. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -21- Commissioner Yarwood asked what the estimated asking price would be for these units? Mr. Soby said they will offer a variety of different add on options but they will be priced in the high $200,000 range to the high $300,000 range and they don't want the prices to be too high. If it is geared toward an active adult or soon to retire person, they may live close already and are looking to move into a maintenance free home. The person may already have their home paid for after living there for many years and would have to put little money back into purchasing one of these units to move into something that is brand new and not need things fixed or replaced. Ms. Sharon Soby, realtor and wife of the applicant, addressed the commission. She can tell you overwhelmingly that baby boomers are saying they don't want to live in attached living, they want maintenance free, smaller, one level living, and it has to be affordable. They want to live close to where their kids and grandchildren are and they often depend on their loved ones to help take care of them. She already knows five people that have homes that are paid for free and clear, have a small nest egg to help pay for expenses and overages and would be able to pay cash for one of these units and may be interested in this particular one level living in this location in Maplewood. As a realtor sitting in models or homes for open houses she hears over and over from people that are either widowed, are seniors, retired or are retiring soon that they want one level living without common walls and would like to have small planters to plant their flowers. People have lived independently all these years and do not want to share walls with anyone and they want their privacy. These units are going to go quickly no matter how close these would be to the freeway because people want to stay in the metro area. Laurie Simon, 1060 Dennis Street South, addressed the commission. Her concern is regarding the erosion control and the runoff that could affect her property because they have spent thousands of dollars fixing up their yard. They have had to replace their retaining wall because of the eight foot drop in their backyard. There are other homes on the block that have had to replace their retaining walls. She is concerned about the ponding and this development proposal. Chris Gierke, 2660 Highwood Avenue East, addressed the commission. He knows Ken Roberts has worked very hard with the previous land owners and it was 3 years ago and now there is another new owner proposing another development. He knows there are not a lot of neighbors in the audience here to speak. The previous proposal had double frontage and was probably more of a concern for them. He praised the applicant for having neighborhood meetings, even though the neighbors have opposed the plan. The applicant provided information to the neighbors and in turn the neighbors could pass information onto him. He said he spoke to Chuck Ahl about bringing the sanitary sewer closer to his property because he will be required to connect to the city sewer. Mr. Kummer and Mr. Roberts said the sanitary sewer will be stubbed in and the neighbors would have to be connected to the city sewer within one year after it becomes available. Mr. Kummer said the grade to the east of Mr. Gierke's property is about 3% feet lower at its lowest point. The actual top of the wall elevation shown on these plans will match the grade of his property on top and will come down into the site. Mr. Gierke asked if there was a consideration to replant and conserve trees in those backyards. He said he is also a builder and knows it's hard to conserve trees during the construction. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -22- Mr. Roberts said that is a detail the city engineering department will have to work out with the developer's engineers. His sense is that most of the site will get graded and the developer will have to be careful not to damage the roots of the trees and the trees on the neighbor's property. Mr. Gierke said he used to live at 1024 Dennis Street South and after his divorce he moved into this home and has lived here for about 1 Yo years now so he knows how loud it is. He said you can't use your backyard and you can't have your windows open at night because you can't sleep because of the freeway noise. He likes this plan and it's a much better than the previous plan and there are not a lot of neighbors who are opposing the plan. He agrees that there is a market for one level living and if he got back into new construction as a builder he would try to build one level detached homes. He said he would like to see some renderings of the homes they are proposing. Mr. Soby handed out preliminary colored renderings to Mr. Gierke and to the planning commission members. Staff placed a preliminary color rendering on the overhead. Marguerite Merz, 2684 Highwood Avenue East, addressed the commission. She lives to the east of this proposal. She said after speaking to Ken Roberts she did some research on her own and spoke to several different people from different state agencies who answered questions that she had. One representative told her that if the land below you is eroding it is going to cause your land to erode more because it widens out and washes away. This is a concern of hers. Her understanding from the last development proposal was that the developer was going to pay for sewer and water to extend to this neighborhood. She said she never heard she would be "required" to connect to the city sewer system so this is news to her. She only heard it would be paid for and it would be available if she wanted to connect to it. She purchased a new septic and drain field in the last couple of years so it would be disappointing to her if it were "mandatory" after she spent her own money for a new septic