Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/16/2007 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesdav. January 16, 2007, 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. December 19,2006 5. Public Hearings None 6. New Business a. 2006 Annual Report b. Resolution of Appreciation - Mary Dierich c. Rules of Procedure 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations January 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler January 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson February 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai February 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Hess 10. Staff Presentations a. Possible permanent meeting night change - Tuesdays or Wednesdays? 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the rneeting to order at 7:03 p.rn. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Cornrnissioner Mary Dierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Cornrnissioner Michael Grover Cornrnissioner Harland Hess Cornrnissioner Gary Pearson Corn missioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Absent Present Present Present at 7:03 p.m. Present Absent Present Absent Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Cornrnissioner Trippler rnade a request to discuss the Rice Street Corridor Task Force during Commission Presentations. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda as amended. Cornrnissioner Hess seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Trippler Approval of the planning commission minutes for December 5, 2006. Corn missioner Trippler had one correction on page 5, under b. Carrnax discussion, in the 2nd paragraph, sixth sentence, first word, should be too instead of two. Corn missioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for December 5, 2006, as amended. Cornmissioner Hess seconded. Ayes - Fischer, Hess, Trippler Abstentions - Dierich & Grover Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-06 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARING Saint Clair Hills Development (Carver Avenue, east of 1-494) (Development Moratorium Variance and Rezoning (R-1(R) to R-1) (7:06 - 8:24 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Jamie Jensen, representing Tyrus Land Company, is requesting city approval of a variance to a moratorium and a zoning map change. He is asking the city for these approvals for the undeveloped property on the south side of Carver Avenue east of Sterling Street. On November 13, 2006, the city council gave second reading to a rnoratorium ordinance for many of the properties south of Carver Avenue. The adoption of this ordinance by the city council prohibits any developrnent or subdivision of any property south of Carver Avenue that the city has zoned F (farm residence) and R-1 (R) (rural residential). This rnoratoriurn includes the properties in this request. Mr. Jensen is requesting a variance to the rnoratoriurn so the city may consider a zoning rnap change for the property. The city cannot consider the zoning map change for the property with the moratorium that is now in place unless the city approves a variance to the moratorium. Mr. Roberts added that the state statue requires the city to notify residents within 350 feet of a project site but staff extended the area to all those within 500 feet from this proposal and to all those on Carver Avenue between 1-494 and Century Avenue. Staff received one comrnent for the proposal and 24 responses against the proposal including the e-mail that was handed out prior to the start of the planning commission meeting from Joe and Michael Bailey. Chairperson Fischer asked if the planning commissioners had any questions for staff? No questions were asked of staff. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Jamie Jensen, Developer, Tyrus Land Company, 2483 _15th St NW, Suite C, New Brighton, addressed the commission. He said he's here to request the change in the zoning from R-1 (R) to R and the removal of moratorium in south Maplewood. It is his position to find out what the city requirernents are in order to develop property in Maplewood. He said if he meets the requirements he should be allowed to develop his property in Maplewood. He said in this case he thinks he meets the requirernents and should be able to proceed with development. The zoning requirement is R-1 (R) which requires a 2-acre minimum for the development. He read from page 5 of the south Maplewood sewer study the proposed land uses in south Maplewood assurning that the area will be served with sanitary sewer. In areas where sanitary sewer is not installed, the city may want to consider modifying the land use to more of a rural residential use with the minimum lot size as discussed before. The first step is to get sanitary sewer, if you can't get sewer than you look to the larger lot size. Then you would ask, what has the city told developers as far as the import of sanitary sewer? Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-06 -3- Mr. Jensen said the first thing he looked at was the city utility code which reads at 40.96 any building used for human habitation or for human occupancy located on property lying inside the city shall be connected to the municipal sanitary sewer system within one year from the time that a connection is available to any such property. Additionally, all buildings constructed within the city on property adjacent to a sewer main or in a block through which the sewer extends shall be provided with a connection to the municipal sanitary sewer system for the disposal of all human waste. Sanitary sewer is number one. They're not looking for individual sewer systems. Looking further under the rules of subdivision 34-10 section 11, it states: Before an individual sewer treatment system may be installed, the city manager decides that city sanitary sewer is not available. He said that is another indication that the sanitary sewer system comes first, when available. Sanitary sewer is available to this property and staff has indicated that the sewer connect is about 400 feet away frorn the property in question. Mr. Jensen put a map on the overhead showing this area in (sewer area 70 as shown on the Maplewood sewer map). He put the sewer as-builts on the overhead to represent where the end of the city sanitary sewer line and where the water main extends. (To him this represented that the sanitary sewer line and water main are available to his property.) He said he went to the engineering department with this plan when he first proposed it and the engineering department said the sewer and water services are well within the proximity to the property. Mr. Jensen said under the City of Maplewood's ordinances, as the developer he is required to use the city sanitary sewer and water services if there is a sewer line to the property. He said this map is from 1996, 7 years before the R-1(R) designation was even put in. Why is this area indicated as R-1 (R)? Why is there a two lot minimum in this area? This would have come from the sewer study in 2003. The city map shows this area as sewer area 70. Mr. Jensen said the south Maplewood sewer study on page 2 states, there are 8 districts within this study area which include sewer district 50,51,53, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58. Sewer district 70 is not part of the south Maplewood sewer study and shouldn't have been made R-1 (R). However, it was touched on when the sewer study was done. In an earlier memo frorn Ken Roberts, it states for district area 70 a gravity sewer can serve district 70 and the sanitary sewer flows from the 240- acre Bailey Nursery parcel in Woodbury and Newport serve it. When the city or a developer extends the municipal sanitary sewer services to serve district 70, the new pipe must be sized large enough to serve the 240-acre parcel of Bailey Nursery. The Carver Lake interceptor is large enough and the interceptor can be attached. Now he has a property where the city requires the developer to use sanitary sewer, it's zoned for 2 acre lot minimums, which you don't use sanitary sewers for. Now he is stuck between a rock and a hard place. This property should never have been zoned R-1 (R) and should have remained zoned R-1 and must follow the Maplewood rules regarding the utilities and subdivisions and use sanitary sewer. Then we come to the south Maplewood moratorium question of whether or not this property should be removed from the south Maplewood moratorium or left alone. The question is that the moratoriurn is put in place to study the area to find out what it should be and in this particular case there is nothing else the property could be zoned. The zoning rule 44.9 gives 7 different zoning districts. The zoning districts are (F)Farm, (R-1 (R) if that ever gets put in), R-1, R-1 (S), R-2, R-3 R-E. This property has to be zoned either R-1, R-1 (S), R-2 or R-3 for single family, twin hornes or multi-family. He said at this point he is asking for the lowest density allowed where sanitary sewer and water are present. With the moratorium the question becomes, what can this property ever be which is R-1 (R). Because of the sanitary sewer it will have to be zoned R-1, it is not going to end up being R-E or R-1 (R) because if it is, then you will have to have individual sewer systems where sewer and water are available which would violate the city code. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-06 -4- Mr. Jensen said he's looking to be steered one way or the other. The Maplewood rules say you have to use the sewer and water connection because it is there, if the sewer is available, you can't use individual sewer systerns, and if you don't use individual sewer systerns, you have an R- 1 (R) district. A delay would be expensive to sit on property for 1 year to wait for the moratorium to be lifted when nothing is going to change. He would request that the zoning be changed frorn R- 1 (R) to R-1 and that the moratorium be lifted from this area. Corn missioner Trippler said in the research that you did, did you read any language that says the city is required to have lots smaller than 2 acre lots whether there is sewer there or not? Mr. Jensen said he hadn't read such language, he has looked for something that would be that abundantly clear, but he couldn't find anything. Commissioner Trippler asked if he thought the city had the authority and the right to create a zone that allows 2 acre lots? Mr. Jensen said yes, where there is no sewer or water service. Commissioner Trippler asked where the code makes that distinction? Mr. Jensen said it doesn't make it that clear, it would be nice. It would be inferred from the language that he read from the south Maplewood sewer study, the proposed residential land uses assume that the areas will be served with sanitary sewer. In areas where sanitary sewer is not installed, the city may want to consider modifying the land use to a more rural residential use. That is a back door way of trying to get there. It's sort of assumed, which is always a mistake, then you are going to have an R-1 zoning where there is city sewer and water. Where there is no city sewer and water you can't have R-1 zoning, but it doesn't say here is sewer so you can't have a 2-acre lot. People can buy land and put city sewer and water in but it wouldn't be anticipated that would be the case. He wished it was that clear. Corn missioner Trippler said if you acquired a piece of property in this area which was a 2 acre lot and you built a house on it and you put in city sewer and water would that be a possibility? Mr. Jensen said yes it's possible, but it's enorrnously expensive. Commissioner Trippler said the development you are proposing doesn't in any way, shape or form fit in with R-1 (R) zoning designation; it doesn't fit in with the neighborhood, or with this area of Maplewood. Why wouldn't you make a proposal if you wanted to develop this property to have 2 acre lots with a house on each 2 acre lot? Mr. Jensen said that would not make financial sense. He knows the city can disregard any financial considerations but it's no secret that he's in it for the commercial purpose. He is trying to bring the property, as any developer would, to its highest and best use. Having two 2 acre lot minimums with sanitary sewer is nowhere near its highest use. In the future, the Bailey Nursery property is going to develop into many parcels and if they go with R-1 zoning that would be 720 homes within several hundred feet of this property. If they go with higher than R-1 (R) zoning they could build over 1,000 homes. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-06 -5- Mr. Jensen said everything in the city's documentation says, the Bailey Nursery property development is coming, be ready for it and be ready with the sewer systern. This Bailey Nursery property isn't even in Maplewood but your documentation says "be ready for it". But the docurnentation says lets get ready for the future developrnent. He's on the road "to" the future Bailey property and he would like to get started. What Maplewood is saying is you are going to be required to have 2 acre minimum lots until the Bailey family decides to sell, then Maplewood will bring the sewer line up to the property and charge you (the developer) for it. When the sewer line goes "by" his property he will be assessed as it goes up to Bailey Nursery property, but in the interim he has to sit on 2 acre lots and he said that isn't fair. Commissioner Trippler said Mr. Jensen is jurnping the gun considerably. The purpose of the moratorium as he understands it's to give the city the opportunity to look at the R-1 (R) zoning classification and decide if it applies, if the city wants to maintain the R-1 (R) zoning in this area of Maplewood then the city council will do that. It's very likely he thinks, given the tone of the city currently, that the R-1 (R) zoning will remain in south Maplewood whether there is sewer here or not. He firrnly believes the comprehensive plan is going to be changed to reflect the R-1 (R) zoning which should have been changed in 2003 when it was first proposed and put into place. Whether or not the Bailey Nursery property becomes the next downtown or not is beyond Maplewood's control. That property is located in Woodbury, not in Maplewood. Whatwe do have control over is this area of south Maplewood where Mr. Jensen wants R-1 zoning in an area the city has zoned R-1 (R). In Mr. Jensen's letter all he read was a justification for why it should be zoned R-1 and he didn't see any justification as to why it should be given a variance from the moratorium. Mr. Jensen said there were two letters, and he asked if the commission got the second letter? Mr. Roberts said the latest letter from Mr. Jensen is on page 12-14 of the staff report. Commissioner Trippler said the letter he sees in the staff report is dated November 14, 2006, number 1., application for zoning change, number 2., variance regarding south Maplewood moratoriurn. Commissioner Dierich asked if this property went from (F) Farm to R-1 (R) zoning? Mr. Roberts said he couldn't recall what the property was zoned in 2003. Commissioner Dierich remembered that was what it was zoned. Which rneans when Mr. Jensen bought this property he knew it was zoned R-1 (R) right? Mr. Jensen said correct. Commissioner Dierich said when she proposed the first rnoratoriurn in south Maplewood in 2003 as a planning commissioner the commission thought this property should be zoned R-1 (R) rather than (F)Farm. She asked if there was any reason why as the developer you would have purchased this property thinking you could come to the city and tell the planning commission that the City of Maplewood would "have" to connect your property to the sewer line when the planning cornrnission had no intention of doing that? We did the south rnoratoriurn sewer study to make sure that the city was correct in assurning that there was not going to be sewer in that area and that is why sewer area 70 was not included. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-06 -6- Mr. Jensen said he doesn't know what this panel had in mind at that time but the Maplewood written code says if there is sewer available, you connect to it. Commissioner Dierich said that is correct, "if' there is sewer "to" the property, you connect to it. But there "isn't" sewer "to" this property, so there is no reason for the city to hook you up to the city sewer and water. She said she doesn't understand your rational or your logic for that. Mr. Jensen said the sewer connection is within 400 feet of this property, which rneans it is accessible to the property. Commissioner Dierich said it's accessible but it is not "on" the property and there is no requirement for the city to hook you up. Mr. Jensen said you as the city are not allowed to put sewer "on" my property without rny permission so there would never be sewer on my property. You would put it "near" my property and I could connect to it. Commissioner Dierich said the sewer would be put in the street in front of your property and currently it is not in the street in front of your property. The planning commission intended when we decided on this zoning to keep the property "rural" in character and you knew that coming into this. In her mind, Mr. Jensen either has to wait the moratorium out or sell this property. The city would love to let you do whatever you want to do with this property but we have put a moratorium in place to study this to make sure we as a city are doing the correct thing for this particular area. I n her mind he has not given her or the commission any rational as to why we should let you have an exception to the rnoratorium and nobody else. Mr. Jensen said you mentioned keeping the property "rural" in character. He said he has been through the code and couldn't find any definition of what "rural character". If Maplewood has elements of "rural character" in the code he would like to see it. Commissioner Dierich said she lived three houses down from this property for 20 years and she knows it's rural in character, so don't tell her it isn't. Mr. Jensen said he is not speaking to her personally, he is just stating the city code does not specify a rural character. Commissioner Dierich said the city has a rural code and has put that in place. We have zoned these particular pieces rural, whether you found it on the website or not, it's there. Mr. Jensen said he has read the entire Maplewood code and it's not in there. Cornmissioner Dierich asked staff for assistance. Chairperson Fischer asked if it's in the code or if that is one of the pieces we were having the moratoriurn to put into place properly? Mr. Roberts said the R-1 (R) zoning code was adopted in August of 2003 and whether it has been put in all the updates and put on the website he can't speak to that. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-06 -7- Mr. Jensen said he has looked and looked for that. Mayor Longrie had relied on the wording semi rural character and when that becarne part of the R-1 (R) zoning in 2003 the wording said in order to maintain the semi rural character of the property. Being an attorney himself, and knowing to look for that, the rule is; if there is a conclusion there must be a finding of fact, if there is a finding of fact there had to have been a study, if there was a study there rnust be sornebody that requested it. So he went back to look for it and discovered there were no conclusions made, there were no findings of fact, there was no study, there was no one that requested it, there is no semi rural character law in Maplewood. It's a declaration, but if this were to go to a court the court would say as every court has ever done, if Maplewood says there is a rural character, show us the definition of rural character in Maplewood. There is none so the courts would say, if you the City of Maplewood have this in your R-1 (R) zoning, what does serni-rural character rnean? The city didn't study it, you didn't conclude it, and therefore there is no "rural" character. Commissioner Dierich asked if Mr. Jensen owned this property in 2003? Mr. Jensen said no. Commissioner Dierich said then you don't know about the three or four rneetings the planning commission had where they discussed this rural character and the rational behind it. The planning cornmission looked at this code and passed it on to the city council. Mr. Jensen said there is no "rural character" in Maplewood. Commissioner Dierich said that's your opinion. Mr. Jensen said he would ask for the findings then. Commissioner Dierich said the information is available in the planning commission minutes from the rneeting in 2003. As an attorney you did a great job finding the codes so far. You can go back and look forthe 2003 planning commission minutes and the city council minutes and you will see that. Chairperson Fischer asked staff where this information may be in writing? Mr. Roberts said the planning commission and city council minutes would be available on the internet and there should be copies of the staff reports available. Cornmissioner Grover said it sounds like you aren't going to find a favorable planning commission forthis request. He said there is a difference of opinion here. Mr. Jensen thinks that having sewer and water accessible 400 feet away from where he wants to build means the city should connect hirn to the utilities. He asked what the city's responsibility is in terrns of sewer and water connection for a development. Mr. Roberts said the Engineering department told staff that a feasibility study would have to be done to see where things are now and how the sewer and water would need to be expanded there and at what depth and size the pipe would need to be. That level of detail has not been done yet. Commissioner Grover asked how long a study like that would take? Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-06 -8- Mr. Roberts said he would guess three to four rnonths. As a caveat the feasibility study would need to be ordered by the city council. The city Engineering departrnent can't just start a feasibility study on their own. Cornrnissioner Hess said the overhead showed the diagrarn of a sewer profile in the area or as- builts and Mr. Jensen was saying the 400 foot differential was more like 50 feet from there. Mr. Jensen said he was only guessing, he didn't have a ruler on that map. That was based on how wide his property is and how wide the neighboring property is and was only an estimation. That was the as-built rnap. You would have to get the original size frorn the engineers and use an engineer's ruler. This is a reduced sized map that was used for faxing and is not to scale. Cornrnissioner Hess said regarding the south Maplewood rnoratorium, one of the iterns listed in the staff report regarding the findings for a variance is item b. which states The application for a variance shall set forth special circumstances or conditions that the applicant alleges to exist and shall demonstrate that the proposed subdivision or development is compatible with existing or proposed land use and zoning. Based on the current zoning and the code as it is, what is it that you the developer felt was an undue special circumstance for the variance request? Mr. Jensen said the special circumstance was that the utilities were brought up to the property. This property is within the City of Maplewood yet there is constant reference to the Bailey Nursery property even though it isn't part of the study area the 240-acre parcel located southeast of Carver Lake was reviewed to determine the sewer service should be provided from Maplewood. The parcel is owned by Baileys Nursery and is located in Woodbury. So what Maplewood is saying is we are going to set a sewer line for property that isn't even located in Maplewood to do not what "you the developer" wants but whatever the "future" Bailey Nursery property owner wants. If the future developer wants to build high rises they can do that and Maplewood will supply them with the sewer connection. But as the developer of this property in Maplewood you have to get your own sewer connection and these need to be 2 acre lots which is an expensive option and not financially feasible for him and Maplewood isn't going to allow you to take this property to the highest and best use. The city staff has stated a feasibility study will have to be done. Yes, there would have to be a feasibility study if the "city" put the services in. If he as the "developer" puts the sewer service in there would be no need for a feasibility study and he could rnove forward. He said he carne to the Maplewood Engineering department and said he wants to put the sewer in and the city said "they" would prefer to put the city sewer and water in because the city has the Bailey Nursery property in mind. If he would be delayed 6 months due to the need for a feasibility study, then he will move forward on his own. He said he doesn't need a feasibility study to tell him if this can be done or not. Cornrnissioner Hess asked Mr. Jensen if he had a copy of the ordinance from August of 2003 that shows the R-1 (R) zoning designation? Mr. Jensen said yes. Commissioner Hess said on page 11, Section 44, discusses lot sizes. He said it seemed odd to him that Mr. Jensen subdivided the parcels into 14 lots that should have been proposed as two 2- acre lots. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-06 -9- Mr. Jensen said yes. On page 10,44-117, states this zoning district is for the areas of Map Ie wood that are not suitable for suburban or track development because of topography, vegetation or other factors that make the installation of municipal sanitary sewer unlikely. So, once again the city is stating if there is sewer available we connect to sewer, if we don't have sewer then we follow R-1 (R) zoning. Commissioner Hess said he thinks you have to look at the "character" of this land. Mr. Jensen said you can look at the character if the city has a written rule about character, but they don't. Commissioner Hess said he thinks that is what the R-1 (R) zoning states. Commissioner Grover said if there isn't sewer available the zoning is R-1 (R) and that's what we have here. Who would pay for the sewer and water connection for development if this connection was extended all the way to Woodbury? Mr. Roberts said the size and location of the sewer pipe would be studied as part of the feasibility study. The connection may not be extended all the way to Woodbury but if the connection were extended farther east, the pipe rnay have to be sized and set at a certain depth so that the connection could easily be extended in the future without tearing up any recently installed pipe. So in 5 or 10 years from now, if there was a need for the sewer and water connection, it would be ready to connect. As far as who pays for the sewer and water connection, the sewer users pay, the benefiting property owners pay, and the city pays the Metropolitan Council who runs the metro area sewer system. As Mr. Jensen said, there is a sewer interceptor under Carver Avenue and the sewer pipes would be extensions frorn that, which would also require permits frorn the Metropolitan Council for those extensions. Comrnissioner Grover said in terms of developments throughout the city, is it the policy of the Public Works departrnent to allow developers to do their own sewer work? Mr. Roberts said in rnore recent years it has been the city's policy and direction that the city does the sewer improvements and extensions where there are public improvements on public streets. If there are developments on private streets like a town home development, the policy has been more to allow the developer to install the private sewer system because the sewer system would be maintained by a private association. The direction for public extensions and public streets would be done as a public irnprovement project with the city coordinating the work. Commissioner Trippler asked staff to put the zoning map on the overhead screen. He asked Mr. Jensen if he knew what (F) zoning was? Mr. Jensen said yes, (F) stands for the Farrn zoning district. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Jensen if he would agree Farm zoning is associated with more rural areas then downtown central business district areas? Mr. Jensen said as I stand out on the street, I would agree, but looking at the law, I wouldn't agree. The (F)Farrn you have in Maplewood has no lot lirnit which could mean a lot 10 X 10. There is no requirernent for size, frontage, depth, size of house, length of driveway, or anything. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-06 -10- Commissioner Trippler said even though the zoning map shows (F)Farm zoning surrounding this property you still contend that this has no "rural" characteristics whatsoever? Mr. Jensen said you indicate "rural" characterization as something we should all "get". A city is not perrnitted to just "get" it, it has to be a written rule. He has to be able to refer to the city code and say what is the definition of "rural" in character and show hirn what is the written code for rural. There is very little of it in here anyway. There is no written law. If you were to say "rural" character he would say there has to be a cow or something on the property, it has to be a farrn, or wording like that but Maplewood has no such thing. When he looked at the property to purchase it he saw serni-rural character. He asked hirnselfwhat is rural character, what is serni-rural character, there is none. Commission members keep referring to rninutes that represent what was discussed but minutes are not laws, and discussions are not laws either. CornrnissionerTrippler said only an attorney could look at lots zoned (F)Farm and conclude that it has no "rural" character to it. Chairperson Fischer asked if one of the reasons we went to the moratoriurn in south Maplewood was that some of the intent, zoning, and terminology were not in sync with each other and the rnoratorium gave the city more tirne to put that together. Mr. Roberts said that is part of what will be studied. Corn missioner Dierich said she is having trouble understanding why we are arguing about sewers connections and whether this is rural or not rural. The city rnade a decision to have R-1 (R) zoning here and made a decision not to put sewer or water in that area atthis point and have upheld that decision for a fairly long tirne now. Her mind has not changed since the city made that decision. The sarne houses are in the same neighborhood, things look the same there and the question she has is shall we break the moratoriurn or not? It's wonderful Mr. Jensen that you are able to link together obscure pieces of the ordinances in order to try and rnake your case and hope this goes your way. But you haven't made your case for the planning commission to break the rnoratorium. Unless she hears sornething that rnakes the cornmission want to break the moratorium she isn't sure why we are discussing the other things peripheral to the issue. Commissioner Trippler asked if there was anything in the Maplewood ordinance that require the only application of R-1 (R) is in areas where there are no sewers? Mr. Roberts said he didn't know if it was specifically written like that. Clearly the intent for the R- 1 (R) zoning was for non-sewered areas. It could be applied elsewhere, but that was the primary intent for it. Commissioner Trippler asked if it was written in any of the Maplewood ordinances that if you have sewers you can't have R-1 (R) zoning? Mr. Roberts said no. Mr. Jensen said all the rules relative to development have to be America is the Land of the Free. He said this is his property to do with what he wants, subject to the city of Maplewood's reasonable "written" rules. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-06 -11- Cornrnissioner Dierich said the rules are written. Staff will have to dig them out and give thern to you Mr. Jensen. Mr. Jensen said those rules can be upheld as long as they are reasonable. Once there is sewer to the property and once you corne up with R-1(R) zoning that says "where sewer is not available", you have the larger lot size. It then becomes incumbent on the city to say why he can't have it, then the burden changes. At this point he said he is requesting the change in zoning and the removal of the rnoratoriurn. He said he can see where his request is going. He turned to the audience and said the audience came to comment on this request. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal. Mr. Jim Kerriqan. 2620 Carver Avenue. Maplewood. addressed the cornmission. His letter is attached in the staff report on page 10. He said he is opposed to the request to rernove the moratorium and the request to change the zoning. Mr. Kerrigan said part of the reason for the moratorium is to take a look at the area and the zoning and determine if there needs to be a new zoning classification. Mr. Jensen said there are too rnany Iirnitations on this property. City's need to look at their land use laws and see what is best for the area. Mr. Jensen said he is being treated unfairly. If Mr. Jensen can prove that in court he doesn't think Mr. Jensen would win his case. Commissioner Grover asked if the city had ever granted a variance in any other area in the city that had a moratorium? Mr. Roberts said a variance was granted in 2001 for a parcel of land by Maplewood Mall where the old Bennigan's Restaurant is. There was a moratorium on property from the east side South lawn Drive to the west side of Hazelwood Avenue and from Beam Avenue to County Road D. The parcel was an outlot that was part of the shopping center and the city council felt the use was consistent and nothing was going to change and the council granted the variance request. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if the were any moratoriums that ended early or if there were any moratoriums that went longer than anticipated? Mr. Roberts said most of the moratoriums have gone the full length of time and some moratoriurns have even gone longer. Mr. David Ledo, 14511 Oakhill Road N.. Scandia, addressed the commission. He is the personal representative for the Ledo family that own the five acres immediately to the west of the proposed development. At the present time he is neither for nor against the moratorium because this property isn't for sale, but in the next few years it will be. His aunt is in a living trust and when the trust is dissolved he will be forced to sell. His question is, has anything been started to study the area for the moratorium yet? Mr. Roberts said the moratorium was put in place in November. Staff is preparing to start on this and doesn't think anything substantial would be completed for at least 6 months. Commissioner Grover asked if that precluded the Ledo family from selling the property? Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-06 -12- Mr. Roberts said the Ledo farnily can sell their property; they just need to be aware of the rnoratoriurn. Mr. Ron Cockriel. 943 Century Avenue N.. Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said thank you for putting the rnoratorium in place and suggesting this to the city council. There are rnany issues with this property in south Maplewood. Everyone with property in this area wants to know what they can do to maintain what property they do have in this area or sell it to be developed. These are real questions that hopefully the moratoriurn will address these questions. Let's get the information out there and spend the time to determine what the highest and best use of this property is and what the city wants done with this property. As property owners will need to know what they can do and if they can afford the taxes on their property. There was a Rarnsey County Open Space sign on this property for about 30 years and recently that sign as well as other open space signs are now down and he wondered what happened to the signs. He wants to make sure the moratorium remains so the city can study the area and determine what is best for the property owners. Mr. Mark Weiqel, 2720 Carver Avenue. Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said part of the reason for the moratorium is to answer the questions that are being raised. How is the moratorium study going to be done and are the neighbors going to be part of this study? The developer has also stated this property isn't rural in character because a highway runs through the property and there are supposedly planes flying overhead. Mr. Roberts said staff doesn't have the full report regarding how this moratorium study would be done. There are many interested people in the area so the city would be silly to not include these people in the process. It has not been decided yet how the study would be done or who would be involved in the study. The city is aware there are many people very concerned and the neighbors have a lot of good ideas and know things that would be good for the city to be aware of. Mr. Weigel said he would suggest the city widen their range of notifying the neighbors in the area to keep everyone involved and aware of the study and the plans for the area. Commissioner Dierich said staff needs to look the property behind Mr. Weigel, those people behind Mr. Weigel have an easement for sewer from the Bailey property, as do the people down the hill and the people down the hill frorn those people. Before the city can begin to think about putting sewers in here we need to think about disturbing all these property owners. She doesn't see this happening. Especially since Joe Bailey stated he is not selling his property and has no intention of selling at this point. Mr. Mark Bonitz. 1635 Sterlinq Street South. Maplewood, addressed the commission. His letter is on page 31 of the staff report. He requested that the city continue to move forward with the moratorium and deny the variance request. There is a lot of work ahead and a lot of work behind us. At this point, to do anything else would do a discredit. He said he grows tired of developers like Mr. Jensen. They have a right to develop property, but when they purchase property knowing what the zoning is, it seems there is this attitude of entitlement and that gets him riled up. Mr. Bonitz said there has been no effort that he has seen on Mr. Jensen's behalf to engage the neighborhood why doesn't he say "let's work together and figure out how we can make something better", so this doesn't sit well with him. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-06 -13- Mr. Georqe Gonzalez, 2359 Heiqhts Avenue, Maplewood. addressed the commission. He lives in the rnoratoriurn area but he knew nothing about this application, proposal or tonight's meeting until he heard about it by word of rnouth. The 500 foot notification area in a rural neighborhood like this is a problem. There could have been a lot more than 20 people here tonight if all the residents in Maplewood would have been notified about this rneeting and been given a chance to respond. The Bailey farnily couldn't be here tonight because of a funeral in California. He thanked Commissioner Trippler for his knowledge of the zoning laws and the raw character of this land. He hopes the city will keep the moratoriurn in place. To lift the moratoriurn for one developer would only mean other developers will be asking for the sarne thing. Cornrnissioner Grover asked how rnany people live in the moratorium area? Would it be too difficult to notify a larger area regarding upcoming proposals? Mr. Roberts said it wouldn't be "impossible" to do. Commissioner Trippler said it occurred to him that many of the people communicated to staff through e-rnail. He recently logged on to the city website and he was able to go through the government notification process where you can get notices sent to you via email each time there is a notice put on the city website. He asked staff if it would be possible to set something similar up like that for people who live in this area of the rnoratorium so they could log in and request notices are sent to thern via e-mail to them whenever something cornes up? Mr. Roberts said staff would have to check on that with the IT staff. Commissioner Trippler said it's a free service. He said as rnuch as it would be nice to notify everyone in the city of Maplewood that can be an enormous expense at .39 cents a piece. If the city could send something electronically that could be a good way of handling that. Commissioner Hess asked if there is something that we can put in the language to expand from the notification area from 500 foot property for large parcel areas like this where the lots are large in order to alert more people because he has heard that corn plaint during other proposals too. Mr. Roberts said state law only requires the city to notify people within 350 feet of a site. The city policy has been to expand that notification area to 500 feet. Whether its 600 feet or 2 miles there are people that think they should be notified about a proposal. He has heard there are people that are interested in knowing what is going to happen in the rnoratorium area. He has a hard time understanding the direct concern of people living on Haller Lane regarding a development on Carver Avenue. He understands how it affects the people that live within the moratorium but the people that live in the area that is zoned RE-40 and are not subject to the moratoriurn. The land around them is subject to the moratorium and the area could change as development mayor may not develop in the future. We as a staff have to make judgments as to who to mail information to. Word of mouth has been a great way to spread the news. If there are people that want to be added to the mailing list they should let staff know. There rnay be a way to notify people electronically, staff doesn't know but could check with IT. Commissioner Dierich said if staff would have stayed within the 500 feet notification area that would have included 5 neighbors. She reminded staff that people in south Maplewood don't have cable and internet access is not as easy as you would like to believe. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-06 -14- Mr. Vince Bastiani. 2513 Haller Lane. Maplewood, addressed the cornrnission. He said he's in support of the rnoratoriurn and he agreed with staffs comrnents and conclusions. Mr. Jensen mentioned in his proposal that there are two airports that have flight patterns over this neighborhood, which isn't true. He said he's a private pilot hirnself and those flight paths go over the refinery in Cottage Grove and this area doesn't see jet planes. Only small business jets fly in and out of the downtown St. Paul airport. We aren't even in the defined area for FAA for the downtown St. Paul airport. He noticed a month ago during the hearing for the moratoriurn that Mr. Jensen said he didn't have a problem with the moratorium. Now a month later he's back "requesting" a variance as the developer of this property. Mr. Jensen said he's a private pilot as well and the runways that serve downtown Minneapolis are class B airspace which is 5 rniles on either side of the center line so it would be within it, it is not within the class D airspace of St. Paul but it is within the flight plan of that district. He said he did not have trouble with the moratorium at the previous hearing. Mr. Greq Thompson, 1528 Haller Court S., Maplewood, addressed the commission. He's in favor of the moratorium. We are concerned not only for the rural character of the area butfor the traffic in the area as well. There are two ways in and two ways out of this area. One is on Sterling Avenue and the other is Carver Avenue. If we put this many houses on this street and then other development is added, soon you will have 400 to 500 houses in this area. Haller Lane is already dangerous when you come out onto Sterling Street and he said he couldn't imagine if another 60 houses were built with additional cars driving on this stretch of road with a speed limit of 35 mph even though people drive faster than that. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody else in the audience wanted to speak regarding the public hearing. Nobody came forward. The chair closed the public hearing at 8:23 p.m. Commissioner Grover moved to deny the request of Jarnie Jensen for a variance frorn the developrnent moratorium forthe property south of Carver Avenue and east of Sterling Street. This variance would allow the city to consider a rezoning request for the properties in question. City staff is recommending this denial because: 1. Strict enforcement of the moratorium ordinance would not cause an undue hardship to the property or to the property owner. 2. There is no special circumstance or conditions in this case that warrant the city approving a variance to the moratorium. 3. The proposed rezoning (and then the proposed subdivision) would be premature and would not be compatible with the land use and zoning designations. 4. The proposed rezoning and subdivision would not meet the spirit and intent of the rnoratorium ordinance. Commissioner Grover moved to deny the proposed zoning map change for the proposed Saint Clair Hills development on Carver Avenue. City staff is recommending denial because: Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-06 -15- 1. The request does not rneet all the criteria required by the city for a zoning map change. This is because the city cannot deterrnine if the proposed zoning change would have any negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and econornical extension of public services and facilities. 2. Staff is recommending that the city not grant the variance to the rnoratorium. The rnoratoriurn prohibits the city frorn considering rezoning or developrnent requests, unless the city approves a variance to the moratorium. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Trippler The motion to deny passed. Chairperson Fischer said the planning commission makes the recommendation to the city council and the city council rnakes the final decision. This item is tentatively scheduled to go to the city council on January 8,2007. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Grover was the planning comrnission representative at the Decernber 11,2006, city council meeting. Planning cornrnission items that were discussed included the Alley Vacation for Judy Driscoll, south of Frost Avenue and east of Walter Street, which the city council passed. The Walgreens proposal at the northeast corner of White Bear Avenue and Beam Avenue for a land use plan amendment from LBC to BC, a zoning map change frorn LBC to BC and a lot division, was passed by the city council. The Resolution of Appreciation for former planning commission mernber, Jim Kaczrowski was passed by the city council. b. Mr. Yarwood was scheduled to be the planning commission representative at the December 18, 2006, city council meeting, but did not attend. Mr. Roberts gave the report of the December 18, 2006, city council meeting. Mr. Roberts reported the planning commission iterns that were discussed included the Carrnax Auto Superstore (Northeast Corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue) for a preliminary plat and a conditional use permit for planned unit development, which the city council recommended go back before the CDRB to finalize the building elevation changes the board had recommended. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-06 -16- They also discussed the easement vacation for Jensen Estates (north of Hoyt Avenue), which was passed by the city council. The city council adopted the Gladstone redevelopment plan 3- 2 with a few corrections. More information will follow regarding the Gladstone plan and when the final plan is available for people to see staff will let the commission know how to get a copy. c. Mr. Pearson asked to trade planning commission meeting dates with one of the other commissioners for the January 8,2007, city council meeting. Commissioner Trippler volunteered to trade planning commission representative dates with Cornrnissioner Pearson. The only planning cornmission itern to discuss at this tirne is the Saint Clair Hills Development, off Carver Avenue, east of 1-494 for a Development Moratorium Variance and the Rezoning from (R-1 (R) to R-1) d. Commissioner Pearson will cover the January 22,2007, city council meeting. e. Rice Street Corridor Task Force discussion Mr. Roberts said Ramsey County is forming a task force to study land uses and other issues for the Rice Street corridor frorn Larpenteur Avenue through Shoreview to Highway 96. The areas affected area Maplewood, Little Canada and Shoreview. There are some bottleneck interchanges and intersections and the task force is going to look at how to elirninate those problems. Ramsey County was looking for representatives from the affected cities to serve on this task force. Chuck Ahl put together some names which include, Mr. Schroeder from Schroeder Milk, Michael Grover from the planning commission, and Kathleen Juenemann from the city council serving as a citizen representative of Maplewood. Comrnissioner Trippler said the reason he wanted to discuss this isn't because he has a problem with anyone on the task force. The problem he had was that historically over the 8 years he has served on the planning commission, when a task force is put together if the planning commission is to be involved staff comes to the commission with the request to put forth a candidate. It took him by surprise that somebody within the city would decide for the planning commission who they want to have as their advisor on this Rice Street Corridor Task Force. He thinks someone from the planning commission should be on any task force when it comes to discussing development or planning issues. Having someone decide who they want to be on the task force is an overstretching of management in his opinion. When management starts dictating how the planning commission should operate and what the commission does then he thinks the commission loses their ability to advise and he hopes this doesn't become a standard operating procedure. f. Miscellaneous Planning Commission Discussions Corn missioner Dierich asked if staff knew about the open space signs that disappeared that are now under private hands? Mr. Roberts said he isn't aware of any publicly owned open space that sold and went private. Open space signs may be missing but he would think the city would have been notified by Rarnsey County if they sold Ramsey County open space. He thinks it's just a case of missing signs rather than a change of ownership. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-06 -17- Comrnissioner Dierich said in the absence of Bruce Anderson, forrner Park and Recreation Director, who was so instrumental in protecting the land, who is going to be the new representative or advocate in Bruce's absence? Chuck Ahl is "for" development and Bruce Anderson always said lets step back, look at things and make sure we are preserving the quality of Maplewood. She is very concerned about losing a staff mernber like Bruce Anderson. Mr. Roberts said clearly there is a lost voice with the resignation of Bruce Anderson. The city recently appointed an Environmental and Natural Resources Commission who will take a close interest in the open spaces whether they are city or county open spaces, as well as looking at the wetland and tree ordinance. DuWayne Konewko is going to be the staff liaison as the Environmental Manager overseeing the Environmental and Natural Resources Comrnission. As part of the reorganization at the city, funds have been put into the budget to hire a code enforcement officer specifically for these concerns. The advocacy will shift from Bruce to DuWayne and the new commission. Commissioner Dierich suspected that the new commission will be heard about as much as the planning commission? Mr. Roberts said he wasn't sure. Commissioner Dierich said publicly there would not be the quality of life in Maplewood without Bruce Anderson working for the City of Maplewood all these years. This is a huge loss! She wanted to say thank you to hirn for everything he did for Maplewood She would hope a lot of people would write in to the city and say how much they appreciated his work on Maplewood's behalf. He was a true visionary and it's a great loss losing Bruce Anderson after all these years. Mr. Roberts said his last day is today, December 19, 2006. Commissioner Dierich said she feels bad regarding what happened to him. Bruce will get to do some exciting things, but for the people of Maplewood it's a real loss. Chairperson Fischer said there are a few planning commissioners whose terms are expiring December 31,2006, do you know what the process will be when their terms expire? Are they still members of the planning commission until the city council does their interviews? Mr. Roberts said that is his understanding. There will be an application process for current members and new applicants and then interviews will be done by the city council. Chairperson Fischer said Mary Dierich, Harland Hess and Dale Trippler have terms expiring December 31,2006. Mr. Roberts said he is assuming that will be the process until he hears differently. Commissioner Hess said he received a letter letting him know he has to go through the interview process. His letter stated the forms needed to be returned by Decernber 29, 2006, and that he will be notified of interview schedule with the city council. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-06 -18- Mr. Roberts said we will need a quorurn for the planning cornrnission so until you have heard something different please come to the planning commission meetings. Comrnissioner Hess said he would like to echo the comments rnade by Cornrnissioner Dierich regarding the loss of Bruce Anderson from the Parks Department. He worked with Bruce on a project for the Four Seasons Park next to his house on Flandrau Street. Bruce was a great advocate and went further than he needed to as a city employee and this is a great loss. Regarding the Environmental and Natural Resources Comrnission, he asked how many applicants they had and are there any openings still? Mr. Roberts said the city council had 11 applicants and the city council chose 7 people to serve on the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission. Commissioner Trippler said he was one of the applicants and the city council interviewed 10 applicants and they chose 7 people to serve on the commission. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Reschedule the Monday, January 1, 2007, planning commission meeting because of the New Years Day holiday to either Tuesday, January 2, 2007, or Wednesday, January 3,2007. If the meeting were scheduled for Tuesday, January 2,2007, Michael Grover, Harland Hess and Tushar Desai could not be present. The planning commissioners that were present preferred to meet on Wednesday, January 3,2007. Gary Pearson said either date would work for him. Jeremy Yarwood was out of town and will respond after the Christmas holiday. b. Reschedule the Monday, January 15, 2007, planning commission rneeting because of the Martin Luther King holiday to either Tuesday, January 16, 2007, or Wednesday, January 17,2007. Planning commissioners Mary Dierich, Dale Trippler, Lorraine Fischer, and Michael Grover said Tuesday, January 16, 2007, worked for them. Harland Hess said Wednesday, January 17,2007, worked better for him. c. Possible permanent meeting night change from Monday evenings to Tuesday or Wednesday evenings. Mr. Roberts said the city manager requested that staff check with the planning commission to see about the possibility of a permanent meeting night change. The city council meetings have been ending very late and they may have to meet every week and would like to have every Monday available for their rneetings. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-19-06 -19- Such a change by the council would require moving the planning cornrnission meeting night. If the city council needs every Monday evening to hold additional rneetings we would need to meet either Tuesday or Wednesday evening. The goal of the city manager and some of the city council is to get more of the commission meeting's cable cast. Only the city council chamber is set up to televise meetings. Groups like the Natural Resource and Environrnental Commission and the Park and Recreation Commission meetings are not currently televised and the city manager and the city council would like those meetings televised as well. Staff is looking for input frorn the cornrnissioners to bring back to the city rnanager. Michael Grover said it would be difficult for him to serve on the planning commission if the meeting was moved to Tuesday or Wednesday night so he would prefer to keep the planning commission meetings on Monday night. Having the planning commission meeting on a Monday evening was one of the things that attracted hirn to wanting to serve on the planning cornmission. Lorraine Fischer and Harland Hess said if the planning commission meeting had to be moved from Monday nights they would both prefer the planning comrnission meeting be Wednesday night. Mary Dierich said she would prefer the planning cornmission rneeting rernain on Monday evenings but if it has to be moved she would prefer Wednesday. Because the planning comrnission met with a bare quorum with the absence ofTushar Desai, Gary Pearson, and Jeremy Yarwood, no decision was made at this tirne regarding which night would work better. We will