Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/06/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, September 6, 2006, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. August 21, 2006 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Carver Crossing (Carver Avenue and Henry Lane) Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Street Right-of-Way and Easement Vacations Preliminary Plat 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 9. Visitor Presentations 10. Commission Presentations August 28 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson September 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler September 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai October 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Hess? (Mr. Yarwood?) 11. Staff Presentations 12. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chairperson Desai called the rneeting to order at 7:03 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 Present Present Present Present at 7:06 p.m. Present Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Planner Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Staff Absent: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Hess seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Trippler, Yarwood Approval of the planning commission minutes for August 21,2006. Commissioner Trippler had corrections on pages 6 and 8. On page 6, second paragraph, it should read Mr. Roberts said correct because it does not drains-to a protected water area and it does not match the criteria. On page 8, fourth paragraph, fourth line, change the word week to month. Commissioner Dierich moved to approve the planning commission minutes for August 21,2006, as amended. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Grover, Kaczrowski, Trippler Abstentions- Hess, Yarwood Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARING Carver Crossing (Carver Avenue and Henry Lane) (7:06 - 9:50 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Tom Hansen, representing CoPar Companies, submitted revised plans to the city for a housing development called Carver Crossing. He prepared a site plan that shows 191 detached town houses. This latest plan replaces the earlier plan that showed 299 housing units in three different types of housing for persons aged 55 and over. This development would be on about 73 acres of land that is south of Carver Avenue and west of Henry Lane known as the Schlomka property. A homeowner's association would own and maintain the common areas. Mr. Hansen has not yet applied for design approval for this latest proposal. He will do so (including the architectural, final landscape, and lighting plans) for the site and buildings after the city council acts on his current requests. However, based on comments from the applicant and the city's experiences with other town house projects, staff expects each town house to have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick or stone veneer accents near the doors. In addition, each town house would have a two-car garage. Mr. Roberts said the applicant has prepared a 15 minute power point presentation and following that the planning commission can ask questions and open the hearing up to the public. Acting Chairperson Desai asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Kurt Schneider, CoPar Development, addressed the commission. He said the intent is to give the planning commission an overview of the project because there is a tremendous amount of detail associated with this project which is in the staff report already so he isn't going to repeat the review of everything again. He said the power point presentation should answer some of the planning commission's questions. Mr. Clark Wicklund, Alliant Engineering, addressed the commission. Mr. Wicklund went through some of the sewer and water connection issues in his presentation. Commissioner Hess said it appears that the garage finish floor for lot 31 and 45 have a difference of about 32 feet vertically and it appears there's a fairly short distance between those lots. He said he didn't see any indication there is a retaining wall there. Mr. Schneider said any area on the property that would require a retaining wall has already been indicated on the plans so if it is not shown on the plan then a retaining wall is probably not required there. He asked if the public could address their questions and he would write them down and address all the questions at once rather than individually. Commissioner Dierich said the planning commission has heard several public hearings already regarding this property and she would like to reserve the discussion for the planning commission to ask questions of the developer. Acting Chairperson Desai asked what the proper protocol was since this was a public hearing? Mr. Roberts said this is a public hearing and because this is a new application the planning commission is required to open up the hearing for discussion. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -3- Mr. Roberts helped answer Commissioner Hess's question regarding the height difference ofthe garage floors by pointing out what the developer was referring to on the plans. Commissioner Yarwood said he was disappointed the previous city council allowed the developer to go this far with a relatively high density plan. He doesn't think that was fairto the developer. He was also disappointed that the comprehensive plan didn't show more thought in what would be appropriate for this area because he doesn't think this proposal was appropriate in this area. With the R-1 designation he thinks the developer has the reasonable expectation to develop this property under the R-1 guidance. The R-1 zoning doesn't obligate the city to approve a PUD with lot sizes less than 10,000 square feet. He has yet to see or hear any evidence why the lots can't be the standard 10,000 square foot size. Looking at the existing plat for instance, he asked why can't the streets and grading remain the same but the lots be combined 3 to 2 or 2 to 1 to allow a larger lot size or larger or more expensive house to be built to allow for 10,000 square foot lots. He can appreciate the shorter setbacks so there is less grading required on the site. He said he's trying to understand given the layout, why the lot sizes can't be larger to fall within what the R-1 designation normally requires? Mr. Schneider said the density proposed for this project is within a reasonable range of what a standard residential neighborhood would be with 2.6 to 2.9 units per acre. This is contained within the critical area ordinance regulations. There is a minimal density requirement in the critical area within the ordinances of the city whether it is for multiple dwelling, single dwelling or a PUD; there is also a density range that this property can't fall below according to that criteria. Commissioner Yarwood said there is the legal definition of density and then there is an effective definition of density, and only part of the land is developable. What you have for