and drain field. Mr. Roberts said city code requires you connect to the city sewer, however as part of the public improvement project Ms. Merz could ask for a waiver or time delay and ultimately it would be up to the city council to grant it or not to grant it. Ms. Merz said she lives down hill from this property so her property will not drain into the proposed property. She said there is 13 feet from the back of the proposed homes to the property line. She had her son mark off 13 feet in order to do a visual presentation. She said she thought there would be a berm on the east side because the freeway is also located on the east. Mr. Roberts said the west side property would have tuck under units and the east side units would be walk-out units so those would have basements. The berm wound be on the south side around the cul-de-sac and the theory would be to block the noise going up the hill from the freeway. Ms. Merz said these units would be 13 feet apart and you can't stand outside in your yard here and hear each other speak. She asked what these people are going to do with the noise level especially after you cut down 90% of the trees. (In the back ground her son said that he has to put cotton in his ears to sleep because of the freeway noise.) If you put a tree between the units at 13 feet apart the trees still need room to spread out. She said she has a small magnolia tree on her property and that needs 25 feet to spread out and you have to allow for the roots and the branches to spread out. Otherwise you have to have small conifers planted here because she can't see how the trees will have room to spread out. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -23- Ms. Merz said she spoke to Gertens about the ponds and the rainwater gardens. The plans were so small and microscopic she could not read them so she spoke to Mr. Roberts who was gracious enough to make larger plans. That may be another reason the neighbors are not here because the plans were so small they did not know what was going on here. Minnesota Mosquito Control said the kind of mosquito that causes disease only needs the size of a candy wrapper of water to lay eggs. If these rainwater gardens would be dry after a rain 24 hours later, Gertens says that rainwater gardens with plants in them have to be water loving plants so it can't be dry or the plants would die. Gertens said if we had a drought like we have had you would have to water the rainwater garden in order to keep the plants alive so that means in order to survive the rainwater garden must be moist at all times. She was told these rainwater gardens would be two to three feet deep and 15 X 7 feet wide. There will be water runoff from the roofs and driveways so the rainwater gardens would be moist all the time therefore, mosquitoes would breed. The ponds she is referring to will run the whole length of her yard and she has a picnic table on the west side of her property. Ms. Merz said recently her son was working on some wood in that particular area of her yard after dark and he got several mosquito bites and ended up with a staph infection from the bites and she had to take him to the emergency room. She said she already has a problem with mosquitoes and this development is only going to increase the mosquito problem. She doesn't like the idea of rainwater ponds being so close to her picnic table. It sounds like these ponds will be pretty deep as well. The state said these ponds fill in with silt very quickly. They told her in a few years you will have cattails, ducks, nesting birds, and it will not drain straight down because of the silt. Mr. Roberts said it is now a standard condition with all developments with ponds that the developer enter into a maintenance agreement with the city engineering department regarding the maintenance of the ponds that they keep the ponds cleaned out so they function and not fill in with silt. If this is approved, that will remain as a storm water pond and not become a wetland with cattails. Ms. Merz asked how they would keep the pond cleaned out? Mr. Roberts said they would use a backhoe. Ms. Merz said you are telling everyone publicly that the city will make the developer use a backhoe or the city will backhoe the pond and charge the developer for the work? Mr. Roberts said whatever it takes. Sometimes the developer or the homeowner association takes care of it but the pond has to be maintained for drainage so if it fills in it needs to be cleaned out. Ms. Merz asked how someone knows if the pond fills up? Mr. Roberts said public works has staff that inspects ponds and storm water systems to make sure they are functioning. A neighbor may call the city and say there looks to be a problem. Ms. Merz asked if algae would signify a problem? Mr. Kummer said there is usually standing water and the water should draw down into the soils below it. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -24- Ms. Merz asked why the pond needs to be so deep if it is supposed to drain well below her basement level? Mr. Roberts said if there is a 12-inch rain the pond needs to be large enough to take on all that water in a short amount of time. Ms. Merz said her understanding is with all the flooding around the country insurance companies do not pay for water runoff and she was wondering if the city would financially take care of her house if there was flooding damage from this proposal? Mr. Roberts said no. Ms. Merz said if the city is planning to approve this proposal and she has a flooding problem, who would she blame for it? Mr. Roberts said that is when the lawyers would become involved because it has been the city's policy not to promise or guarantee anything like that because sometimes there are conditions out of the city's control. Ms. Merz said the city can't guarantee that she will never have flooding problems from this development? Mr. Roberts said he has learned to say you