Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/20/2007 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday. February 20,2007, 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. February 6, 2007 5. Public Hearings None 6. New Business a. Pond Overlook Town Houses - Concept Plan Review (2161 County Road D) b. Election of Vice-Chairperson c. Resolution of Appreciation - Michael Grover d. Planning Commission Rules of Procedure 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations February 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai February 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Hess March 12 Council Meeting: ?? (was to be Ms. Dierich) March 26 Council Meeting: Ms. Fisher 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjoumment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6,2007 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Joseph Walton Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Staff Present: Absent Present Absent Present Present Present Present (new commissioner) Present Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Ken Roberts, Planner Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Trippler requested a discussion regarding Election of Officers under New Business and the under Commission Presentations a discussion regarding the ordinance and or rules regarding changing meeting nights. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Pearson seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood, Walton Approval of the planning commission minutes for December 19, 2006. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the planning commission minutes for December 19, 2006. Commissioner Trippler seconded. The motion passed. Ayes - Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Trippler Abstentions - Walton, Yarwood Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-07 -2- Approval of the planning commission minutes for January 16, 2007. Commissioner Trippler had corrections to the minutes on pages 3 and 5. On page 3, in the second paragraph, fourth line, change the word amendmeffi to amend. On page 5, in the last paragraph, 6th line, the end of the line, beginning of the sentence, he would like it to read If the city council wants to change the meeting dates, then the ordinances need to be changed to reflect that. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for January 16, 2007, as amended. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Fischer, Pearson, Trippler Abstentions - Hess, Yarwood, Walton The motion passed. V. PUBLIC HEARING (7:07 - 9:27 p.m.) Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Gladstone Redevelopment Plan (area of English Street and Frost Avenue) Ms. Finwall said the City of Maplewood is proposing to amend its comprehensive land use plan and map. The proposed amendment is for the Gladstone neighborhood located generally at the intersection of Frost Avenue and English Street, east ofTrunk Highway 61 in the central portion of the city. The city council adopted a master plan for the redevelopment of the Gladstone neighborhood in December 2006. The master plan is intended to provide direction and guidance for the Gladstone neighborhood as it redevelops. The city intends to use the redevelopment plan as an appendix to the comprehensive plan as it relates to the Gladstone neighborhood. City staff is requesting that the planning commission review and make a recommendation to the city council on the proposed comprehensive land use plan and map amendment in the Gladstone neighborhood. This amendment would change the comprehensive land use designations in the area from light manufacturing (M-1), business commercial (BC), business commercial modified (BC-M), limited business commercial (LBC), medium multiple dwelling residential (R-3M), double dwelling residential (R-2), and single dwelling residential (R-1) to the land use designations as described in the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan which was adopted by the city council in December 2006. This includes land use designations that will be called Gladstone Medium (G-M), Gladstone High (G-H), and Gladstone Mixed Use (G M-U). On December 13, 2006, the Metropolitan Council approved $8.8 million in Livable Communities grants to ten projects in seven cities. The development/redevelopment projects all demonstrated a component of land use that connect development with transit, intensify land uses, connect housing and employment, provide a mix of housing affordability, and provide infrastructure to connect communities and attract investment. The City of Maplewood was awarded the largest grant of the ten projects including $1.8 million to fund Phase I public improvements in the Gladstone Redevelopment area. Bart Montanari of Dabar Companies, LLC, will be submitting a plan to the city to redevelop the 6.5-acre St. Paul Tourist Cabin site located at 940 Frost Avenue with senior housing. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-07 -3- The current proposal calls for 180 senior housing units including 20 memory care units, 60 assisted living units, and 100 independent units. Walker Elder Care Services will market and manage the facility. Mr. Montanari indicates that the development will create 65 new full-time jobs and will include a library, fitness room, (available to both residents and non-residents), bank, beauty salon, theater, chapel, and deli. There would be 154 underground parking stalls, 70 surface parking stalls, a transit shelter along Frost Avenue, and several gardens and walking trails throughout the site. Mr. Montanari has hired Link Wilson ofWAI Continuum to design the building. Mr. Wilson was the architect for the Summerhill Senior Cooperative building, which has been constructed on the Transfiguration Elementary School site, north of the Maplewood Nature Center. The senior housing building proposed will have three to four stories with each elevation being constructed of quality building materials. The city council must approve an amendment to the city's comprehensive land use plan in order to allow the number of units being proposed on the site (180 senior housing units). Mr. Montanari proposes to submit all required land use applications to the city for this development in March or April, with plans to break ground for the project in September 2007. Commissioner Trippler said there are a couple parcels that are currently zoned single family south of Gloster Park which have been changed to medium density and he asked why that was changed? Ms. Finwall said when the city was studying redevelopment in this area those parcels were included in the redevelopment concept. There have been several revisions to the master plan. This was the adopted master plan which reflects that those parcels are no longer included in the redevelopment due to the fact that Edward Street which is an unused right-of-way was determined not to go through so those parcels were left out of the concept plan. However, during the whole planning process the property owners that own that land were interested in the possibility of "guiding" their land for future redevelopment because these properties are attached to properties along Ripley Avenue which are large vacant lots in the rear. Staff had that same question and it was pointed out to them from the planning consultant, Brad Scheib, from Hoisington Koegler Group who pointed out that through the planning process it was determined that those parcels would be "guided" for future development if it was found to be feasible. It should also be noted that one of those property owners owns a large piece of land that is adjacent to Gloster Park which is currently zoned residential but "guided" as park land. This is leading to a policy of the city perhaps offering to purchase the property for park land in the future so with that in mind the city is supportive of guiding those properties as medium density. Commissioner Trippler said he met with staff this afternoon regarding the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan and they discussed creating specific zoning classes for just the Gladstone area as opposed to creating zoning classes for the whole city. There is good news and bad news depending on your point of view. The good news is if you create a zoning classification and call it Gladstone the implication is that these zoning classes would be specific to Gladstone and couldn't be used anywhere else in Maplewood. The bad news is that if another development came up we could be going through the same process developing the same kinds of zoning categories for each new development. The question is would that be worthwhile to do or not. He said it seemed like the city had already developed these criteria for the Hillcrest area whether it was mixed use or high density. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-07 -4- Commissioner Trippler said he was told that the density wouldn't be quite as high in the Hillcrest area as required in the Gladstone area so I guess there have to be some differences. He asked whether or not this was a discussion the planning commission should open. Commissioner Yarwood said he would say that's something the planning commission should discuss. He asked staff if he understood correctly that there would be a separate meeting to discuss the land use changes and specifically more about the Gladstone land use classifications. Ms. Finwall said the meeting tonight is the public hearing for the comprehensive land use plan designations including the zoning classification. Land use is a "guide" for future developments and the zoning is what can be developed today with certain guidelines. We will be having future discussions regarding those things. In regard to Commissioner Trippler's comments, the mixed use zoning district and land use designations were created specifically for the Hillcrest area which allows for densities up to 20 units per acre. In some areas of Gladstone the master plan specifies areas with the concept in mind do call for densities as high as 30 units per acre. So clearly we need a new land use designation. We are using the mixed use zoning district as a model for the new zoning regulations in the Gladstone area however, it will be "form based" and more complex. In the master plan, one of the guiding principles was that it would be an example for other cities to use for redevelopment so that may be something to consider as far as this land use designation. Staff's concern is that these high densities are met specifically for one track of land with a specific concept in mind. Chairperson Fischer said when the planning commission put the Hillcrest area standards in place, she didn't have a problem with the standards for the Hillcrest area but she had reservations about using those same standards in a different area such as for Gladstone because each area in the city has different needs and some