effective density is higher than 2.6 to 2.9 units per acre. The feel of the project is closer to 4 units per acre. What he is hoping to see is a project that fits in as well as possible with the surrounding feel of south Maplewood. He asked staff what the obligation is in terms of density and why this proposal can't have 10,000 square foot lot sizes in this R-1 designation? Mr. Roberts said staff isn't sure what is outlined in the comprehensive plan and what is outlined in the proposal, he doesn't know if the city can require more or less density. It's consistent with the standards of the comprehensive plan that the city has right now and that is what the developer has been working from for the last 1'1z years. The earlier proposal needed a comprehensive plan amendment. The city can get into a sticky wicket if they want to try to change the comprehensive plan standards and expectations midstream without going through a whole amendment process. Staff is not seeing anything with this proposal that the city can hang their hats on to say that it isn't consistent with the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Yarwood said he is asking if the city code requires an R-1 designation that the lot size be 10,000 square feet or greater. He is not asking that we meet a certain density requirement he is asking why the lot size can't be that large? Mr. Roberts said if we are talking about the zoning code, yes it does, but it doesn't require that in the comprehensive plan, it only talks about the overall project density, not about minimum lot size. Commissioner Trippler said he has struggled with this project ever since it was first proposed. It struck him the way this project has been presented from day one regarding what the comprehensive plan says about this property. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -4- Commissioner Trippler said he has been on the planning commission for over 10 years and the typical way projects are presented is that the planning commission gets a copy of the land use plan, a copy of the zoning plan, and sometimes there is discussion that if the zoning map doesn't match with the comprehensive plan then there is discussion. This project really doesn't talk about the zoning map. We hear about R-1 (R) zoning as an afterthought but we constantly hear about the comprehensive plan as R-1. He asked before whether R-1 (R) was in the comprehensive plan and was told that R-1 (R) did not exist when the comprehensive plan was last revised so it couldn't be in there. He can't understand why this project seems to be presented in a different manner compared to most of the other projects the commission has reviewed. The property on the south side is zoned R-1 (R) and requires a PUD in order to get that rezoned to R-1 or whatever they want it to be. Mr. Roberts said correct. The PUD becomes the zoning. Commissioner Trippler said we are not just "disregarding" the zoning map. The developer is asking for a change to the zoning map, they just don't want to talk about the zoning map. Mr. Roberts deferred that question to the developer. Commissioner Trippler asked the developer if he knew the property was zoned R-1 (R) when they bought the property? Mr. Schneider said he didn't work for CoPar when the property was purchased but he assumed they knew that. Commissioner Trippler asked if they purchased the property within the last eight years? Mr. Schneider said yes. Commissioner Trippler said then you should have known the property was zoned R-1 (R). Mr. Schneider said the relationship between those two documents and planning and zoning documents like that in the hierarchy of planning documents, the comprehensive plan is the "vision" plan and is at the top of the discretionary decisions that a city makes in terms of how land is guided. The zoning map should then follow the comprehensive plan and so forth. The comprehensive plan designation for this property is R-1. R-1 (R) is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan designation and the conclusion that he made is the closest correlation between R-1 (R) is the residential estate 20,000 and the residential estate 40,000 for large lot residential rural subdivision. Maplewood's comprehensive plan doesn't designate this property as residential estate as a large lot rural subdivision location. The zoning contradicts that. Planning professionals would tell you that the "comprehensive plan" is the ruling document. He would recommend Maplewood change their comprehensive plan because that is the most discretionary decision the city can make. We are not asking the city to change the comprehensive plan: we are asking the city to change the zoning of this property via a PUD in a manner that is consistent with the comprehensive plan. As the developer we are asking Maplewood to fix your zoning. Although the zoning says R-1 (R) in accordance with your comprehensive plan, it isn't appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -5- Commissioner Trippler said it was his intention when the planning commission started working on the revisions of the comprehensive plan that the commission would be rezoning this whole stretch of south Maplewood so it would comply with R-1 (R) characteristics. If he recalled correctly the discussion that occurred after the last comprehensive plan was approved was that the commission had numerous discussions regarding the need to develop this property as R-1 (R) because of the characteristics, the soil conditions and whether or not it could withstand public sanitary sewers or not. The estate designation was put forth for different reasons. His understanding was that the intent was to rezone or restructure the comprehensive plan in the next go around so that the south leg of Maplewood would have the larger estate type properties. Commissioner Dierich said Gary Pearson, Dale Trippler and herself were on the planning commission when the decision was to have the R-1 (R) zoning. I n fact she was the person who initiated the moratorium so these issues could be studied. We studied this for 1 year and came to the conclusion that 1. the characteristics of this neighborhood made it such that putting in any other zoning was not feasible and not just because of the septic system issue as Lorraine Fischer would lead the commission to believe, it was also because of the character of the neighborhood and because of the infrastructure on the street and the issues of the neighborhood wanting to be a rural area. There were extensive hearings on this ordinance and the planning commission decided what they preferred to do. So this plan is actually deviating from the comprehensive plan because the planning commission wasn't able to update the comprehensive plan yet. So Commissioner Trippler is correct in what he said about the zoning. She said she would like to know what the difference between the density number that is allowed under the present comprehensive plan and the density number that is allowed under the present zoning. Not looking at a PUD, what would we allow so that the audience can understand what