can never say "never". Things do happen such as if there were two ten inch rain falls in a few days everyone would be flooded then there would be a lot of finger pointing. Ms. Merz asked if the city would reconsider having this pond next to her basement if you are aware there could be a problem. Mr. Kummer said the city engineering staff designs ponds to certain standards and the city cannot design ponds for a 12-inch storm. A typical design standard for a pond is a 6-inch rainfall in 24 hours which is in a 100-year return period. Which basically means a 6-inch rainfall event has a 1 % chance of happening in a 1 OO-year period. Ms. Merz asked when and where that fact came from? Mr. Kummer said that is an engineering standard practice used currently in the State of Minnesota and comes from the National Weather Service. Ms. Merz said we are living in a changing climate where the 1 OO-year rains are going to be more frequent. We are having crazy weather now, there are terrible storms and heat waves now and she doesn't believe there will be 100-year rain statistics anymore because a standard practice isn't "standard" anymore. She said she doesn't have a drain in her basement and if the city cannot guarantee that this pond will not flood her basement, she doesn't think it should be done. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07 -06 -25- Mr. Kummer said the pond is designed to overflow to Highwood Avenue if there should happen to be any problems with the pond itself. If it's normal drainage measures should happen to fail during a large rainstorm there is an outflow to the street. The essential low point of the pond will dump onto Highwood Avenue before it goes onto your property. Ms. Merz said this property is not flat. This is a steep hill that she lives on and if the water runs off the property towards her house it would not run away from her house. There is pooling of water that occurs there now. She said she lives in a 100-year old house and there is no drain in the basement so if the city can't guarantee flooding won't occur she would like the plan to have a pond next to her property reconsidered. She said it says on the plans that a homeowner's association will pay for the upkeep of the property so the developer will not be responsible. If the units aren't sold immediately who will pay the homeowner association fees? Has the developer's wife brought these people who she says are interested in buying one of these units onto the property itself and jingled her car keys next to their ears like Commissioner Dierich did? That way they would see how loud it really is here, that may change their mind. She said she spoke to people on Dennis Street South and people mentioned to her that they can't sleep at night because of the freeway noise. People ask "why don't you move then if you can't sleep", but people put their hard earned money into living in a home and don't want to up and move. She said she heard there is a state law that city's are required to notify people of certain levels of noise and she isn't sure how the city is going to alert people regarding the level of noise but it is a "requirement" to notify people. Ms. Merz said you have to consider the noise that people would have to live with besides just the taxes that would come into the city and the county or the money the developer would make. People aren't going to be too happy with the noise level once they are living here and they will be calling the city to complain and asking the city to do something about the noise. She said she thought a tall concrete wall to block the noise from the freeway would be something great to have here. Mr. Roberts said nobody is debating that noise is an issue. Ms. Merz reiterated the problems with having rainwater ponds and the problems with the mosquito breeding potential. Acting chairperson Desai said the same issues have been repeated over and over again by Ms. Merz and the planning commission has taken all the comments into consideration. He asked Ms. Merz to only bring up new issues or concerns. Ms. Merz said the New Century development has taken over 5 years to finish the townhomes across the street and they are still not done yet. She said she called the city to ask if there was a time limit to complete a project because it has already taken 5 years and then on Saturday's there are workers pounding and making a lot of noise that the neighbors have to listen to. The city said there is no time limit that the developer has to finish a development. Now this developer says he would build these units in one phase but he is saying what he "hopes" to accomplish and what you on the commission want to hear but there are no "guarantees". The developer says the roadways, green spaces, rainwater gardens and ponds will be privately maintained by the homeowner's association and not by the developer. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -26- Ms. Merz said this seems to be a large load to put on the homeowner's association if all the units are not built or sold. The developer said he hopes to have immediate occupancy but that's the same thing that the developer for the New Century development thought and that hasn't happened yet. Acting chairperson Desai said these are issues between the developer and the homeowner's association and there is no action that the planning commission can take to prevent these things from happening. Mr. Roberts said typically a homeowner's association does not take over a development until it's 60-70% built and the developer maintains control until it's handed over to the homeowner's association. Ms. Merz asked if this is done by law? Mr. Roberts said each developer does things differently. Ms. Merz said if the developer decides to take off then it would be up to the city to get the homeowner's association to take care of things? Mr. Roberts said correct. Ms. Merz said the state said when there