Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/02/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 2, 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. September 6, 2006 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Legacy Town houses (County Road D - Kennard Street to Hazelwood) Preliminary Plat 6. New Business a. South Maplewood Development Moratorium 7. Unfinished Business None 9. Visitor Presentations 10. Commission Presentations September 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler September 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai October 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Yarwood October 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Kaczrowski November 13 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich 11. Staff Presentations 12. Adjoumment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, OCTOBER 2,2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7: 1 0 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Absent Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Steve Kummer, Civil Engineer Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Staff added an item to the agenda under staff presentations to discuss rescheduling the December 4, 2006, planning commission meeting. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Desai seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Approval of the planning commission minutes for September 6, 2006. Commissioner Trippler had corrections to page 7, second paragraph, seventh line, inserting a space between incompliance making it in compliance. Page 8, last paragraph, eighth line, correct There to Their. Page 14, fifth paragraph, second line, correct pour to pOQr. Page 15, second paragraph, fifth line, change square yards to cubic yards. Commissioner Pearson had a correction to page 15, fourth paragraph, first line; change Will Rossbach to Georqe Rossbach. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the planning commission minutes for September 6, 2006, as amended. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-02-06 -2- Commissioner Hess seconded. Ayes - Desai, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Abstentions - Fischer V. PUBLIC HEARING (7:18 -7:29 p.m.) a. Legacy Town Houses (County Rd D - Kennard Street to Hazelwood) Preliminary Plat Mr. Roberts said the Hartford Group, the master developer of Legacy Village, is proposing to develop the final phase of town homes at Legacy Village. This proposal is for 91 townhomes which would be located on the south side of County Road D between Hazelwood and Kennard Streets. The exception to this site is that the southwest corner of County Road D and Kennard Street will be developed later (possibly with an office building as required by the approved PUD) (planned unit development). On July 10,2006, the applicant had proposed a 119-unit townhouse development on this site that would have included the 1 %-acre parcel at the southwest corner of County Road D and Kennard Street. This corner piece was intended to be developed with Executive Office Suites in the PUD. The applicant had requested a comprehensive plan amendment from BC (business commercial) to R3H (high-density residential) and also an amendment of the PUD to build the town homes. The city council denied these requests because they preferred the office element ofthe PUD and felt that the developer should still try to develop this corner with office suites as approved in 2003. Chairperson Fischer had a correction to Michael Thompson's engineering report on page 21, item 8, correcting County Road B to D. Mr. Roberts said staff would have that corrected. Commissioner Yarwood said he read the neighbors comments and concerns in the staff report and asked why the neighbors were surprised that more development was going to take place in this area when development has been occurring since 2003? Mr. Roberts believed while the Goff townhomes were being built the new owners expected that the large evergreen trees and land would remain as they saw it across the street and maybe they didn't expect anything would be developed there. There has been a lot of building in this area since 2003 and maybe people didn't check with the city to see if any development was going to occur in this area and were surprised when they heard about this plan. Commissioner Hess said he noticed the comments in the staff report that people thought the wetlands that were on the original plan were not on the plan any longer and he asked staff to clarify that. Mr. Roberts said there is a large wetland that has always been there and will remain. There was a small wetland on the corner that was taken out with the reconstruction of County Road D and Southlawn Drive and was mitigated on the golf course property as part of the storm water plan for this development; otherwise the developer has followed the plan to a 'T. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-02-06 -3- Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Frank Janes, Hartford Group, addressed the commission. Mr. Janes had no questions for staff or for the planning commission. The planning commission did not have any questions for the applicant. Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing up to the public. No one from the audience came forward to speak therefore, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the preliminary plat for the Legacy Townhomes at Legacy Village, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the city's engineering report dated September 19, 2006. 2. The applicant shall sign a developer's agreement with the city engineer before the issuance of a grading permit. 