Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/20/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, November 20, 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. November 6, 2006 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Alley Vacation - Driscoll (south of Frost Avenue and east of Walter Street) 7:15 Walgreens (Northeast Corner of White Bear and Beam Avenues) Land Use Plan Amendment (LBC to BC) Zoning Map Change (LBC to BC) Lot Division 6. New Business a. Resolution of Appreciation - Jim Kaczrowski b. City Private Street Policy 7. Unfinished Business None 9. Visitor Presentations 10. Commission Presentations November 13 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich November 27 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer December 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Grover December 18 Council Meeting: Mr. Yarwood 11. Staff Presentations Reschedule December 18 Meeting - Tuesday December 19 or Wednesday December 207 12. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20,2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present at 7:06 p.m. Dave Fisher, Interim Community Development Director, Building Official Erin Laberee, Assistant City Engineer Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Hess seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Pearson, Trippler Approval of the planning commission minutes for November 6, 2006. Chairperson Fischer had a correction to the minutes on page 7, in the first paragraph, last sentence changing Monday to Wednesday. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the planning commission minutes for November 6, 2006. Commissioner seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-06 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Alley Vacation - Driscoll (south of Frost Avenue and east of Walter Street) (7:03-7:22 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Ms. Judy Driscoll is proposing that the city vacate an existing alley. This unused alley runs north and south between Frost and Fenton Avenues and is between Walter Street and Phalen Place. Ms. Driscoll wants the city to vacate this alley because it has not been used in several years and so she would have additional private property behind her existing house. The city acquired the alley in question many years ago when the developer of the Kavanagh and Dawson's Addition recorded the final plat with Ramsey County. Ms. Driscoll is requesting the alley vacation because her existing house is set near the rear of her property. By having the city vacate the alley, she (and her neighbors) will acquire an additional ten feet of land along the rear sides of their properties. Neither the city nor the developer of the neighborhood ever paved or improved the alley. Jon Jarosch of the city engineering department reviewed this request. He stated that the city doesn't have a need for the alley in question. He noted there is a low area near Fenton Avenue that could collect storm water. Part of the low area appears to be in the alley. As such, he is recommending that the city keep a drainage and utility easement over the entire vacated alley. Such an easement also would accommodate the needs of Xcel Energy for their existing power lines. The property owner of 1907 Phalen Place, Mr. Buehlman, is asking the city to keep at least part of the alley in place from the rear of his property to Frost Avenue. This is so he may have access to the rear of his property. As Ms. Driscoll notes in her statement, the city could vacate the part of the alley from Fenton Avenue north to the north property line of her property and then keep the remainder of the alley in place (the north 113 feet) for the access to Frost Avenue. Commissioner Hess said he noticed a power pole on the northwest side of the alley and the alley is all grass. How is the Xcel easement set in relation to the power poles? Mr. Roberts said without a specific survey staff doesn't know for sure. Staff is recommending that the city keep an easement over whatever is vacated so Xcel Energy has the right to go in there and do what they have to. Staff doesn't know how the power pole lines up with the easement or with the alley but are hopeful it will line up. Commissioner Trippler said it appeared to him that the home at 1915 Phalen Place and 1100 Frost Avenue have driveways that exit onto Frost Avenue. The home at 1907 Phalen Place has a driveway that goes to the garage so why do we need to keep the north 113 feet for the access to Frost Avenue? Mr. Roberts said staff understands that at least one of the neighbors has been using the alleyway to access their rear yards but the applicant can further expand on that. The alleyway is used as an occasional use and not a regular use. Commissioner Trippler said if we vacate the alley but retain the utility easement for Xcel Energy, doesn't that mean it precludes someone from building any1hing on that portion of the property anyway? Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-06 -3- Mr. Roberts said yes and no. Staff's understanding is that the utility and drainage easement is for the utility and drainage. If you want to provide the easement for ingress and egress that would be a different type of easement. The resolution would have to be modified to include that as the part you are keeping. If there is "some public interest" and "some public use" in using that part of the alleyway then the city is better off keeping it "public" rather than vacating it. Commissioner Trippler said assuming the easement is 20-feet wide then each person would get 10 feet from the easement. Then it would be their property and if they wanted to drive a car on the 10 feet of property then they have that right? Mr. Roberts said correct. Commissioner Trippler said he just wanted people to be aware if they leave the easement on the property as it is it would be open for the public to use or drive on. Mr. Roberts said correct. Commissioner Hess asked if the easement is vacated would the adjacent property owners have the ability to put a fence right up to the easement? Mr. Roberts said if the 20-foot easement is divided into 2 the new property line becomes the center point and the fence could go down the center. If this isn't vacated and it's kept open, then nobody would be allowed to put a fence there because the 20 foot wide alley is supposed to remain open. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Ms. Judv Driscoll, 1890 Walter Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. She said she didn't have any comments or questions. She just wants to accommodate the neighbors and she said she understands the utility easement. Mr. Edward Buehlman, 1907 Phalen Place, Maplewood, addressed the commission. This request is fine with him. He just wants to be able to access the rear of his property where he has a double gate that is 10 feet wide located south of his garage. He pointed out where his property is on the map for the commission. Mr. Wayne Sachi, 1100 Frost Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. To clarify, the power poles are on the west side of the alley and he has always assumed thatXcel Energy would access the utilities through the alley or easement area. He always thought if there was a utility easement on your property you couldn't build any1hing there that would hamper access to the easement area. Either way he cannot use the additional 1 0 feet of property. He said he uses the alleyway to haul heavy loads of building material to the rear of his property if needed. Mr. John Olson, 1899 Phalen Place, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said although he owns the property at 1899 Phalen Place he does not reside there. The property has been in his family for many years and he inherited the property from his mother four years ago. He is supportive of this request. He does not access this alleyway so this request doesn't affect him in a negative way. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-06 -4- Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the alley vacation for the Driscoll property which is (south of Frost Avenue and east of Walter Street). Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on December 11, 2006. b. Walgreens (Northeast Corner of White Bear and Beam Avenues) (7:22-7:42 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Semper Development, representing Mogren Landscaping and Walgreens, is proposing to construct a 14,820-square-foot Walgreens retail store with a drive-through pharmacy on a vacant lot located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues. The proposal includes subdividing the 2.83-acre lot into two lots. The western lot will be sold to Semper Development for the development of the proposed Walgreens and the eastern lot will be retained by the Maplewood Financial Center (Premier Bank) for future development. The property is zoned and guided in the city's comprehensive plan as Limited Business Commercial (LBC), which allows for offices, medical or health-related clinics, day care centers, or similar uses. In order to operate a retail store and pharmacy from the newly subdivided western lot, the proposal also includes a request for a comprehensive land use plan and zoning change to Business Commercial (BC). Commissioner Trippler said the city is asking the applicant to set aside escrow money to construct the sidewalks in the near future because White Bear Avenue is going to be expanded. Mr. Roberts said that is correct. Erin Laberee, Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, addressed the commission. She said White Bear Avenue is planned for improvements in 2008. Those improvements would also affect Beam Avenue and the city is looking at reconfiguring the sidewalk. Therefore, it didn't make sense to require the applicant to install the sidewalk and then tear it out for the White Bear Avenue improvements only to replace the sidewalk again. The city would request the applicant to post escrow for the future building of the sidewalk when the road improvements are done. Commissioner Trippler said the plans show the crowns of the trees overlapping the ten foot expansion of White Bear Avenue, wouldn't it make more sense to move the trees over because if you plant them and they cut in underneath the crown of the tree that would kill the trees. Ms. Laberee said Dan Soler with Ramsey County called her today with the same concern. That is in the Ramsey County right-of-way and to eliminate the impact on the trees in the right-of-way staff will add that recommendation to the comments. Commissioner Hess asked if the applicant considered relocating the trash compactors to the west side of the property so they wouldn't be as visible and unsightly from White Bear Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-06 -5- Mr. Roberts said because of the drive aisle and the parking lot configuration there may not be enough room to do that. With the truck deliveries and the drive pattern that may cause a problem entering and exiting the site, but the applicant could elaborate on that. Commissioner Desai said he read a comment that traffic would not be a factor here but this is a very busy intersection and these are busy streets in both directions. He asked if a traffic study had been done showing this proposal isn't going to affect traffic in the area? Mr. Roberts said he isn't aware of any traffic studies that have been. Staff realizes this area is scheduled to be upgraded by Ramsey County and Maplewood. Hopefully the two entities working together won't create additional traffic problems. Commissioner Hess said a CVS Pharmacy was just built on White Bear Avenue and County Road B East and there is a Walgreen's in the strip mall by Rainbow Foods. Why are so many drugstores being built in such close proximity? Mr. Roberts said staff understands this Walgreen's proposal would replace the older Walgreen's store in the strip mall by Rainbow Foods. Staff understands Walgreen's wants their stores to be freestanding and have a drive-thru window for the convenience of their customer's. Apparently Walgreen's and CVS Pharmacy try to build their stores close to each other because they are competing against each other. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. John Kohler, Architect, Semper Development, addressed the commission. He said the trash collection area is in a brick enclosure which would face away from White Bear Avenue. There is also going to be landscaping and trees around the brick enclosure so it would be well screened and not very visible. Depending on which street you are driving on you wouldn't see the trash enclosure very well anyway. The reason trash enclosure is located there is for traffic circulation and truck deliveries. He said they have been working with Dan Soler with Ramsey County regarding removing one of the curb cuts and combining the curb cuts to improve the traffic in the area. The site was designed to accommodate the expansion of White Bear and Beam Avenues. As far as the number of Walgreen's stores and how close they are located, the corporate office used to figure on one Walgreen's store every 4 miles, now Walgreen's wants to serve customers within a 1 mile area. Walgreen's finds with a good density population this is how far they would like their stores spaced apart in order to fit the customers' needs. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant if they had any issues with the recommendations in the staff report? Mr. Kohler said they had no issues or problems with the staff report. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the lot split boundary exhibit date stamped October 5, 2006, for a lot division request to subdivide the 2.83-acre lot located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues into two lots. Lot division approval is based on code requirements (Section 34-14 -lot divisions) and is subject to the following: Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-06 -6- a. Submit a revised survey to staff for approval which shows the following: 1) Legal descriptions of Parcels A and B. 2) Location and legal description of utility and access easement on the east side of Parcel A to accommodate utilities and access for the property to the north (2950 White Bear Avenue) and access for the property to the east (Parcel B). 3) Location and legal description of access easement on the north side of Parcel A and the south side of the property to the north (2950 White Bear Avenue) to accommodate the drive-through lane located on the north side of the Walgreen's building on Parcel A and the shared driveway on White Bear Avenue. 4) Location and legal description of ten-foot-wide roadway easement along White Bear Avenue the entire length of Parcel A to accommodate for future roadway widening. b. Deeds describing the two new legal descriptions for Parcels A and B, including the required utility, access, and roadway easement descriptions described above. c. Deeds must be recorded with Ramsey County within one year of the date of lot division approval or the lot division will become null and void (city code requirement). d. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the proposed Walgreens retail store and pharmacy on Parcel A, the following must be submitted to staff for approval: 1) Proof that Ramsey County has recorded the deeds. 2)A signed certificate of survey for Parcel A showing the location of all property lines, building, parking, driveway, freestanding sign, and easements. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the comprehensive land use plan change resolution (Attachment 22). This resolution changes the comprehensive land use plan map for the newly subdivided 1.54 acre western lot (Parcel A) on the vacant lot located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues from Limited Business Commercial (LBC) to Business Commercial (BC). The city is making this change because it will: a. Provide for orderly development. b. Protect and strengthen neighborhoods. c. Promote economic development that will expand the property tax base, increase jobs and provide desirable services. d. Minimize the land planned for streets. e. Minimize conflicts between land uses. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-06 -7- f. Prevent premature use, overcrowding, or overuse of land especially when supportive services and facilities, such as utilities, drainage systems, or streets are not available. g. Help to implement the goals of the comprehensive plan including: 1) The city will not approve new development without providing for adequate facilities and services, such as street, utilities, drainage, parks and open space. 2) Safe and adequate access will be provided for all properties. 3) Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social, or physical impact on adjoining developments. 4) 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. 5) The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. 6) Group compatible businesses in suitable areas. 7) Promote the joint use of parking areas, drives and trash containers. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the zoning map change resolution (Attachment 23). This resolution changes the zoning map for the newly subdivided 1.54 acre western lot (Parcel A) on the vacant lot located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues from Limited Business Commercial (LBC) to Business Commercial (BC). The city is making this change because: a. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. b. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood and the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. c. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. d. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection, and schools. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on December 11, 2006. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-06 -8- Commissioner Hess said he noticed an error on attachment 21 of the engineering plan review in the first sentence, it states the northwest corner rather than the northeast corner. Mr. Roberts said the engineering staff will make that correction. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Resolution of Appreciation - Jim Kaczrowski Mr. Roberts reported that Jim Kaczrowski resigned from the planning commission and that staff is recommending adoption of the Resolution of Appreciation for his service on the planning commission. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the Resolution of Appreciation for Jim Kaczrowski. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on December 11, 2006. b. City Private Street Policy Mr. Roberts said at the request of the city manager, city staff has researched and prepared a draft policy about the use of private streets in Maplewood. (The report was compiled by staff based on reports from two different cities but written with Maplewood in mind.) The city manager requested staff prepare a policy after receiving concerns about the private streets and driveways in the New Century development. Staff has attempted to include the purpose, policy and standards the city should follow when considering any development with private streets. This is the starting point of the policy in draft form and staff would like input from the planning commission. There are several issues and concerns for the city to consider when reviewing the use of private streets in developments. Private streets or driveways allow development with: 1. No publicly dedicated right-of-way. 2. A narrower section width (from front to front). 3. Smaller setbacks to the pavement (because of no right-of-way). 4. Usually a narrower pavement width. This means less storm water run off and lower costs to build. 5. More flexibility in site design. Private streets or driveways haven't always been built to the same standards that the city has so ongoing maintenance can be a concern. There has been at least one town home association approach the city about taking back the private streets with the reasoning being they pay taxes and aren't getting their streets plowed and that doesn't seem fair. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-06 -9- The city's concern is they don't want to take back substandard streets so now the city council recently authorized the engineering department to do a feasibility study to research the condition of the streets and utilities. Once the study is done the findings will be presented to the city council. Commissioner Hess asked as part of the standards for city streets and private drives has the city discussed the issue of durability or base aggregate compaction, the asphalt course materials and the finished asphalt course materials as far as durability issues go for private and public streets? Ms. Laberee said when it's a public street the city has control over every1hing and the city would make sure the street is built to city standards. The city doesn't have that quality control over a private street when it's being constructed. As a city we aren't out there continuing to watch over the development of the private street to ensure the same construction standards are being used like they would for public streets in the city. In fact, on a few public street projects the city has even taken over the project rather than using a developer. Commissioner Hess asked in the future, if a private street wants to become a public street and the private street isn't built to the city standards and starts to have potholes and other problems, what does the developer have to do to be in compliance with the street conditions that the city follows? Ms. Laberee said there is a test section underway at Crestview Forest Drive where the residents have petitioned to have the street converted from a private to a public street. Right now the city is in the process of conducting a feasibility study and the city will be looking at what would have to be done to bring the private street into compliance. If the private street isn't up to the city code and city conditions we have to determine what does that mean exactly? What has to be done before the city will take over a private street and changing it over to a public street? The city is working on those questions and hopefully that will all be answered after the feasibility study is complete. Commissioner Trippler said he thought the private street policy report was well thought out and thinks this would work well as a good policy for "future" developments. If the city looks at acquiring private streets in the future they should grant private street construction rights based on the requirement that a developer build the street to the city standards like a public street is built in Maplewood and not built to substandard conditions. He asked if this private street policy addressed cul-de-sacs and/or turnarounds? It seems when a developer asks the city for a private street the city tends to allow the developer more leeway regarding how the developer finishes the end of the street off when it isn't a thru street. He thinks there should be stricter restrictions for that. Mr. Roberts said that is a good recommendation. We could include language stating the private road should be built to the satisfaction of the fire marshal or something of that nature. Commissioner Dierich was happy to see this private street policy draft because her husband has been dealing with this issue for the New Century development. She thinks staff did a good job writing this draft policy. She thinks we also need to address the issue of restrictive covenants and how they are written because this whole issue stems from a poorly written set of restrictive covenants in the New Century development. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-06 -10- Commissioner Dierich said the people that are upset about this are upset because people are driving through their development and there isn't enough money in the town home fund to pay to resurface the private street because the builder of the townhomes won't pay his portion of money to get this done because he hasn't rented all the units yet nor have they built all ofthe units yet. This is a large expense to resurface the private road and no way to pay for it without raising the association fees in the development. Commissioner Dierich said the city may need to broaden this policy even more to make sure there is enough funding available so the association can maintain the townhomes and the private streets. She likes the idea of making these streets into dead end streets and not connecting them to a public place. The residents in the New Century development will probably ask to have their street made into a dead end. She believes this development should be closed off and the public should come off of New Century Avenue. She said there should be a turnaround for the really long driveways that would be large enough to accommodate a large fire truck and she would like more specific language added to the policy. She would like to see the colors of the street signs look different and have a sign that says Dead End so people don't drive down the street nosing around. Chairperson Fischer asked staff to review what they look for when checking over the covenants and association agreements in developments when they are built? Mr. Roberts said staff doesn't have the knowledge or expertise to review covenants and look at funding and who is going to pay for what and when. Staff looks for things in the association rules such as retaining walls on a site and that there is a list of responsibility parties listed in homeowners' association. Associations or covenants have various rules and regulations that many times city staff is not concerned about such as where your garbage can be put, where you can park boats etc. If there were specific conditions for a particular development that were required by the city council those should be included in the covenants so everyone knows about those restrictions and conditions are and what the level of responsibility is. The city attorney would also have to be involved in the review of the townhome or homeowner association rules. Commissioner Dierich said it defeats the purpose of having affordable housing if you move into an affordable house and then have association fees so high that it makes it unaffordable. This could happen when you have private streets in a development and there are added expenses to maintain the development and the association fees have to be raised to cover those expenses. Commissioner Trippler said the staff report says the engineering department is doing the feasibility study for the private drives. However, the city is currently under a budget crunch and there is lack of staff and staff time to do any1hing other than the bare essentials so it doesn't fit when you say the engineering department is taking on this feasibility study based on those facts. If a private entity wanted to convert a private driveway and have the city take it over, why wouldn't the private entity do the feasibility study and provide the findings to the city? Mr. Roberts said the homeowners association had to post an escrow with the city to cover costs. Ms. Laberee can elaborate more on the study. Ms. Laberee said the engineering staff is doing the feasibility study so that the city doesn't have to analyze a report and make changes to the report done by another firm which would waste time and money so the city prefers to take the project on themselves. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-06 -11- Commissioner Pearson said he isn't sure what the residents' problems are. The private streets were put in before their homes were built. Now the residents are looking at the costs of maintaining and plowing those private streets and now they want the city to absorb the cost by converting the road to public. Underneath the streets are gas, electric, water and sewer and every time something needs to be fixed it's going to be a cost in the city in the future. Commissioner Pearson said the people buying into these developments need due diligence and should look at the ability of the developer to fulfill those maintenance agreements. Maybe the city should look at requiring larger escrows to ensure the work is completed. Otherwise the residents are going to have to assess themselves to pay for upcoming costs. Commissioner Pearson said somebody is going to ask what is magic about 22-foot setback where there is gas, electric, water and sewer in the streets. He said if you changed that setback to 10 feet he would be the first to sign up. He said he lives in a neighborhood with private streets and their gas, electric, water and sewer isn't underground, it's located elsewhere on the property. He said he thinks this is a bad idea for the city to research orto get involved in. The people that bought into a private development are going to have to work their way out of this, perhaps they could sell out to another investor. Mr. Roberts said the policy as it was drafted, was intended for the city council to decide if they want to adopt this and staff would put it in place for future developments. Commissioner Pearson said he agrees with the policy for "future" developments but not for "current" developments and conditions. He believes this would open Pandora's box by taking over existing problems with private drives and bringing the