are multiple runoff areas such as from roofs and driveways it creates a swirling water affect and she doesn't want to be downhill of the runoff especially because she doesn't have a drain in her basement and she doesn't have the money to fix problems that would occur. She said she would be one of the people living in one of these townhome units if she "chose" to but she is in her current house because she loves living in it. She thinks this development is "too much" for this small area of land and it's too close to the freeway. There needs to be more green space and a smaller number of homes with good noise protection. Commissioner Yarwood asked that only new issues that have not been raised already be discussed. Ryan Merz, 2684 Highwood Avenue East, addressed the commission. Acting chairperson Desai asked that things not be repeated because the planning commission has already heard things repeated over and over again and the commission would like to hear only "new" issues because Ms. Merz had already spoken a long time. (1 hour) Mr. Merz started talking about the rainwater gardens all over again. He also brought up the mosquitoes again and the life cycle of a mosquito. (So there was nothing new brought up for the commission to hear). Ms. Merz added there are 1 OO-year old oak trees on the rear of the property that are not on the property in question. She wants to make sure the large trees and the roots along the property lines are not damaged or killed. Acting chairperson Desai closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -27- Commissioner Trippler said as a planning commissioner he thinks this proposal is like signing a "blank check" because there are many things missing from this proposal compared to what the planning commission normally reviews. The staff report states the applicant will apply to the city for final plat and design approval including architectural and landscape plans. He said when the city approves a CUP on a PUD it provides a lot of flexibility, which is a good thing, but he feels while providing flexibility the decisions are then put on the planning commission and community design review board to ensure that what they are allowing is going to be a benefit to the city. With this particular proposal there are too many "unknowns" at this point for him to feel comfortable. He asked Mr. Roberts if this is an unusual or usual predicament to be for a proposal because to him this is very unusual. Mr. Roberts asked if Commissioner Trippler felt this was unusual because the city does not have a CDRB application yet? CommissionerTrippler said there just seem to be a lot of unanswered things thatthe commission is not able to look at such as what the structures would look like, where the units would be placed on each of the parcels, and questions about the retaining walls as well as other things. Mr. Roberts said the things that are unknown are issues for the CDRB which are the final landscape plans and the design of the buildings. The engineering details and the retaining walls are issues he thought the engineers from both sides had worked out already. For most of the proposals the city would have both the PC and CDRB applications for but in this case the developer wanted to make sure he had a "project" before he spent the money and the time developing the full architectural and landscaping plans. These items are not required with a plat so they are not required with a PUD. Are they nice and are they helpful, yes. The last proposal that was reviewed in 2003 didn't have that information either and the city did not require them. This is really a land use decision. If you as a planning commission need more information in order to make a final decision than the commission will have to vote accordingly but staff did not think it was necessary to have a complete application in order to make a decision. Commissioner Yarwood moved to approve the resolution starting on page 46 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit revision for a planned unit development for the property at 2666 Highwood Avenue to be known as Cottagewood. This site is on the south side of Highwood Avenue, east of Dennis Street. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: (additions are underlined and deletions are stricken). 1. All construction shall follow the plans for.w 15 detached town houses as approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Interim Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -28- (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the main driveway, then it must be at least 28 feet wide. However, widening of the driveway must not lessen the side setback of the driveway from the east property line. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. Also, review and possibly revise the parking spaces and the turn-around area at the south end of the site to maximize the number of trees to be saved and to minimize the amount of hard surface area. (4) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design standards. (5) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping and protecting as many of the large trees in the undisturbed area south of the town houses and parking areas. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated July 28, 2006. These shall include: a. Include !ijrading, utility, draina!ije, erosiOA eontrol, streets, trails, tree, retaining walls, Elrivo.....ay aAEl ~arkin!ijlet ~Ians. a. The aradina. utilitv. drainaae. erosion control. streets. trails. tree. retainina walls, driveway and parkina plans. This approval includes the desian of the proposed private cul-de-sac. b. Showing no grading or ground disturbance in the conservation easement. This land is to be preserved for open space purposes. The developer and contractors shall protect this area, including the large trees that are in and near the south side of the site, from encroachment from equipment, grading or filling. c. Include a storm water management plan for the proposal. 