3. The applicant shall dedicate any easements and provide any written agreements that the city engineer or parks director may require as part of this plat. 4. The applicant shall pay the city escrow for any documents, easements and agreements that the staff may require that may not be ready by the time of plat signing. Commissioner Yarwood seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item will be heard by the CDRB on October 10,2006, and by the City Council on October 23, 2006. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. South Maplewood Development Moratorium (7:29 - 8:28 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said on September 6, 2006, the planning commission adopted a motion asking the city to adopt a moratorium on development for the part of south Maplewood that is east of 1-494. The planning commission wanted staff to identify and investigate properties in south Maplewood that have land use and zoning designations that are inconsistent with each other. This report provides the planning commission with information about the R-1 (R) zoning district, with sewer and development issues in south Maplewood and with land use zoning maps of the area. The intent of the R-1 (R) zoning district, as adopted by the city council in 2003, reads: "Maplewood intends to protect and enhance the character of areas of the city that, because of topography or other factors, do not have, nor does the city expect to have. municipal sanitary sewer or water service. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-02-06 -4- To allow for and to protect a very low density, semi-rural, residential life style, the city creates the R-1 (R) zoning district. This zoning district is for the areas of Maplewood that are not suitable for suburban or tract development because of topography, vegetation or other factors that make the installation of municipal sanitary sewer unlikelv. The city finds the most suitable use of these areas is single dwellings on large lots. Such low-density residential development will lessen grading and soil erosion and will help protect ground water, vegetation and wooded areas. The lots and parcels in the R-1 (R) zoning district are generally much larger than those in the R-1 (single dwelling) district and those with municipal sanitary sewer and water." In the ideal world, the land use designation and the zoning designation that the city places on each property would be the same or at least consistent with each other. This however, is not always possible. A primary reason that the designations the city gives to a property are not always the same is that the land use categories in the comprehensive plan are not the same as those the city has in the zoning code. Staff was asking the planning commission to determine if there is a need for a moratorium on development for the area of Maplewood south of Carver Avenue, east of 1-494. If the city wants to enact such a moratorium, the city will need to decide what issues they want staff to investigate during the moratorium. This could include the possibility that the land use and zoning designations for some properties are not consistent with each other (and that they city should make land use or zoning changes to make the designations consistent with each other). Commissioner Hess asked if the city council has made any decisions regarding which way they want to go with this area south of Carver Avenue and east of 1-494 in Maplewood? Mr. Roberts said there really haven't been any proposals for south Maplewood since 2003 so there isn't a basis to go on. Eventually this area will be developed with or without sewer systems. There are some differences between the zoning code and the comprehensive plan and this may lead the city to updating the comprehensive plan and this area could be focused on as part of that. Commissioner Trippler said he appreciates the fact that staff included the exact language in the city ordinance which defines R-1 (R) and underlined the things that indicate that R-1 (R) is tied to whether or not there is a sewer there or a likelihood of a sewer going in there. He focused in on the part of the ordinance that states Maplewood intends to protect and enhance the character of areas of the city that, because of topography or other factors did not have or does not expect to have sanitary sewer or water service. To allow for and to protect a very low density, semi-rural, residential life style, the city created the R-1(R) zoning district. He doesn't see anything in the ordinance that states if sewer is available this disqualifies the property as R-1(R). It says if it doesn't expect sewer to be there or if its unlikely sewer would be available here. Commissioner Trippler said his position is even if there was sewer there it wouldn't disqualify a piece of property from being zoned R-1 (R). Mr. Roberts said he would agree. That is the position the Mayor and Council member Cave took with the proposal for Carver Crossing. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-02-06 -5- Commissioner Yarwood said he thinks we have focused too much on the sanitary sewer aspect of this. The key sentence is to allow for and to protect a very low density, semi-rural, residential life style. This definitely came up with the Carver Crossing proposal in that there is one outlet for this entire development and the effective density would be close to 4 units an acre in terms of developable land and it didn't seem to fit with the rest of south Maplewood. He thinks the R-1 (R) designation is there to protect a fairly unique area and aspect of south Maplewood. It's much bigger of an issue than just sewer, it's protecting something else. To him it's relatively simple; we should modify the comprehensive plan to match the zoning patterns and perhaps modifying the farm land to make that R-1 (R). We should place a moratorium there to make the comprehensive plan and zoning plan consistent. That way the city can't get tangled up in legal issues and have developers believe they could build something there they can't. Commissioner Hess asked if Woodbury were to develop their property on the west side and needed to run sewer through Maplewood because of the drainage issues, would Maplewood gain financial benefits from that even if Maplewood wasn't developing in that area? Mr. Roberts said that would only happen if it were a joint project between the two cities and typically there would be cost sharing between the two cities. Assessments and levying costs to the various parcels would be determined by acreage of number of lots. The only benefit would be to do it as one project rather than two or three smaller projects but there probably wouldn't be a direct benefit to Maplewood. Commissioner Pearson said as a commiSSion member involved in voting on the R-1 (R) designation there was a lot of discussion back then whether or not wells or septic systems would fail or would be failing in the future. His clear recollection is the commission voted for R-1 (R) to protect the nature ofthe area, the topography and semi-rural residential. He did not recollect that the R-1 (R) zoning would wash out sewer to that area. It was specifically to protectthe character of the area. Chairperson Fischer said her memory was that we were going to go with the larger lot size without sewers with a future possibility of it having sewers. Commissioner Trippler said that's what he remembered as well. Staff had professors from the University of Minnesota and people from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to get feedback regarding what they thought the minimum lot size should be to adequately protect a sewer system as to not contaminate the wells. There was discussion regarding how we arrived at the 2 acre lot size as it related to what could adequately handle the soil conditions and topography in the area. He has always felt that one of the benefits in Maplewood is that there is a wide range of life styles that exist within the community. This is an area where there are a number of large lot sizes and this would be another mechanism to serve multiple purposes, not only the issue of sanitary sewer systems verses septic systems but also the large lot size. Commissioner Trippler said he didn't care if sewers were available here or not, he wanted the 2 acre minimum lot size. He asked if the way the current ordinance is written is confusing or misleading or would it be beneficial to the city to change the language making it more concise? Planning Commission Minutes of 10-02-06 -6- Mr. Roberts said staff doesn't think the language is confusing. The question forthe city council is what do they want to emphasis? Does the city council feel strongly about keeping the strong semi-rural character and no sewer? Maybe some language should be added to strengthen the statement. Should the city change the comprehensive plan to make it more consistent as suggested by Commissioner Yarwood? Staff would contend that an R-1 designation in the comprehensive plan is consistent with R-1 (R) because they both say single dwellings. The land use is the same; it's a matter of how many units you put on the acreage. If the R-1 (R) category was added to the comprehensive plan and to the maps, that would strengthen the city's policy if the city council chooses to do that. Commissioner Yarwood said that is the key issue, you can build single family homes right on top of each other or you can space them a large distance apart which changes the nature of the neighborhood. The comprehensive plan apparently doesn't have anything less than an R-1 designation and the zoning needs an additional designation. Mr. Roberts said there is the estate designation. Commissioner Trippler asked staff how hard it is to amend the comprehensive plan? The city is scheduled to begin work updating the comprehensive plan for 2007. Does it make sense to go through the effort to update the comp plan now or should we wait and work on it as part of the total picture? Mr. Roberts said updating the comprehensive plan in general will be a lot of work. As staff we are struggling with how it will get done due to work loads and time constraints. Chairperson Fischer asked if staff anticipated the planning commission would work on the comprehensive plan during work sessions? Mr. Roberts said that would be part of the process. Changing the designation for 15-20 properties and sending the notices and mailings would be some work. The risk the city runs if they don't do a moratorium on an area in Maplewood is if the city were to get a development proposal for that area. This area of south Maplewood is in the area of MUSA (Metropolitan Urban Service Area) which is land that the Met Council expects will develop "with" sewer. Parts of Woodbury and Newport are outside of the MUSA where they don't expect to have sewer for 20 years plus. Because Maplewood is in the MUSA Chuck Ahl expects all this area will one day have sewer. The question is does the city want to deal with the situation now or let future commissions and/or city councilmember's deal with it later. The price of land is getting to be too valuable and it's inevitable there "will" be some type of development there. Commissioner Trippler asked when staff anticipated the planning commission needed to have the comprehensive plan updated for the Met Council? Mr. Roberts said it's his understanding that the comprehensive plan would need to be done by the end of 2008, which means adopted by