standards may not be acceptable or desirable in that particular area. Commissioner Hess said he shared the same opinion as Commissioner Trippler regarding classifying this as the Gladstone area and being too specific with this area. He wondered if we could make a sub designation of the existing land uses we already have designations for. Such as (G-M) might be a sub-designation for (R-1A) and (R-1 B) and so forth so that can be used for future uses in other areas of Maplewood instead of pegging the designation for one area like the Gladstone area. Commissioner Trippler said while serving on the Gladstone Task Force he remembered talking about one area which was for high density for up to 30 units per acre. There is some concern about having that designation on the books and having it run throughout the City of Maplewood. But on the other hand, just because it's on the books doesn't necessarily mean that the planning commission or the city council would approve. He understands what staff is doing here and he doesn't think its wrong, it's just that he isn't sure it's a wise use of everyone's time and efforts doing this much work for every project that comes up. It seems like these issues aren't that unique and if we tweaked the current ordinances to get the kinds of unique designations that we need so this could be used in other designations that may be a better idea. He asked if the commission would be voting on the land use comprehensive land use plan map amendment and voting to approve the zoning designations? Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-07 -5- Ms. Finwall said yes. The Gladstone area has certain land that the city wants to redesignate so that would be the map change and we would like to take the master plan and place that as an amendment to the comprehensive plan which would be the text amendment and the land use designations would be included in the text amendment. Chairperson Fischer said we are looking at the comprehensive plan and not the zoning. Is it correct that this plan would influence the zoning that the commission would adopt when the zoning ordinances are prepared, correct? Ms. Finwall said correct. Commissioner Trippler said the city council has already approved the master plan. Chairperson Fischer said yes but the motion tonight would include this as part of the comprehensive plan amendment. Commissioner Trippler asked if we are approving the master plan tonight? Chairperson Fischer said the city council already has already approved the master plan. Mr. Roberts said to clarify, the recommendation is to approve the master plan as an "appendix" in addition to the city's comprehensive plan and secondly, to make the map changes staff has shown on the screen in order to be able to implement the master plan. Commissioner Trippler asked if we are recommending approval can the commission make changes to the master plan? Mr. Roberts said the commission can make "recommendations" to the city council about the master plan but the council has already approved the master plan. If the commission wants to bring certain things to the attention of the city council they may do so. Chairperson Fischer said in the staff report there are site and building standards such as porches, stoops, fences, patios, yards etc. would these be suggested guidelines for single family homes or how would that be implemented and would those standards go before the community design review board for review? Ms. Finwall said the master plan is a concept which will ensure the implementation would be the zoning code which will have the design standards. Chairperson Fischer said so unless the change goes into the zoning code it's only a concept? Ms. Finwall said correct. Commissioner Yarwood said the comprehensive plan says it would support 450-600 housing units, does that reflect the 180 senior housing units on the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site or has that been reflected separately? Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-07 -6- Ms. Finwall said the current comprehensive plan would allow for 450 housing units with conditional use permits under that existing commercial zoning. The master plan is proposing the possibility of an additional 650 new housing units in the area and that includes the 180 units for senior housing. Commissioner Yarwood said with regard to the Gladstone specific land use changes, the only one that seems unique to Gladstone is the Gladstone mixed use zoning of 20-30 units per acre and he can understand by designating it as such the Gladstone medium (G-M) and the Gladstone high density (G-H) don't seem that unique in terms of land use compared to the city's existing zoning ordinances. Ms. Finwall said the Gladstone high density (G-H) would allow for up to 30 units per acre, the highest density allowed. The Gladstone mixed use (G M-U)which is 20 units per acre and the high density residential would allow up to 15 units per acre so it is quite an increase. Commissioner Trippler said he learned a great deal of information during his meeting with staff today regarding the discussion he had with them about Gladstone. For instance, in the staff report on page 7 and page 10, there's a chart that shows the trip generation based on a plan use pre- amendment and post-amendment. He didn't understand how you could add 400-600 more housing units and have the traffic level go down but he understood from staff that this compared to what the "current" comprehensive plan allows verses whatthe "revised" plan would allow. If the city does nothing and building continues as what would be allowed under the current conditions, there would be more traffic than what there would be under the revision. The same facts hold true for the waste water treatment system. Commissioner Hess said under the revised land use plan with the existing businesses in that area would those commercial businesses be affected by reimplementation? Ms. Finwall said the zoning district would guide the permitted conditional use and prohibited uses so it's difficult to say exactly but it's clear that many of those uses would become nonconforming once the new zoning is in place but they will be affected. Chairperson Fischer asked if that's grandfathered in? Ms. Finwall said yes. Commissioner Hess said in the report there were figures regarding the amounts of water that could go into Round Lake and Lake Phalen and with the new development have we done the studies that show the environmental impacts? Mr. Chuck Ahl, Maplewood Public Works Director, addressed the commission. He said the studies are underway. A long explanation is Lake Phalen hasn't been rated so it isn't on a list of protected waters. Round Lake has been rated and it is on the designated list of impaired waters in the State of Minnesota. It has nutrification that far exceeds the standards; it has a lot of nutrient load that puts the city on notice that says we cannot increase any of the maximum daily loads for those types of pollutants and that the city has to control that. The proposal that is put together, the master plan and the plan that the city council authorized a feasibility study on, the city is required to reduce the load to Round Lake and Lake Phalen. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-07 -7- Mr. Ahl said additionally, the restrictions that place the City of Maplewood on a list with 30 cities in the State of Minnesota that have to prepare nondedregation which means that all water bodies in the City of Maplewood have to reduce the loading of nutrients from the rainwater and snow melt runoffs to levels from 1988 levels or better. So the city is in the process of putting a plan together to do that. As the city approves developments we have to show the improvements meet those requirements. The city cannot discharge anything more to Lake Phalen or to Round Lake then the city discharged in 1988 plus we have a maximum daily load requirement that the city has to treat. In other words, the city is going to have to substantially improve the drainage and treatment of the runoff from the entire Gladstone area as part of this project. That's why the City of Maplewood was one of the top vote getters and received the largest grant this year of $1.8 million, in part because of the storm water treatment system plan. The City of Maplewood is investing a lot of money through the master plan in upgrading the systems for that treatment and the city is planning on having this done by the end of 2008. Commissioner Walton asked if staff was stating that even though the city is planning on adding an additional 450-600 housing units the plan is to reduce the amount of runoff to the level it was in 1988 or better? Mr. Ahl said correct, the city is "required" to do that. Chairperson Fischer opened up the public hearing. The followinq spoke durinq the public hearinq: 1. David Bartol. 1249 Frisbie Avenue. Maplewood. Mr. Bartol said he worked on the Gladstone Coalition to formulate objections to the plans that were originally presented. One of the objections was because of the high density and the commercial property had three stories above it. There were structures shown built right up to the street. This is a low density residential area. He used the existing zoning densities in his plan and came up with a plan for 490 housing units. The Gladstone Task Force had a plan of 800 units and in the spirit of compromise the city council came up with a compromise of 650 units. We all want this area redeveloped to some extent but we just want a density number in the middle. (He went to the overhead map and pointed out the differences of things from the original Gladstone plan that he had come up with.) The master plan is what it is. The planning commission is now going to determine how that is implemented by the zoning. The zoning in the corresponding density and how that is going to govern what happens. As a long term neighbor he plans on staying until he dies and many of the neighbors have shared their feelings regarding this redevelopment plan. There are certain areas in Gladstone that need rehabilitating but others don't need rehabilitating. Some residential areas on this plan have been changed to a higher density and or multiple dwelling, why are we changing neighborhoods that have single family homes and making it multiple dwelling. He would recommend not rezoning those areas and leaving it as it is. Between Frost and Down Avenues the idea was that there are homes and they wanted to keep the single family density to a low density such as 7 to 12 units per acre and now it's shown as commercial and higher density which we all object to. There are homes on one side and now we are interjecting commercial and higher density, which means a change to what is there now. We as neighbors don't object to lower density but we do object to a higher density. Then across the street is an orange designation on the map, why are we doing anything here because there are homes there? Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-07 -8- Mr. Bartol asked why you can't leave it as single family homes as it has always been? You as the planning commission have the power to change the master plan back by changing the zoning. Why are we spending so much time and money rehabilitating an area in Gladstone that doesn't need rehabilitation and that would change the character of the neighborhood? Commissioner Yarwood asked staff why the higher density was implemented along Clarence Street? Ms. Finwall said referring to the concept plan which shows the possibility of condominiums in that area and when looking at the overall land area verses the number of units, it did come out to be higher density which would allow 12 to 30 units per acre. Commissioner Trippler asked if the increase in density in the areas north of Frost Avenue and west of English Street come out because there was a limitation on how many stories could be built in the area? The task force assumed that would be the only high density area and they had talked about buildings 3 to 4 stories in height but now it is limited to no more than three stories. If you take one story away from a development you have to put the additional units somewhere. He said Mr. Bartol brings up a valid point that it seems like the plan shows high density areas across the street from single family homes. The city tries to step the density from single family homes upward and this is a huge leap from single family homes on one side of the street to 30 housing units across the street. It seemed to him that on the task force plan they had grade aided the development so it was planned for single family, then duplexes and then high density. He's assuming that based on what was said about the parcels south of Gloster Park it sounds like one of David Bartol's neighbors wants to make a killing on his property and he wants the city council to zone the property high density so the owner can make a bundle of money. Commissioner Yarwood said his concern is the high density designation for Gladstone with 12 to 30 units per acre which is a very broad range. 12 to 30 units per acre is 2% times the lowest number of units. At the very least he would suggest narrowing the range of units for the land use designations. Commissioner Trippler asked if Commissioner Yarwood would recommend splitting it into (G-H 1) and (G-H2) or something like that? Commissioner Yarwood said that would be better. Commissioner Trippler asked if it would be okay to narrow the range of 12-20 units and 20- 30units? Commissioner Yarwood said that would be fine. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if that was something the commission could recommend? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Trippler asked if there was a preference how staff wanted that to be identified like (G-H1) or (G-H2)? Mr. Roberts said he doesn't have a preference but Ms. Finwall may want to comment on that. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-07 -9- Ms. Finwall pointed out that the master plan was already adopted by the city council. On page 4-22 of the Gladstone packet it goes into detail about proposed redevelopment in the area that is in question which is south of Frost Avenue and East of the Bruce Vento Trail. It talks about the best way to guide redevelopment in that area after years of study. The planning commission's concern is this area shown on the proposed master plan changes with the higher density across from residential. Take into consideration the master plan and how it helps guide development in that area taking opportunities such as this green street which is proposed south of this development and also opportunities along the trail and following along with the mixed use commercial area to the north. If the commission has concerns about the overall density with the medium, high and mixed use designations there is an opportunity to break that down further and staff doesn't have an opinion either way how the commission wants to break that down. Commissioner Hess asked if the land use in figure 5 was based off the unit density initially proposed or was that based off the 650 units? Ms. Finwall said this is based off the proposed 650 new housing units. Chairperson Fischer said the first time this came before the planning commission we were looking at two proposals. One proposal was from the Gladstone Task Force for 800 units and the other was from David Bartol for 490 units. Commissioner Trippler said the planning commission, Gladstone Task Force and every other commission or committee that went before the city council recommended the 800 unit plan but the city council made their own decision. Chairperson Fischer said the minority report from the planning commission was if the city council wasn't going to allow the 800 units the commission recommended the city council look at something less than the 800 units but more than 490 units like 600 units and then cut back on the amenities so it would be more financially feasible. 2. Don Wiener. 