discuss this issue again at the next planning commission meeting, however the consensus of the planning commissioners seemed to be they preferred to keep the planning commission meeting on Monday evenings or on Wednesday evening. Chairperson Fischer pointed out that moving the meeting to later in the week affects the recording secretary because she'll have a shorter time to get the minutes done. It also affects staffs ability to get the planning commission packet done and the department secretary has a shorter time to copy and mail the packets out so commissioners can visit the sites before the planning cornrnission meeting. XI. ADJOURNMENT The rneeting was adjourned at 9:01 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Planning Commission's 2006 Annual Report January 2, 2007 INTRODUCTION The city code requires that the planning commission prepare an annual report to the city council by their second meeting in February. This report should include the planning commission's activities from the past year and the major projects for the upcoming year. 2006 ACTIVITIES The commission considered the following requests as noted: 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 changes to the comprehensive plan 4 5 10 8 3 changes to the zoning map 4 4 7 4 2 preliminary plats 7 7 12 5 6 ordinance changes 3 0 1 3 3 conditional use permits and revisions 14 19 21 18 18 vacations 11 8 5 5 5 variances 2 12 2 4 1 miscellaneous reQuests and Dresentations 13 8 11 14 17 Total 58 63 69 61 55 In 2006, the comrnission, in addition to the items listed above, took a tour of development sites. The commission also reviewed the AUAR for the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan and the EAW for the Carver Crossing proposal. NOTE: For all the items listed below, the planning commission recommended approval ayes all, unless noted otherwise. 2006 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGES The commission considered four changes to the comprehensive plan in 2006. Changes PC Action Council Action Comforts of Home Senior Housing Approved Approved (2300 and 2310 Hazelwood Street> From BC to R-3(H) This change was for a 42-unit senior housing development on the southeast corner of Hazelwood and Highway 36. Legacy Village Townhomes Approved Denied (County Road D and Kennard Street) 8-1 This change was proposed from BC to R-3(H) for the southeast corner of County Road D and Kennard Street to allow the construction of additional town homes on the corner. 5-8 Club Expansion Approved Approved (2289 Minnehaha Avenue) This land use change was from R-1 (single dwellings) to BG-M (Business Commercial- Modified) for the expansion of the parking lot for the 5-8 Club. Walgreens Approved Approved (White Bear and Beam Avenues) The land use change was from Limited Business Cornmercial (LBC) to Business Cornmercial (Be) for the proposed development of a drug store on the vacant land. 2006 ZONING MAP CHANGES The commission considered four changes to the zoning map in 2006. Change PC Action Council Action 5-8 Club Expansion Approved Approved (2289 Minnehaha Avenue) This zoning map change was from R-1 (single dwellings) to BC-M (Business Commercial- Modified) for the expansion of the parking lot for the 5-8 Club. Carpet Court Approved Approved (1685 Arcade Street at Larpenteur Avenue) This change was from R-1 (single dwellings) to BC (business commercial) for one lot for the proposed construction of a new retail carpet store. Walgreens Approved Approved (White Bear and Beam Avenues) The zoning map change was from Limited Business Commercial (LBC) to Business Commercial (BC) for the proposed development of a drug store on the vacant land. Saint Clair Hills Development Denied Pending (Carver Avenue, east of 1-494) This proposed zoning map change was frorn R-1(R) (rural residential) to R-1 (single dwellings). 2006 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND REVISIONS The commission considered the following conditional use pennils and permit revisions in 2006: PC Action Council Action Menards Garden Center (2280 Maplewood Drive) Approved Approved 2 Oversized Accessory Structure (Wykoff) Denied Withdrawn (2345 Maryland Avenue) This request was for the construction of a large detached garage on the property for the repair of a bus. Comforts of Home Senior Housing Approved Approved (2300 and 2310 Hazelwood) This request is for new senior housing building on the corner of Hazelwood and Highway 36. Liberty Classical Academy (2696 Hazelwood Street) Approved This request was for the school to add a second location in an existing church. Approved Legacy Village Townhomes Approved (County Road D and Kennard Street) This request was for a PUD revision to the approved Legacy Village plans. Denied 5-8 Club (2289 Minnehaha Avenue) Approved Approved This request was for the 5-8 Club to expand their parking lot to the east onto the adjacent property. White Bear Avenue Family Health Center Approved Approved (2099 White Bear Avenue) This request was for the construction of a new clinic building on the west side of White Bear Avenue across from the Maplewood Community Center that would be within 350 feet of existing residential property. Hill-Murray School Approved Approved (2625 Larpenteur Avenue) This request was to approve a revision to the conditional use permit for Hill Murray for the construction of an addition to their feildhouse. Cottagewood Town houses Approved Approved (2666 Highwood Avenue) (4-2) This request was for a PUD for a 15-lot detached town house developrnent. Carver Crossing Denied Denied (Carver Avenue and Henry Lane) This request was for a PUD for a 191-unit detached townhouse development. Saint Paul Regional Water Services Approved Approved (County Road B - West of 1-35E) This request was to allow an outdoor material storage and crushing operation on the Sandy Lake part of the water utility property. CarMax Auto Superstore Approved (Corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue) This request was to allow a used motor vehicle sales and storage facility. Approved 3 MEMBERS WHO RESIGNED IN 2006 Eric Ahlness, Jim Kaczrowski MEMBERS WHO WERE APPOINTED IN 2006 Harlan Hess 2006 ATTENDANCE Name Lorraine Fischer Eric Ahlness Tushar Desai Mary Dierich Michael Grover Gary Pearson Dale Trippler Jeremy Yarwood Jim Kaczrowski Harlan Hess Appointed 1970 9-27-04 7-22-02 12-11-00 5-24-04 12-10-90 6-8-98 4-11-05 4-11-05 2-23-06 Term Expires 2007 2006 (Resigned) 2007 2006 2008 2008 2006 2008 2007 (Resigned) 2006 2006 Attendance 18/21 18/21 17/21 16/21 18/21 21/21 17/21 17/18 As a point of comparison, the planning commission had 18 meetings in 2001, 17 meetings in 2002, 20 meetings in 2003, 18 meetings in 2004 and 20 meetings in 2005. 2007 ACTIVITIES The following are the possible activities of the planning commission for 2007: 1. Have an annual tour of development and other sites of interest. 2. Have in-service training sessions or provide educational materials for the planning commission. This might include training or information to help prepare the commission for the upcoming update of the comprehensive plan or about redevelopment topics. Other training topics might include sessions about in-fill development, conditional use permits, wetlands (their classifications and buffer areas) the new city tree ordinance, septic systems and/or wells. 3. Work with the consultants and city staff on any city code or land use plan changes that result frorn the Gladstone Area redevelopment plan and studies. 4. Work with city staff and other advisory commissions on any city code or land use plan changes that result from the South Maplewood moratorium and study. 5. Review the PUD ordinance for possible changes. 6. Provide input to the HRA on housing redevelopment and program issues. 7. study the area west of Hazelwood (along the new County Road D) for land use and transportation issues. 8. Have a tour of the Legacy Village development as construction progresses and of the Gladstone neighborhood as part of the redevelopment study. 4 RECOMMENDATION Accept the Planning Commission's 2006 Annual Report. P:\...\misceIlIPC\ pc 2006 ann report. doc 5 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Planning Commission Resignation January 2, 2007 INTRODUCTION Mary Dierich has resigned from the planning commission. I have attached her e-mail message with her resignation and a resolution of appreciation for her. RECOMMENDATION Approve the resolution of appreciation on page three for Mary Dierich. kr/p:planning commission/pcresig7.mem Attachments: 1. Mary Dierich E-mail Notice of Resignation 2. Mary Dierich Resolution of Appreciation Attachment 1 12/24/2006 Dear Greg and Ken, I have greatly appreciated the opportunity to serve the City of Maplewood and its citizens for the last four years. It has been a pleasure, a learning experience, and yes at times an annoyance, but always a privilege to serve and be the voice for the "regular" people of Maplewood. Unlike many of my fellow cornmissioners, I did not work in construction, didn't have an engineering degree, work in soil sciences or environmental protection. I didn't even bring the wealth of experience or history that Lorraine or Gary bring, as I have only lived in Maplewood just 19 years. I have always viewed my contribution to the Planning Commission as being the eyes and voice of the average citizen who just wanted their kids to grow up in a safe and healthy environment, who is interested in having the right mix of development to keep taxes low without losing the character of our neighborhoods and who chose to live in south Maplewood because of its natural beauty