the Met Council and would need to be there by the middle of 2008. Commissioner Trippler asked how long the city can put a moratorium on development in an area in Maplewood? Planning Commission Minutes of 10-02-06 -7- Mr. Roberts said the moratorium can be for 1 year before being challenged by the legal system. If the moratorium would be for longer than 1 year you start risking a "taking". Commissioner Trippler said it sounds like we need to start modifying the comprehensive plan for this part of Maplewood. Commissioner Pearson asked if there was any problem making changes "piece meal" to the comprehensive plan or does that have to be done in mass? Mr. Roberts said to change the text from the comprehensive plan for R-1 to R-1 (R) from the Met Council perspective staff doesn't see a problem. However, the city will have to notify the property owners and have the hearings etc. first. Staff doesn't know how those property owners will like the rural designation. Commissioner Pearson said if the housekeeping part of it would have been done on that section of south Maplewood we wouldn't be looking at this proposal now. Mr. Roberts said staff mentioned that in the staff report. Ideally if we thought this was going to be an issue in 2003 when the R-1 (R) was added to the zoning code, we would have added an R- 1 (R) to the comprehensive plan and then updated the comprehensive plan maps and have that amendment already in place, but we didn't do that. In staffs defense we didn't see that R-1land use was that much different than R-1 (R) zoning, but there are those that would disagree with that. Chairperson Fischer asked if we are correct to assume there are no plans or anything in the talking stage for the Bailey Nursery site property? Mr. Roberts said correct. Mr. Roberts said if the commission wanted to take public testimony there are people here in the audience. Commissioner Trippler asked if this was a public hearing? Chairperson Fischer said no it isn't but if the commission would like we could hear public testimony, we can. Commissioner Yarwood said he would like to hear the public. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak? Mr. Ron Cockriel. 943 Century Avenue. Maplewood. addressed the commission. The consideration of a moratorium is an important thing. It affects developers, both current and future landowners and it affects how the city and residents view things. There was a moratorium in place 3 or 4 years ago south of Linwood Avenue. The assumption for a moratorium is that the city should come up with a plan first which appears to be what the commission is doing this evening. Three or four years ago the moratorium was put in place to study everything for development purposes such as soil conditions and sewer connection possibilities. When the moratorium was lifted the city should have had a plan in place. Now we are down to Carver Avenue and there are some discrepancies in the plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-02-06 -8- Mr. Cock riel said as a result from having the moratorium a decision was made by the city council regarding how to treat the property. What should have occurred at that time is that the city should have updated the comprehensive plan. Ultimately, when developers come to the city wanting to develop a property in Maplewood they should haye been informed regarding what is allowed with that parcel of land. He said he was at the last planning commission meeting and he remembered the conversation regarding what area the commission wanted to look at. He thought the commission decided anything that was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan was what the commission wanted to look at. Ultimately it all revolves around the R-1 (R) zoning. He believed both the east and west sides of the freeway should be looked at. The city council rejected the Carver Crossing proposal 3-2. It would be a strong message from the planning commission to recommend to the city council that a moratorium be put on this area or follow up on the unanimous vote turning down the Carver Crossing proposal on the grounds of land use. Too much focus has been on the sewer issue. It involves much more than just sewer. It is also to protect the character of the land and the area. This area falls within the freeway corridor and the Met Council wants to fill land up as much as possible close to the freeway. Ultimately, the Met Council has identified this property as regional significance for its critical habitat. This is a unique piece of property and we want to keep it that way. If a developer bought property and was not well informed regarding what can and can't be done on the land it could be a buyer beware situation. He recommends revisiting the language that set the direction three or four years ago regarding the land use over another moratorium south of Linwood in Maplewood. Ms. Carolvn Peterson, 1801 Gervais Avenue. Maplewood, addressed the commission. She said about 15 years ago there was a 10 member Open Space Commission appointed by the city council to evaluate the open space left in Maplewood. There were 66 open spaces of varying sizes that the group studied and the Carver Crossing property was one of the larger open spaces. It took 3 years to complete the study. It was done by a ranking system based on certain criteria. The Carver Crossing property was ranked number 7 at that time. One of the criteria used to judge this land was Vista and she hasn't heard anyone say anything about that property. The property would be number 1 on the list now. There has been discussion about the environmental value of the land, the topography, and the wildlife in the area, but she hasn't heard much about the bluff line which is very