1852 Clarence St. Maplewood. Mr. Wiener said the people directly across the street from him and down the way don't want this development planned behind them. He wondered if the housing shown on the map would be for affordable or mixed housing? Ms. Finwall said that area is proposed as medium density, there is no determination as to the type of housing that would be at this point. It would be based on a private redevelopment proposal. Mr. Wiener said when we discussed this with the city council the Gladstone residents made it pretty clear that they didn't want any development here and he wonders why the city council needs to change it now. Apparently the opinion of the Gladstone residents fell upon deaf ears; the city council is not listening to the Gladstone residents. Mr. Roberts said that is something you would have to bring up with the city council. The plan you see on the map is trying to follow the master plan that was adopted by the city council and if neighbors object to that then they need to talk to the city council. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-07 -10- 3. Sharon Lumphrev, 1817 Clarence St, Maplewood. Ms. Lumphrey said she is a resident of this area. The high density area shown on the map in red does that mean there is a developer ready to pursue purchasing that land? Ms. Finwall said no. The parcel is part of the master plan which is a guide for future developments if and when they happen. Ms. Lumphrey said regarding the Bruce Vento Trail and the Gateway Trail, what does the Railroad Authority say about that and what are the laws governing the trails regarding the rights of the Maplewood residents taking the trails away? How is it that we can say we are going to have houses built along the trail and have that the trail would be used as a sidewalk area with mixed use housing and townhomes or rowhouses with the trail going through there. She asked the planning commission to listen really hard to this statement, if you consider voting for that, remember there is a possibility that from eminent domain that our properties will be taken if we don't all decide on the block to go along with the plan. She is very opposed to this. She is opposed to seeing the trails taken away and not used for what they were meant for. You can't have a trail here and use it for a sidewalk with people using it and kids playing on it. She said she finds this plan very disturbing. She has two residential lots behind here right up to the trail. She doesn't see how you can vote this plan in. She said she will hold the planning commission accountable for every vote you make on this. This is a public hearing and from what she understands this is something you the planning commission will be voting to approve. Ms. Finwall said the city council has adopted the master plan which shows that land possibly being redeveloped. During the planning process it should be noted there was interest from some of those property owners to have the area redeveloped otherwise it probably wouldn't have been proposed to change. Originally it was not part of the "concept" plan. Many of these homes have vacant land or larger tracks of land that go all the way to the Gateway Trail so there was interest expressed for the "possibility" of extending the master plan down that way for possible redevelopment with town homes in that area. If and when townhomes would be developed they would utilize the Gateway Trail as an amenity "not" as its own personal sidewalk. The city is hoping the neighborhood would utilize those trails as amenities for both the Bruce Vento Trail and the Gateway Trail. In order to formalize and make this a legal guiding plan, the planning commission is looking to change the comprehensive land use plan from single family residential in that area to this Gladstone medium density (G-M) to allow possible redevelopment of that area into townhomes. Ms. Lumphrey said to confirm what staff just said is the people who live in this area between the red or high density area and the orange area or medium density, there was a gentleman who has property along the back, but doesn't own all that land, the rest of us did not ask for that property to be developed. That's land each of us purchased, it is our land which we purchased because we wanted additional space and land. Mr. Roberts said the master plan is shown, and one of the guiding principles in the master plan talks about eminent domain and it's strongly recommended that eminent domain not be used at any point. These are guides. Nobody is saying that the city is going to knock at your door and say we are going to buy your property or take it from you. What the city is saying is that if a developer can make deals with property owners and can put a development plan together, these are the types of land uses that are going to occur in those areas. The city is not proposing to be the lead developer at this point. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-07 -11- Ms. Lumphrey said to the planning commission, don't vote to change the land use forthis because if we get a developer to come in, they could put the pressure on everybody living here and the city wouldn't do eminent domain but she believes it is possible the developer or builder who is going to purchase the land from the land owners could say, I have all of this ready to go and if I can't get this last land owner to agree to the terms then there is a possibility for eminent domain. Let's face it. You are not going to be able to say, as long as there is one hold the development cannot go forward in the end. Someone is going to say for the good of the neighborhood, for the good of the city, for another dollar, I am going to take your home away and make you sell your land to me or I will take it away from you. She said she has four lots here and she did