4. The design of all ponds shall meet Maplewood's design standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. If needed, the developer shall be responsible for getting any off- site pond and drainage easements. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. 'Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -29- c. Remove any debris or junk from the site, including the conservation area. d. Provide the city with verification that the town houses on the proposed site plan will meet the state's noise standards. This shall be with a study, testing or other documentation. If the noise on this site is a factor, then the contractor will have to build the town houses so that they can meet the noise standards. This may be done with thicker, walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound-deadening construction methods. The developer shall provide the city with this documentation before the city will issue a building permit for the town houses. 6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Cottagewood PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Rear-yard setback (town houses): minimum of six feet from a side property line and at least 12 feet between units. c. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum of six feet from a side property line and at last 12 feet between units. 7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 8. Submit the homeowner's association documents to city staff for review and approval. 9. The developer shall provide a permanent means to preserve and maintain the common open space. This may be done by conservation easement, deed restrictions, covenants or public dedication. The developer shall record this document with the final plat and before the city issues a permit for grading or utility construction. 10. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 11. This approval does not include design approval for the town homes or any signs. The project design plans, including architectural, signs, site, lighting, tree and landscaping plans, shall be subject to review and approval of the community design review board (CDRB). The projects shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Meeting all conditions and changes as required by the city council. b. For the driveways: (1) Minimum width - 20 feet. (2) Maximum width - 28 feet. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -30- (3) All driveways less than 28 feet in width shall be posted for "No Parking" on both sides. Driveways at least 28 feet wide may have parking on one side and shall be posted for No Parking on one side. c. Showing all changes required by the city as part of the conditional use permit for the planned unit development (PUD). 12. The city shall not issue any building permits for construction on an outlot (per city code requirements). The developer must record a final plat to create buildable lots in the preliminary plat before the city will issue a building permit. Commissioner Hess seconded. Ayes - Desai, Hess, Pearson, Yarwood Nay - Dierich, Trippler Commissioner Trippler voted nay because he felt the city is giving the applicant a lot of leeway and he would have liked to see more detailed information. Commissioner Dierich voted nay for the same reason and she also thinks this is too many homes for this size property as well as this close to the freeway noise. She said she agrees Ms. Merz should not be required to have a rainwater pond running the whole length of her property. The pond could be turned sideways and we could lose two units and reconfigure some oflhe driveways to accommodate her needs. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the Cottagewood preliminary plat (received by the city on July 7, 2006). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. .Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rage street lights in two locations - primarily at the street intersection and near the south end of the driveway. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. d. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification any off-site easements. e. Provide all required and necessary easements, including any off-site easements. f. Demolish or remove the existing house and garage from the site, and remove all other buildings, fencing, trailers, scrap metal, debris and junk from the site. g. Cap and seal all wells on site that the owners are not using; remove septic systems or drainfields, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -31- h. Complete all the curb and gutter on Highwood on the north side of the site. This is to replace the existing driveways on Highwood Avenue and shall include the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. i. Install a sign where the new driveway intersects Highwood Avenue indicating that it is a private driveway. j. Install survey monuments and signs along the edges of the conservation easement area. These signs shall explain that the area beyond the signs is a conservation easement area and that there shall be no building, fences, mowing, cutting filling, dumping or other ground disturbance in that area. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues building permits in this plat. 2. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, trail, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo from Michael Thompson dated July 28, 2006, and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall show: (1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each building site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Building pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. (4) The proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. On slopes steeper than 3: 1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. At a minimum, the slopes shall be protected with wood-fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feet require a building permit from the city. The developer shall install a protective rail or fence on top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet. (7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07 -06 -32- (9) As little grading as possible west and south of the town houses. This is to keep as many of the existing trees on the site as is reasonably possible. c. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show: (1) The driveway shall be a nine-ton design with a maximum grade of eight percent and the maximum grade within 75 feet of the intersection at two percent. (2) The street (driveway) with continuous concrete curb and gutter, except where the city engineer determines that curbing is not necessary for drainage purposes. (3) The removal of the unused driveways and the completion oflhe curb and gutter on the south side of Highwood Avenue and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. (4) The coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. (5) All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (6) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (7) A detail of any ponds, the pond outlets and the rainwater gardens. The contractor shall protect the outlets to prevent erosion. d. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm water run-off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's engineer shall: e. .The tree plan shall: (1) Be approved, along with the landscaping, by the Community Design Review Board (CDRB) before site grading or final plat approval. (2) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (3) Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 % ) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Black Hills Spruce, Austrian pine and other species. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -33- (4) Show no tree removal in the buffer zones, conservation easement, or beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. (6) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be: (a) near the ponding areas (b) on the slopes (c) along the west side of the site to screen the proposed buildings from the homes to the west (7) Show the planting of at least 37 trees after the site grading is done. 3. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. This shall include showing a 20-foot-wide drainage and utility easement along the north side of Lot 15. b. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. c. Label the common areas as an outlot or as outlots. d. If allowed, show the conservation easement on the final plat. 4. Pay for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. These shall include, but not be limited to, an easement forthe culvert draining the pond at the northwest corner of the plat. 6. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 7. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. 'Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide for the repair of Highwood Avenue (street, curb and gutter and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -34- 8. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowner's association documents. b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites. c. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any additional driveways (besides the one new driveway shown on the project plans) from going onto Highwood Avenue. d. The conservation easement for the undisturbed area of the site. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. The city will not issue a building permit until after the developer has recorded the final plat and these documents and covenants. 9. 'Submit the homeowner's association bylaws and rules to the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the common areas, outlots, private utilities, driveways, retaining walls and structures. 10. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 11. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the interim director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. 12. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. . The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Commissioner Yarwood seconded. Ayes - Desai, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Nay - Dierich Commissioner Dierich voted nay because she is voting to be consistent. The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 28, 2006. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-07-06 -35- VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Grover was scheduled to be the planning commission representative at the July 24, 2006, city council meeting; however, there were no planning commission items to discuss. b. Mr. Hess will be the planning commission representative at the August 14, 2006, city council meeting. The only planning commission item to discuss is Carpet Court, 1685 Arcade Street. c. Mr. Pearson will be the planning commission representative at the August 28,2006, city council meeting. All items from this evening's meeting will be discussed. d. Mr. Trippler will be the planning commission representative at the September 11, 2006, city council meeting. At this time it is unknown what items will be discussed. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Annual Tour Follow-up July 31, 2006 Mr. Roberts asked if the planning commission had anything they would've changed regarding the tour. The planning commission stated they enjoyed the annual city tour, the coach bus was very nice and the dinner that was provided was very good. They especially enjoyed visiting the south end of Maplewood. Reschedule the Monday, September 4, 2006, planning commission meeting due to the labor Day holiday to either Tuesday, September 5, or Wednesday, September 6, 2006. Most planning commissioners were available to attend Wednesday, September 6, 2006. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:12 p.m.