important in the Mississippi River Critical Area. This is a fly way for birds. It's a 73 mile long area on both sides of the Mississippi River and Maplewood has an area with a bluff line on it. If this land is left in its natural state you wouldn't have the fees for sewer connections, roads, utilities etc. Please keep in mind the historical and environmental value of this land when the city makes any decisions. Commissioner Pearson asked Carolyn Peterson if she knew out of the 66 open spaces how many of those remain undeveloped today? Ms. Peterson said other than the Carver Crossing land she didn't think she could name one piece of open space that is still open. Mr. Roberts asked Commissioner Pearson if he meant open space land that is still privately owned? Commissioner Pearson said yes, subtracting what was purchased for the open space. Mr. Roberts said the city owns some open space. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-02-06 -9- Chairperson Fischer said she thought she remembered there was some open space that wasn't part of the study because owners indicated they didn't want their land to be considered. Ms. Peterson said yes. One of the open spaces was the Hajicek property which is now the Legacy Village Area. The Open Space Commission contacted every owner of the undeveloped space and some people said they weren't ready to sell and they didn't want their land included in the study. Mr. Roberts said one of the criteria for buying it was you had to have a "willing" seller. Ranking the open space is one thing but some of those prime spaces didn't have a willing seller and are developed today. Ms. Peterson said she just wanted to give the historical background of this property and other open spaces in Maplewood for the commission. Commissioner Trippler said Mr. Cockriel stated the city council rejected the Carver Crossing property at the city council meeting, is that a done deal now? Mr. Roberts said as far as staff knows it's a done deal. Mr. Cockriel had a point that there is R- 1 (R) zoning on that side of the freeway as well and if that is a question of consistency and inconstancy for the planning commission you may want to consider those properties on that side of the freeway for a moratorium. Commissioner Yarwood asked if we are going to include the properties on both the east and west side of the freeway what is the best way to identify those? Chairperson Fischer asked if we are looking at simple housekeeping of information or are we looking at recommending a moratorium? Commissioner Yarwood said he believes this needs a moratorium placed on it and the comprehensive plan modified. Commissioner Trippler agreed. Mr. Roberts said the map on page 16 of the staff report identifies the properties that have the land use and R-1 (R) inconsistencies not including the Carver Crossing property. If it's the wish of the planning commission to have a moratorium it would be for the area south of Carver Avenue east of 1-494 and including the properties that were proposed in the Carver Crossing project. Then the planning commission should provide direction to staff regarding what to do as far as the moratorium. Commissioner Yarwood moved to recommend to the city council a one year moratorium on development in Maplewood east of 1-494 and the properties considered as part of the Carver Crossing development to enable the city to make the comprehensive plan and zoning maps consistent with regard to R-1 (R), Farm and R-1 zoning. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Planning Commission Minutes of 10-02-06 -10- The motion passed. This item could go to the city council as early as Monday, October 23, 2006. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Trippler was the planning commission representative at the September 11, 2006, city council meeting. Items discussed were 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, which was passed by the city council. He also stated the Environmental Committee was elevated to full commission status. The Tree and Woodlands ordinance amendment was passed by the city council 4-1. b. Mr. Desai was the planning commission representative at the September 25,2006, city council meeting. Mr. Desai said the city council meeting ran too late on Monday, September 25,2006, and had to reconvene on Thursday, September 28, 2006, but he couldn't make it to the meeting that evening. Therefore, Mr. Roberts reported that after a four hour meeting for Carver Crossing (Carver Avenue & Henry Lane) the proposal was denied 3-2 by the city council. c. Mr. Yarwood was scheduled to be the planning commission representative at the October 9, 2006, city council meeting however; there are no planning commission items to be discussed. d. Mr. Kaczrowski will be the planning commission representative at the October 23,2006, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the Legacy Town houses at County Road D and Kennard Street to Hazelwood and the South Maplewood Development Moratorium. e. Ms. Dierich will be the planning commission representative at the November 13, 2006, city council meeting. It is unknown what items will be discussed at this time. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-02-06 -11- X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Rescheduling of Monday, December 4,2006, planning commission meeting Mr. Roberts said the planning commission meeting scheduled for Monday, December 4, 2006, will have to be rescheduled due to a taxation meeting that evening. When all the planning commissioners are present the commission will look at their calendars and decide what the best date is to reschedule the planning commission meeting. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.