so near to the downtown area. An even more unique contribution was having a woman's perspective and style of thinking about questions, concerns and issues coupled with a University educator's training to explore all angles and question everything. However, as you know this fall I was awarded a fellowship to begin work on my PhD in nursing full time studying public policy and factors surrounding what allows aging in place (the dissertation topic came directly from my work on the Planning Commission). Between my studies, tead1ing and starting up the two clinics to serve low income elders on the East side, I found I could not do justice to the work on the Planning Commission. Therefore, it is with much regret, I will not be renewing my term. I have been most fortunate to serve with sud1 amazing people over the years and especially want to commend Lisa and Ken for making our lives easier, Chuck for his incredible patience, Patrick Kelly for never thinking any question was too trivial and Bruce Anderson for his superb work as head of Parks and Recreation. My fellow commissioners have been truly wonderful to work with and some of the sharpest people I have ever met (that's saying a lot, given the crowd I hang around with daily) and definitely some of the most dedicated. I have been lucky to serve with a Commission that has retained its diversity of opinions and backgrounds and as a result have learned an unbelievable amount from Lorraine, Gary, Will and Dale. The City of Maplewood has been most fortunate to have such committed public servants. I will miss you all, but hope to finish up this work and return to public service in the future better prepared to serve. Again thank you for this opportunity. Sincerely, Mary Dierich 2 Attachment 2 JOINT RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION WHEREAS, Mary Dierich has been a member of the Maplewood Planning Commission since December 11, 2000, and has served faithfully in that capacity to the present time; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has appreciated her experience, insights and good judgment and WHEREAS, she has freely given of her time and energy, without compensation, for the betterment of the City of Maplewood; and WHEREAS, she has shown sincere dedication to her duties and has consistently contributed her leadership, time and effort for the benefit of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOL VED for and on behalf of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, and its citizens, that Mary Dierich is hereby extended our heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for her dedicated service, and we wish her continued success in the future. Passed by the Maplewood City Council on , 2007 Diana Longrie, Mayor Passed by the Maplewood Planning Commission on ,2007 Lorraine Fischer, Chairperson Attest: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk 3 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Planning Commission Rules of Procedure DATE: January 4, 2007 INTRODUCTION The planning commission should review their rules of procedure. Section L of the rules says that the commission is to review the rules at the first meeting each year. BACKGROUND The planning comrnission first approved the rules of procedure on February 21, 1983. The commission has reviewed and changed their rules several times since then. On February 17, 1999, the commission reviewed the rules and made revisions to them. On January 5, 2004, the comrnission reviewed the rules and did not make any changes to them. On January 3, 2005, the planning cornmission reviewed the rules and made a change to thern about appointments to the commission (based on the latest city council policies). On January 24, 2005, the city council adopted the latest rules of procedure for the planning commission. DISCUSSION City staff is not proposing any changes to the current rules. If the commission wants to make changes to the rules, they may propose them. RECOMMENDATION Approve the planning cornmission rules of procedure starting on page two. p:\commdvpt\pclpcrules.2007 Attachments: 1. PC Rules of Procedure Attachment 1 RULES OF PROCEDURE Approved by the Planning Commission on February 21, 1983 Revision on February 17, 1 ggg Last Revision adopted on January 3, 2005 We, the members of the Planning Commission of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, created pursuant to Chapter 25, as arnended, of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances, do hereby accept the following Rules of Procedure, subject to the provisions of said ordinances, which are hereby made a part of these rules: A. MEETINGS 1. All meetings shall be held in City Hall unless otherwise directed by the chairperson, in which case at least 24 hours notice will be given to all members. 2. Regular meetings shall be held at 7 p.m. on the first and third Mondays of each month. If a regular meeting falls on a legal holiday, such meeting shall be rescheduled as a special meeting, if needed. 3. Special meetings shall be held upon call by the chairperson, or in their absence, by the vice chairperson, or by any other rnember with the concurrence of five other rnembers of the Cornmission. At least 48 hours notice shall be given to all rnembers for special meetings. B. QUORUM 1. A simple majority of the current membership of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. 2. Any rnember having a conflict of interest shall declare the same before discussion of the item in which he or she has a conflict. Any member who abstains from voting on a question because of possible conflict of interest shall not be considered a member of the Commission for determining a quorum for the consideration of that issue. 3. Approval of any motion shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of the rnernbers present. C. DUTIES OF CHAIRPERSON In addition to the duties prescribed in Section 25-20 of the Code of Ordinances, the chairperson shall appoint such standing cornmittees and temporary cornmittees as are required, and such committees will be charged with the duties, exarninations, investigations, and inquiries about the SUbjects assigned by the chairperson. No standing or temporary committee shall have the power to commit the Commission to the endorsement of any plan or program without its subrnission to the full Commission. 2 D. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 1. A chairperson and vice chairperson shall be elected at the second rneeting of each calendar year and will serve until their successors have been elected. 2. In the absence of the chairperson, the vice chairperson shall perform all duties required of the chairperson. When both the chairperson and the vice chairperson are absent, the attending members shall elect a chairperson pro tern. 3. If the chairperson resigns from or is otherwise no longer on the planning commission, the vice chairperson shall become the acting chairperson until the planning commission can hold an election for new officers. If the vice chairperson resigns or is otherwise no longer on the planning commission, the planning commission will elect a new vice chairperson at the next possible planning cornrnission meeting. E. REPRESENTATION AT COUNCIL MEETINGS A representative from the Commission shall appear at each Council meeting, where a planning item is on the agenda, to present the Cornrnission's recommendation and to answer questions from the City Council regarding the decision. The Commission shall adopt a rotating schedule of its mernbers at the first meeting of each year to attend these meetings. F. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT In addition to carrying out the duties prescribed in Section 25-25 of the Code of Ordinances, the director shall: 1. Prepare the agenda and minutes for each meeting of the Commission. 2. Act as technical advisor to the Commission. 3. Present written alternatives and make recommendations on matters referred to the Commission. 4. Maintain a record of all agenda items from application to final action by the City Council. G. AGENDA 1. Copies of the agenda, together with pertinent planning office reports and copies of the minutes of the previous meeting, shall be distributed so that the rnembers of the Cornmission shall have a copy at least three days prior to the rneeting concerned. 2. The agenda shall consist of the following order of business: a. Call to Order b. Roll Call c. Approval of Minutes 3 d. Approval of Agenda e. Public Hearings f. Unfinished Business g. New Business h. Visitor Presentations I. Commission Presentations j. Staff Presentations k. Adjournment 3. No itern that is not on the agenda shall be considered by the Comrnission. H. Except as herein provided, Robert's Rules of Order, Revised and Robert's Parliamentary Law shall be accepted as the authority on parliamentary practice. I. Amendrnents to the comprehensive plan shall require that the Planning Commission follow the same procedure for hearings and notices as required by State law for zoning ordinances. J. APPOINTMENTS The city council shall make all appointrnents to the planning commission by following the current city appointment policy. K. AMENDMENT 1. Any of these rules may be temporarily suspended by the vote of two-thirds majority of the members present. 2. These Rules of Procedure rnay be amended at any regular rneeting of the Commission by a majority vote of the entire membership and submitted to the City Council for approval. L. These "Rules of Procedure" shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the first meeting of each year. p:\commdvpt\pc\pcrules.2007 4