the difference is between what is being "proposed", what the "vision" is, and what actually "exists" at this point. Mr. Roberts said the land use plan is part of the comprehensive plan. The property is guided R-1 which is for single family dwellings up to 4.6 units per gross acre. He then reviewed the zoning map and surrounding properties and the units per gross acre. He said this site could have 50 to 70 units with the current zoning verses the 191 units that are currently proposed. Commissioner Dierich asked what the process was for asking for a zoning change. She asked if the developer came to the planning commission asking for R-1 zoning for this property, what would the process been? Mr. Roberts said it would have been a similar process to what's happening this evening. This would have to be decided by the city council. For a zoning map change it would require 3 votes of approval by the city council and for a comprehensive plan change it would require 4 votes of approval from the city council. Commissioner Dierich asked if there would have been a comprehensive plan change and a zoning change or would it just be a zoning change? Mr. Roberts said that would depend on what type of development the developer would be proposing. Commissioner Dierich asked if a larger portion of Maplewood would have been notified of a zoning change for this area of south Maplewood? Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -6- Mr. Roberts said no, just the standard notification rule within 500 feet of the proposed area unless staff decided to expand the notification area. Commissioner Pearson said even with the R-1 zoning you can argue back and forth about R-1 or R-1 (R) zoning but under R-1 zoning most of these lots would not meet the 10,000 square feet lot size or R-1 (S) for small lots which was meant to bridge commercial to residential. These are very small lots and they do not in any shape, way, or form, meet the 10,000 square foot size. The lots run from 5,800 square feet to 6,500 square feet on average which doesn't meet R-1 zoning requirements. Commissioner Hess said on page 23, item number 2., under the Findings for Rezoning it states The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. When he looks at the cul-de- sac currently at Dorland Road and the proposed road from the development tying into this that would "substantially" impact the Dorland Road neighborhood. Mr. Roberts said the developer is not proposing a zoning map change so the findings for rezoning are not relevant to this request they are in the report for reference. The developer is not proposing a direct road connection to Heights Avenue; it would only be a trail to be used by pedestrians, bicyclists, or for emergency vehicles. The street access would be from Henry Lane and Carver Avenue. Acting Chairperson Desai said the developer said there is no difference between a single family dwelling and a detached townhome but in the zoning change requirements there is a difference for what is allowed for a town home verses a single family home. Mr. Roberts said many townhome developments have R-3 zoning which is for multiple family dwellings and with the multiple family dwellings there is no minimum lot size, it only refers to overall project density, which refers to the comprehensive plan. There are minimum lot sizes for single family dwellings and for twin homes. The minimum for a single family dwelling is 10,000 square feet and a twin homes which has two units has a requirement of 12,000 square feet or 6,000 square feet per unit. Staff also looks at the density and the comprehensive plan to make sure they are consistent with each other. Through asking for a PUD for the zoning there is no minimum lot size, the city is only required to look at the overall project density to see if that is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Acting Chairperson Desai said the developer is designating this project as town homes. Mr. Roberts said staff calls them detached town homes because an association would be controlling the common areas that the units would be part owners of. As Mr. Schneider referred to each homeowner would have individual responsibilities for the outside property which is common with a single family home but not common with a townhome association. Staff views this as a hybrid situation. Acting Chairperson Desai asked if the hybrid isn't accommodated other than the PUD in the city's regulation regarding how this development is classified then? Mr. Roberts said correct. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -7- Commissioner Trippler gave a quad map to staff to put on the screen so he could point out some features of the area including the Mississippi River Critical Area, the bluffs and the drainage into Fish Creek. Mr. Schneider said the way the Mississippi River Critical Area requirements read is accurately assessed on Commissioner Trippler's part. Slopes that are greater than 18% have to be considered, slopes that are greater than 18% and 200 x 500 in size have to be considered, the water from those slopes have to be in direct drainage to a tributary stream of the Mississippi River or in direct drainage to the river. The reason for the detailed slope analysis is that these areas of the site are in direct drainage to Fish Creek. The conclusions in the EAW evaluate the Mississippi River Critical Area determines this would be in compliance. The conclusion of the city staff evaluated and determined that this is not in direct drainage and does not qualify. Commissioner Trippler said you have only identified about 1/3 of the bluff area that overlooks downtown St. Paul as "not" draining to Fish Creek, should we assume that the rest of the drainage drains into Fish Creek? Surely if it didn't, the developer would have identified everything that didn't empty into Fish Creek because that would be to the developer's advantage. Mr. Schneider said correct. We have been upfront about everything. The rest of the site, if you follow the drainage patterns, enters the creek, and that is why we looked at the other areas. Commissioner Trippler asked how wide the lots are for lots 97 and 98 in that area? Mr. Schneider said the lot dimensions are roughly 55 feet wide and the building pad sites are 40' x 60' which is a typical single family home that would accommodate a 2-car garage. Commissioner Trippler said there is probably another 350 feet north that runs into Fish Creek. Commissioner Pearson asked what the length of the lots are? Mr. Schneider said the reason they have reduced the lot sizes is to identify the value of the connectivity of the open space. You could turn these lots into 10,000 square foot lots and divide the property without common ownership or control and protections to the open space within the site but they have resisted that approach. They don't want to divide the land up, it needs to be protected and the best way from a planning prospective is to place it under one control rather than under many people's control. The lot depth in this area is 132' to 134' feet deep so the lot would be