streets up to city standards and changing them to a public street. Mr. Roberts said the primary emphasis is for future developments and deciding if the city is going to allow private streets or drives in the future. Commissioner Yarwood said the city needs to protect themselves in the future. If for some reason the city takes over the private street and the standards aren't up to par, it will cost the city money in the future. To prevent neighborhood degradation, if the streets aren't built properly and are built with substandard conditions and the people that live there cannot afford to replace or resurface the streets, then it is a detriment to the way the neighborhood and the way the city looks. To him it's almost a no brainer requiring consistent street construction standards for all developments private or public. Commissioner Trippler said he agrees with Commissioner Pearson's comments that it's a bad idea for the city to take over private streets, particularly if they were engineered and installed to substandard conditions. Mr. Roberts said the feasibility study will tell the city what it would cost to bring the road up to city standards if it was constructed with substandard conditions. The city council may say the city won't take over a private drive until the developer fixes the road and brings it up to city standards. If the developer cannot pay to bring the road up to city standards and there are 50 homeowners on a private street willing to pay money up front to bring the road up to city standards before the city takes over the private drive and converts it to a public street, that may be okay. Chairperson Fischer said the intent of this policy is for "future" developments. She asked if the city sees the next stage as taking existing private drives and converting them to public streets? Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-06 -12- Mr. Roberts said depending on what the feasibility study tells the city council that could be the next step. Commissioner Trippler recommended that city staff take the Private Street Policy to the city council. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Ms. Dierich was the planning commission representative at the November 13,2006, city council meeting. The city council discussed the second reading of the south Maplewood moratorium for properties south of Highwood Avenue. There were 19 residents who spoke and two developers who were in favor of the moratorium. The city council passed a one-year moratorium. They discussed the closing of the St. Paul Tourist Cabins and manufactured home park at 940 Frost Avenue and the fact that a public hearing was supposed to be held before the developer bought and had agreements with the property owners. There was one homeowner that the developer could not come to terms with. If the homeowner and the developer cannot come to an agreement on the purchase price, the city council will determine a fair market price. The electric franchise fee was discussed with about 100 residents in the audience. The electric franchise fee would cost $2.70 a month to cover costs. The discussion was tabled until further notice. Then the city council voted to make the interim city manager, Greg Copeland a permanent city manager for 1 year on a 3-to-1 vote with Mayor Longrie, Councilmember Hjelle and Councilmember Cave voting Aye. Councilmember Kathleen Juenemann voted Nay and Councilmember Will Rossbach was absent from the meeting and could not vote. The city council also discussed the negotiations that are taking place for the city employee contracts. There are eight bargaining units for city employee contracts. Because the city doesn't have a human resource department any longer and the city has new legal counsel there is a new group of people negotiating the city employee contracts. This takes a large amount of time to familiarize everyone with the process, the past contracts of the bargaining units, and to understand what has happened in the past and what is being requested for the future. There will be 5 to 7 meetings with each bargaining unit for negotiations which is going to be very costly. The city council meeting ended around 2:30 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-06 -13- b. Ms. Fischer will be the planning commission representative at the November 27,2006, city council meeting. The only planning commission item to discuss is the CUP for Sandy Lake for the materials storage and recycling for the SPRWS. The city council may also give an update on the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site at 940 Frost Avenue as well. c. Mr. Grover will be the planning commission representative at the December 11, 2006, city council meeting. Items to be discussed are the Alley Vacation for Judy Driscoll, south of Frost Avenue and east of Walter Street, the Walgreens proposal at the northeast corner of White Bear and Beam Avenues) for a land use plan amendment from LBC to BC, a zoning map change from LBC to BC and a lot division. Also the Resolution of Appreciation for former planning commission member, Jim Kaczrowski will be discussed. d. Mr. Yarwood will be the planning commission representative at the December 18, 2006, city council meeting. It is unknown at this time which items will be discussed. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Because the last city council meeting of the month falls on Monday, December 25,2006, the city council may move their meeting up a week and meet on Monday, December 18, 2006, therefore bumping the planning commission meeting date. The two alternate dates to reschedule the PC meeting are Tuesday, December 19, or Wednesday, December 20. The planning commission said if the city council decides to hold their meeting on Monday, December 18, 2006, the planning commission could meet on Tuesday, December 19, 2006. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.