about 55' x 132' in size. Commissioner Yarwood said given the existing lots and not changing how far the homes are set off from the street, why can't the lots be developed 3 to 2 and build slightly larger houses? Mr. Schneider said that would have an impact on the density that makes a project like this so it would not be feasible. It would have an impact on the density and reduce the density below the minimum criteria that is identified in the Mississippi River Critical Area regulations and this proposal along with the density is reasonable and is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -8- Mr. Schneider said the zoning is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. They have to take the more important document and meet those requirements, which is what they are doing with this proposal. They have a proposal that staff has indicated is practical, reasonable, and sensible for this site according to the guidelines. Basically it comes down to what we as the developer believe is our property right. Commissioner Yarwood said he is willing to live with the R-1 zoning but he doesn't see a reason why we have to allow a smaller lot size than the minimum 10,000 square feet. He said he doesn't think there is a minimum density requirement in this area so the argument doesn't hold up with him at this point. Mr. Schneider said you can agree to disagree, but at no point have we heard from city officials that this density is unacceptable. Commissioner Yarwood said he thinks it's unfair to the developer to have gotten this far with this plan and he is unhappy with that fact. Mr. Schneider said he appreciated that comment. He said he hopes they haven't been led down the road of generally endorsing "concept" work that was far different than this proposal. Including comprehensive land use changes and densities that were different. When a city approves a concept to move forward when they authorize an EAW, there is a reasonable expectation that something close to what you are working with is acceptable. Quite frankly this plan in layout form is similar, but in density, is different. This is a reasonable and practical plan forthis property. At no time have we withdrawn previous applications we submitted. We have revised plans but we have never withdrawn previous applications. We have been working cooperatively throughout this process with city staff to come up with a plan with their guidance and public feedback and we are passionate about this proposal. There are storm water and other site protections with this site that have not been done anywhere else and this is a solid plan that fits the mold of what the comprehensive plan would call for here. Commissioner Dierich said she wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the city council when they have to make the final decision regarding this proposal. She asked Mr. Roberts to show the map on the screen and identify where she used to live and where she lives now. One of the problems she has had with this proposal is that the city council did not require that an environmental impact study (EIS) be done for this project. She said she hasn't been satisfied with the answers she has heard in the past regarding the traffic and noise in the area. Recently she had to close all her windows in her present house because the traffic was so loud she could feel the vibration from the traffic noise from Highway 1-494 going through her bedroom. Their house doesn't face the freeway, their garage shelters their house from the freeway and they live in a wooded area that has large trees, some of which are three feet in diameter which helps shelter the freeway noise. She is extraordinarily concerned that with one berm and some immature trees that will not only be impacted by the noise decibels but once the trees come down, everybody to the west of this site is going to hear the freeway noise she used to hear when she lived in her previous home and definitely hears now in her new house so she is very concerned about the noise. She said the second thing she wished would have been addressed with an EIS is the traffic. She said we have two failed intersections. One is at Bailey Road and Sterling and the second is at Carver Avenue and Highway 61. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -9- Commissioner Dierich said the people that live further upstream are not going to use those two intersections because they will have to wait 15 to 20 minutes to get to whatever road they are trying to get to so people will drive through her neighborhood. She wondered where the land was going to come from to construct the turn lanes because Carver Avenue is extremely narrow in that area. According to Ramsey County, Century Avenue is going to get widened. Is the developer going to pay for all of this or not? Commissioner Dierich asked if Mr. Wicklund could show us what they plan to do with the grading on this site and how flat this site is going to be? What kind of topography are we going to lose with this development? Commissioner Dierich asked staff if they know what the tree removal and tree replacement will be with the new tree ordinance the city is going to be finalizing? Mr. Roberts said the tree ordinance has not yet been adopted by the city council and he was not sure of the tree removal or replacement. Mr. Wicklund said when building single family detached homes such as this proposal allows for less grade disruption which would be better economically. If we were building something other than single family units we would have to disrupt the grade a lot more. Commissioner Dierich asked roughly what the percentage of hard scape is to the remaining green space that isn't water. Mr. Wicklund said this is merely a guess of the non-buildable space but he would estimate 30%. That would be in reference to what the watershed district previously considered to be a regional retention facility which is the wetland area they seem to have some similar hard surface numbers, but he has not done an analysis of the hard scape. This is purely a guess, but he said he could get the real number for the city later in the week. Commissioner Dierich said that information would be good for the city council to have when they make their final decision on this project. Mr. Wicklund said we have gone above and beyond in regards to the storm water management on the site which is afforded through the PUD. We aren't doing anything that is inconsistent with the standard zoning so we have no obligation to do anything other than what is being proposed. From an environmental standpoint you can't provide all the details for something that is only a proposal now. The information isn't available right now but he fully believes in this proposal development in regards to the environment. Commissioner Dierich said she appreciates his candor saying they can't afford to do this project unless they have this density. We have not addressed the issue of traffic and the noise has not been addressed to her satisfaction. She would feel more comfortable if those two issues were addressed. Mr. Wicklund said they can discuss those issues at the upcoming city council meeting. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -10- Mr. Roberts posted the map on the screen representing the noise decibels and the standard noise levels and elevation changes. Staff put the plans up representing the developer's plans for plantings on the site that would reduce the noise impacts here. Commissioner Dierich said her yard elevation is very high and the higher up she is on her property the more noise she hears and the lower she is on the property the noise level is reduced. Chuck Ahl, Maplewood Public Works Director, addressed the commission. He said the map staff presented represents standard noise levels. He said he personally lives :y. of a mile away from the freeway and on a quiet evening with the windows open he can hearthe freeway. You can also hear the freeway during the day as well. These are "noise standards" we are dealing with so there are two different issues here. One issue is can you hear the freeway? He would say greater than 60% of Maplewood can hear the freeway noise, that doesn't mean it exceeds the noise standards established. When you are dealing with comprehensive land use changes you have an obligation "not" to change a land use just to allow someone to move into an area where they could not live before where noise standards existed before. Mr. Ahl said an example would be the Comforts of Home development that was recently approved off of Highway 36 and Hazelwood Avenue. That area exceeded the noise level but it had a business commercial land use. The city was very concerned about residential development there until the developer demonstrated they had mitigated noise concerns with their plan by using certain construction standards for higher noise levels. A developer has a certain responsibility and an obligation to put higher construction restrictions on these homes. The laws and standards don't allow you the city to say "you can't build here" because it is too loud. You have to put reasonable building standards on the building to protect the owner. There are daytime noise standards and night time noise standards. You have to use things like climate control in the units, you have to use certain insulation in the windows and in the walls to help block the noise level, you can't locate public play facilities in certain areas which have high noise levels, and in certain instances decks would not be recommended because of the level of noise. One of the original proposals were for a three story building and therefore the decks could not be located on the back side of the unit because that would be facing the freeway and there were noise standards that had to be upheld. There is a big difference between hearing the noise and the reasonable standards that a government agency or city can put on the units for them to be built. Commissioner Dierich asked whose obligation it is to protect the citizens from deleterious affects such as noise, pollution and noise damage. These standards are set to protect people's hearing and quality of life. What kind of responsibility aesthetically and what responsibility do we have for the people that live further down the road to the west because this changes will affect their living standards and situation because when you take trees down that was the buffer for some of the noise for those people. Mr. Ahl said he is not going to tell you we don't have a responsibility but the city is not managing authority of the freeway noise because the city can't control the number of cars on the freeway and we also can't get in to the financial responsibility of building noise wells. The freeway system is part of the federal program which is operated by MnDOT. Typically the noise experts will tell you trees don't have much affect on reducing the level of noise in a neighborhood. Mr. Ahl said he is not a noise expert. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -11- Mr. Ahl said it makes sense to have trees to help buffer the noise but the noise experts do not agree with that statement. The experts will not allow you to plant trees to stop the transmission of noise. If you were to plant a beautiful line of 40 foot tall evergreen trees along there the 65 noise decibel line would not move. Commissioner Dierich said she would agree that trees don't block the noise but trees would certainly help the people living there. Mr. Ahl said he would much rather have a 40 foot line of trees than "not" have the trees as a buffer but the noise experts would tell you trees do not help with the noise impact. The two intersections mentioned by Commissioner Dierich at Bailey Road and Sterling and Carver Avenue and Highway 61 are identified in the traffic analysis. The traffic analysis did not say that these intersections will get better because of this development; they said that this development will not change the overall "operation" of those intersections. Regarding whose responsibility it is, it's difficult for Maplewood because the intersections in question are out of the city borders. What that means is that we cannot use that to change how we plan land use because a government agency has failed to address a transportation issue. We could not use that per se to put a moratorium on this area and say there can be no development here just because a government agency has the responsibility to solve transportation issues. We can only deal with our own transportation issues. The turn lanes at McKnight on Carver Avenue are within the existing right-of-way. Carver Avenue is planned to have an adequate right-of-way and we do not believe the city will need to acquire any right-of-way for the construction of the turn lanes along Carver Avenue both for this development, or over McKnight. Commissioner Dierich asked if we would lose the walkway or the yellow lines along the way because she can't see how we can construct turn lanes without losing that walkway. Mr. Ahl said those walkways are a necessary part of the roadway and he didn't believe they would be lost. The consultant reported to the city they thought there would be an adequate right-of-way. There has been no identification of property acquisition necessary for those improvements. However, the final design has not been done so there may be construction easements necessary, but the acquisition of permanent right-of-way is not necessary as part of this. Commissioner Dierich said the report said that the traffic was going to average one car every 2 minutes and the existing traffic volume on Carver Avenue is roughly 1 car every 15 to 20 minutes. She asked staff to explain that information? Mr. Roberts said that information is reported on page 9 of the staff report under Traffic and Access. Mr. Ahl said in the comprehensive plan there are sections on traffic and transportation just like there are for sewer to plan for the future. The comprehensive plan is to inform people what is going to happen in the next 5 to 20 years. From a roadway and transportation standpoint, we typically classify the roadways as having low volumes in the 300 to 500 cars per day. It sounds like a lot, but our local streets can go up to 1,000 cars per day and still be in a relatively reasonable volume of traffic for a local roadway. Mr. Ahl said to give you a perspective White Bear Avenue has 30,000 cars a day traveling on it. So the additional vehicle trips this proposal would bring would not be a huge change. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -12- Mr. Ahl said it will be a change but it goes back to the rights of the developer and the right to build on the property they purchased as long as it is within the standards of the comprehensive plan. As we all know, it's just a matter of time before property will get developed. Commissioner Hess said the cross section looked like the berm was fairly low compared to the building elevation. He said he has dealt with noise experts in the past and the experts say mass is the biggest contributor to noise mitigation such as a berm. He wondered if the berm was raised in height would that help with the level of noise? He asked what the length of the berm would be? Mr. Ahl said you are correct that a berm has better noise mitigation than a constructed wooden wall. In rough numbers a 12-foot high berm has better noise mitigation than a 20-foot wooden noise wall. The details regarding the exact height and length ofthe berm haven't been worked out yet. Mr. Schneider said the challenge with the noise is that either the freeway is so high above the site or then it goes below the site so there is one extreme to the other. We are trying to move units back and try to use some of the natural terrain and the natural berming as you go through the site. This is a difficult site to work with. They are trying to look at the site design carefully and this will be done in greater detail as things move farther along. Commissioner Trippler asked if this development were before us to develop the property as it is zoned for Farm and R-1 (R) and the developer made the sewer connections that are there, would that work as far as the sewers are concerned as it is zoned? Mr. Ahl said absolutely. Because it's very good to infiltrate storm water into these soils, the city has a concern with septic systems infiltrating too far as well. Staff would suggest that any development on this site have sanitary sewer, this is why it was extended in 1987 and along Carver Avenue where it is stubbed into the site. Staff encourages the developer to have public sewer to all units into this site. Commissioner Trippler said several times this evening he has heard or read that it is the developers right to develop the property. If the property were developed so it was within the criteria of Farm and R-1 (R) would they have a right to go to the court system and say that they were deprived of their right to develop this property as R-3, which is what he considers this to be? Mr. Roberts said if you mean R-3 to be multiple dwellings then no, because that is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Trippler said if we tell the developer they can develop the property as long as it is consistent with R-1 (R) and Farm and we are not willing to change the zoning, will they have a legal argument in court that we are restricting their legal right to develop the property? Mr. Roberts said this would be speculation but he believes there would be a challenge in court. Commissioner Trippler asked if the city ever put a restriction on the length of time for a development to take place? He is thinking of the Century Development that is still going on which has been being built for five to six years and he is concerned that there is no specific time limitations to finish a project. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -13- Mr. Roberts said we have no time limitations on projects in Maplewood. The difficulty with placing restrictions on developments is that the market changes therefore conditions change. Three years ago the housing market was hot and suddenly this summer it went sour. There is no way the city can control the market fluctuation. We can control when a project is started and when the public improvements are put in but the actual length oftime the building takes can't be controlled. This is something staff has thought about and discussed before in the past. Mr. Ahl said the staff report speaks to the issue what types of challenges might occur and the interpretation of the land use and the zoning changes. The zoning on the eastern side of Highway 1-494 is not consistent with the land use plan. There are not any current development proposals there although its staff understands that developers are looking at that property. His suggestion is to institute some type of a moratorium for the purpose of amending the land use plan for the eastern side of Highway 1-494 if it is your intent that property be considered for residential estate. There are land use rights and property rights and that would be an appropriate action for the planning commission to take to include in a motion this evening to recommend to the city council. Regarding the length of time for a development, the city requires the developer to post bonds for the construction of the improvements and those include both the private and public improvements on the roadways. While you can't force a developer to build all the housing right away you can force them to put in the public improvements in a reasonable amount of time. For a project like this staff has talked about a three year build out but the developer may have to comment on that. That should be something included in the conditions as the planning commission moves forward. Commissioner Trippler said many times when a development comes in the city puts in a clause requiring an escrow for 150% of the improvements but he noticed that wasn't included in this proposal and he wondered what the reason was for that. Mr. Roberts said any public improvements would be covered with the developer's agreement with Public Works with their bonding and escrow requirements. The escrow placed on proposals for the planning department is covered as part of the CDRB conditions put on a project. If this project goes forward, it would go to the CDRB at a later date for their approval. Commissioner Trippler said on page 15 in item A. 3. of the conditions the city would be covered then? Mr. Ahl said when the city engineering department places conditions on the final plans included in that will be a development contract and in that contract includes security measures of escrow etc. The Mayor signs that though and those get approved by the city council. Commissioner Yarwood said the developer has done a lot to address the concerns of the city so he compliments the developer on that. His irritation is towards the city for three reasons. Number 1. is the comprehensive plan was not appropriately modified forthis area of Maplewood, number 2. that the city council allowed the developer to go this far with a plan that is not appropriate, and number 3. the comprehensive plan doesn't specify lot size thus making zoning almost irrelevant in this case and he doesn't think that is appropriate. The city dropped the ball in several areas prior to this coming up and he thinks the city painted themselves into a corner at this point with what is going to develop on that property and he hopes it's something we can address in the future. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -14- Acting Chairperson Desai opened the public hearing. Linda Baumgart, 2445 Carver Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. She has lived here for 24 years. We knew this property would be developed sooner or later and she hopes the city takes the time to develop this the right way. The main concern is the new use of the old Henry Lane; the city wants to get rid of the old Henry Lane. The plans show Henry Lane moved 112 feet over but that just accomplished putting it on the border of her property. The existing Henry Road has been here for 60 years. When it was under construction there was a three way stop sign on the other side of the highway on Sterling and Carver Avenue for 1'1z years and that worked wonderful. Why can't we keep the existing Henry Lane and put a four way stop there? On page 81 the county states it will monitor the road to determine if a four way stop sign is needed. Why can't we leave Henry Lane where it is and put a four way stop sign there to begin with? Ken Roberts stated in the report that the "existing" Henry Lane does not work for this proposal but the "new" Henry Lane does not work for the people who live here. Commissioner Trippler asked what the purpose was for moving Henry Lane? Mr. Ahl said an analysis was done of the traffic area and as Henry Lane comes out with the 299 unit plan the number of vehicles coming out the site distance was very very poor and you can't see underneath the bridge to the east so we determined it was an unsafe condition and it needed to be moved. We have not analyzed what 199 units or less would do and the city cannot put in four way stops until the county says it's warranted. The reason the four way stops were up was that Bailey Road was closed for 10 to 12 months for reconstruction and a lot more traffic came through there so the stop signs were warranted. When Bailey Road opened back up the traffic went away so the stop signs came down. At this point and time the city feels it is a compromise in order to have the safer access point moved over to the current proposed location on the property lines. Ms. Baumgart said if you are going to move the new Henry Lane you are going to have a crosswalk after that and when she talked to the county they didn't know there was going to be a crosswalk after the new road. If you put a four way stop sign where the road is now you could have a legal crosswalk there and you would have a stop sign. If you want the people to walk from park to park then that is a logical place for the road to be. As far as you can see on Henry Lane if you have a stop sign there you can see farther where the proposed road is there is a curve and when you put the turn lanes in there will be more of a curve. You would have to drive it to know. Ron Cockriel, 943 Century Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. This area is within the Fish Creek watershed so the water all goes to Fish Creek. The water may go through peoples backyards, it may go down railroad tracks, it may cross Highway 61 or through tunnels but that is what happens through a 73 mile corridor and that was what the whole idea was for the setbacks and erosion control. This is a sensitive area and should be treated as a sensitive area. He was at the watershed meeting and they approved a portion of the CoPar development so he got to tonight's meeting late and missed the beginning of the discussion. Mr. Cock riel said he had made known to the watershed district that what they are doing there up through the ravine is impacting an Indian village and burial site and is being determined that the Indian site is a lot larger than what you find on the maps. There have been people from federal agencies out at the location and they are finding as much stuff on the property as he had found. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -15- Mr. Cockriel said now he's leaving things alone after he was instructed to do so. He suspects more information will be coming forward regarding this area. This has been going on for the last few weeks and is in play. He wonders about the extensive use of retaining wall because this tells him there is too much being built at this location in order to maintain the runoff. This proposal turns its back on the Mississippi so the water flows back into the large retaining pond and that will flow into Fish Creek. The variable of whether we should have a septic or sewer system in south Maplewood was discussed at length during the planning commission meeting in the spring of 2003. Regarding the impact on the natural environment, this development would be about the worse cause scenario. When you hear there will be 38% open space, he wasn't sure if that is 38% of undisturbed land or 38% of open space after their done moving the dirt around. He believes the developer is asking with this latest proposal for an additional 80,000 cubic yards of dirt but he wasn't sure exactly how the soil gets measured. This development proposal would cause a large impact here which makes this proposal out of place for the natural element of the property. There has to be a more creative proposal out there and he would appreciate it if the planning commission would turn down this proposal. Acting Chairperson Desai closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dierich said George Rossbach said a few years ago that a PUD is a license to steal and she believes that is true in many cases. She thinks this proposal has been a real work in progress and she doesn't think it is done yet. She thinks this proposal could lose 15 to 25 ofthe units to help with the noise and the bluff land and she would be much more comfortable. She likes the proposal overall, but she doesn't like the density numbers. She would recommend the planning commission forward a much lower density number to the city council than what is proposed. In addition, she supports Mr. Ahl's recommendation to place a moratorium on this area until we look at the comprehensive plan in the earlier part of the year. Commissioner Trippler said he wanted to commend the developer for doing a good job with this development unfortunately this is the wrong area. He hopes the developer will take something like this and talk to the city about a development like this in the Gladstone area where he thinks this belongs. He thinks when the developer bought the property they knew or should have known it was zoned Farm and R-1 (R) and should have known it was their responsibility as a buyer to know what that meant in terms of density allowed. Commissioner Trippler said the developer has the right to develop the property and he does not want to discourage people from developing their property but he doesn't think anybody has the right to expect the zoning to change just so they can make money at the expense of the rest of the neighborhood and the City of Maplewood and he believes this is what is being done here. The developer has done a lot of positive things it's just this development is proposed in the wrong area. Commissioner Pearson said he would echo those comments. The developer has done a lot of clean up of the area. He too believes it's not the right development for this area. It's definitely going to change the nature of the area. He doesn't like the relocation of the road being brought so close to the existing residents. He believes it's too dense for the area. The lot sizes are smaller than the R-1 (S). When this land is gone Maplewood will have lost a major area of rural land. During the city tour it really demonstrated that some of these long roads to a cul-de-sac raised the question whether some of the emergency vehicles could function any better than the tour bus did in small spaces like cul-de-sacs. He disagrees with number 1 and 3 of the four findings on page 23 of the staff report. He is not in favor of this proposal. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -16- Commissioner Hess said he agrees with his fellow commissioners with most of the comments stated. Looking at the site plan, seeing the open space to the north and the south, looking at the developed area to the west and the size of that residential area, this looks like this development has higher density than the character in the neighborhood and he can't agree with this proposal. Commissioner Trippler moved to deny approvo the resolution on page 91 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a 191-unit planned unit development for the Carver Crossing of Maplewood development on the west side of 1-494, south of Carver Avenue. Commissioner Trippler stated the reason for the denial is because the density is too high, the lot size should be at least 10,000 square feet in size, the zoning in the city's intent the zoning would prevail and it does not meet the intent of the Farm and the R-1 (R), the impact of the density on the noise, the bluffs, noise and the traffic, the drainage concerns, and this proposal does not fit into this neighborhood setting. It doesn't meet the requirements for a PUD or zoning change. Commissioner Dierich said this doesn't provide for orderly development - we don't believe we have sufficient infrastructure given where Henry Lane is along with the issues with traffic. The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood - Dale Trippler already addressed those issues. The city will not approve new development without providing for adequate facilities and services, such as street, utilities, drainage, parks and open space - we haven't demonstrated that to the satisfaction of the planning commission. Safe and adequate access will be provided for all properties - that has not been done to the planning commission's satisfaction. Commissioner Dierich said that this should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments - that has not been done to the planning commission's satisfaction. Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man-made or natural barriers- we are surrounded by open space and low density development and that is not similar to the other land uses in the neighborhood. Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas- this proposal would definitely disrupt other residential areas. Commissioner Hess said he is against this proposal because of the findings on page 23 in the staff report. Number 2 which states the proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. And under ordinance requirements number 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion to deny passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -17- Commissioner Trippler moved to deny .'\ppr-ovo the resolution on pages 96 and 97 of the staff report. This resolution would have vacated the unused easements and right-of-ways within the Carver Crossing of Maplewood development (the area west of 1-494 and south of Carver Avenue). Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion to deny passed. Commissioner Trippler moved to deny I\pprovo the Carver Crossing of Maplewood preliminary plat (received by the city on August 8, 2006). Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion to deny passed. This item is scheduled to be heard by the city council on September 25, 2006. Commissioner Dierich would like the city council to know the planning commission would like the city to place a moratorium on development for the property in south Maplewood east of 1-494 until the comprehensive plan can be revised. An official recommendation will be made at the next planning commission meeting when staff has time to prepare better maps to represent the exact areas they would like the moratorium placed. The planning commission took a recess from 9:52 - 9:59 p.m. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Pearson was the planning commission representative at the August 28, 2006, city council meeting. Items discussed were the Easement Vacation for Ronald Erickson at 2699 Hazelwood Street, which was passed, the CUP for the White Bear Avenue Family Health Center at 2099 White Bear Avenue, which was passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-06-06 -18- Other items discussed included the CUP Revision for Hill-Murray School at 2625 Larpenteur Avenue, which passed, and the Cottagewood Town Houses at 2666 Highwood Avenue, which passed 4-1. The city council meeting adjourned at 1 :37 a.m. b. Mr. Trippler will be the planning commission representative at the September 11, 2006, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the Street right-of-way vacation for Century Avenue and New Century Avenue and New Century Boulevard and the Easement Vacation on Hillside Estates between Linwood Avenue and Springside Drive, and the appeal by Menards to have traffic control on the property during busy times and holidays. c. Mr. Desai will be the planning commission representative at the September 25, 2006, city council meeting. The only item to discuss will be the Carver Crossing (Carver Avenue and Henry Lane) for the items we discussed tonight. d. Mr. Yarwood will be the planning commission representative at the October 9,2006, city council meeting. e. Commissioner Trippler gave an update on the tree ordinance He said the tree ordinance came before the CDRB and PC. Input was given and the environmental committee tried to include all the input. The city council had one hearing and it sounded like there may be a second hearing. Hopefully the tree ordinance will then be adopted by the city council. Commissioner Trippler asked if the planning commission thought they were going to see it again before it went to the city council. The planning commission felt comfortable not having the ordinance come back before them before it went to the city council. The second reading was scheduled to be heard by the city council on September 11, 2006. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.