not ask for this change and does not want this change. If you as the planning commission accept this plan you are opening the door for developers to come in and be able to push a plan through that the neighbors don't want. There is somebody that wants to sell his land here so he can get his money out so he want's this development to happen so he is probably the one that asked for this zoning to be changed. Can you legally put houses along the trail? Mr. Roberts said absolutely. The zoning and land use designation allows you to go right up to the trail property but does not include the trail property. The trail is publicly owned by the Railroad Authority. The property would go up to the green posts but the actual placement of the structures and access would still be subject to city review and setbacks and they would have to provide for their own driveways and or streets as any other development would. Essentially what staff would envision would be the yards of the new homes going up to the property line of the Railroad Authority. There would have to be a site plan and development proposal that would have to corne through the city for individual reviews. Ms. Lumphrey asked if there's a record of the developers who are have come to the city requesting to develop in this area? Mr. Roberts said the only developer he is aware of is the developer of the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site. Ms. Finwall may have more knowledge. Ms. Finwall said currently the city is working with Bart Montanari of Dabar Companies for the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site. Another developer named Cal Sieger of Crossroads may have a purchase agreement for the manufactured home park along English Street. Since the master plan has been adopted there have been no other discussions with the city for development proposals that she is aware of at this time. Ms. Lumphrey said the planning commission should think this over hard. If no other developers have made themselves known at this point, her husband and Don Wiener who just spoke don't see any reason to redevelop this area, it's not a blighted area so please consider this decision very carefully. This changes the culture and everything about the neighborhood. 4. James Homolka. Ramsey County Reqional Railroad Authority. Mr. Homolka said he represents the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority. He serves two functions at the RCRRA, first and foremost he is the Project Manager and secondly, he is the Right-of-Way Authority. He said he isn't here to take a position on whether or not you should use your authority on the planning commission to change the master plan or not. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-07 -12- Mr. Homolka said he is here to offer to answer questions and to explain the property that the Railroad Authority owns as it is and what we intend to do with the property in the future. The Railroad Authority property is unique in the Gladstone neighborhood for three reasons. First, we are the oldest neighbor here. Secondly, we will likely be the longest neighbor in this area. Under the Bruce Vento Trail, through a partnership with the cities along the Bruce Vento Trail, the land is owned by the Railroad Authority. We intend to keep the land and preserve it for a future light rail development years down the road. In the interim we have agreed with the city's to develop and maintain the Bruce Vento Trail until such development resumes which a light rail system may be decided upon in the future. Thirdly, we are unique in the neighborhood because in addition to just owning and preserving the land along the Bruce Vento Trail we also have a two-acre parcel at 1870 English Street, also known as the former site of the Gladstone Window and Door Company. The Railroad Authority owns and leases the land out which is a revenue makerforthe RCRRA. It's not our position to encourage the planning commission one way or the other on how it should proceed with recommendations to the city council. However, we offer with caution that we don't have immediate plans for the development of the trail but we want to make it known that the RCRRA owns the property and it's earmarked for future light rail development of some kind. He cautions the city with that information just finding out about the high density designation that has been pointed out this evening. The RCRRA does not take or make a position here he is only cautioning the city that a future developer of high density on that side of the trail may have marketing problems with a transit system or light rail system going through the area. Mr. Roberts asked if it was true that the RCRRA has plans for a possible bus transit there for the trail corridor as well? Mr. Homolka said it's a possibility. Mr. Roberts asked if that might happen sooner than a light rail line going through would? Mr. Homolka said it's a possibility but he can't speak to it either way. The land was acquired through various local, state and federal agencies for the purpose of preserving the land and that is the intent. He is only making it known what the intention of the land is as the land owner and cautioning the city that the plans of the RCRRA may affect how the land is planned for in the futu re. Commissioner Hess asked if the easement discussed earlier was at 100 feet? Mr. Homolka said yes, it is 100 feet, 50 feet from either side of the center line of the tracks as they were originally laid. The Bruce Vento Trail is an interim use, there is no timetable for this future development. In fact he said he believes he will be retired by the time this happens. Commissioner Hess asked if the green marker posts along the trail indicate the 50 foot marker? Mr. Homolka said yes. Commissioner Yarwood commented that with high density along the possible light rail line and transit station area because he thinks you would have a hard time selling a single family home there with either of those things built there. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-07 -13- Mr. Homolka said he would agree. He is just suggesting there are other considerations to be made for the fact that there may be a light rail line built through there in the future. 5. Jan Sundaaard, 1865 Clarence 51. Maplewood. Mr. Sundgaard said he came to this meeting because he owns property on two sides of this project area shown in red representing high density on the map which is actually most of his yard. He said he has no plans of selling his property. His grandparents moved here from Norway over 100 years ago. His father was born in the house and after World War II he was lucky enough to buy the big white house in the middle of the red area on the map zoned high density. He loves living in the Gladstone area. He owns George's Auto Body and currently has 24 employees that work within 100 feet of the Savanna. He is "for" the development and the planning process. He said he gets mad at the people that fight the city when future development is discussed. He knows the city is trying to plan the future of the Gladstone neighborhood area which is wonderful. We are surrounded by parks, lakes and amenities which is also convenient to the twin cities. The community that we live in is very special. The city is trying to set the guidelines for this community. He owns George's Auto Body on Frost Avenue and he knows that Frost Avenue needs to be cleaned up. He has no plans to sell his property and to have it developed. He said maybe some day when he's tired or can't take care of the land anymore somebody else could make better use of it. He said he owns 8 lots and he enjoys his land. He encourages the planning process and the strategy. This area would actually be a wonderful area for a small condominium project. He hasn't spoken to any developers. He said he is a free thinker and if anybody is going to develop the land he owns he would be the first one to do that. He said thank you to the planning commission and the other groups for their hard work. He said he loves the streetscape plan and the idea of cleaning up the area. He thinks the major intention of the city is to "control" what can be developed, not to increase development. Mr. Roberts said the main objective is for the city to set a plan in place so that "if' and when development occurs or redevelopment occurs, that there is a guiding document, guiding principles and guiding regulations set so that the city is not at the end of the parade cleaning up but rather at the front of the parade. It may be 5 years or 20 years before any development happens here. Whatever decision the city council makes would not prohibit a future city council from changing things down the road. With a new city council, change could occur in 1 year,S years or 10 years. The plan is to get things documented so everybody knows what the rules are and what the city expects could happen. Instead of a developer coming to the city and asking "what can I do here" the city would be able to show them the rules and say this is what is expected. If a developer or land owner wants to change the rules they would have to make a very compelling case to the city council. The developer or landowner mayor may not be able to make changes, but at least there would be a guiding set of principles and rules already set and in place for everybody to know before going forward. 6. Sue Broin, 1221 Riplev Avenue, Maplewood. She has lived in the Gladstone neighborhood for 15 years and thinks it's a great place to live and has no plans to leave. She wants to go on record that she supports redevelopment in this neighborhood. We could argue, and have in the past, what one person feels is appropriate in the neighborhood the other person doesn't feel is appropriate. She wants to make it clear that the comprehensive plan amendment change on the table this evening isn't something the city council has embraced yet. Apparently a land owner has approached the city to change the single family density to a higher density for multiple dwellings. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-07 -14- Ms. Finwall this land area was in the discussions but it wasn't part of the concept plan, so in essence it would be "new" on the map, but it was discussed previously. Ms. Broin asked if the city council had voted on that change yet? Ms. Finwall said no. Ms. Broin said with that fact established she would ask the commission when making their recommendation to the city council to do two things. She said do not make that proposed change part of your recommendation to the city council for the two parcels shown in orange on the map. The second thing is that she asked that the commission be very mindful of the density allowances in the areas that bud up to what is currently there which are single family homes. 7. Heather Brauneak. 1814 Phalen Place N.. Maplewood. Ms. Brauneak said she lives adjacent to the two lots that have been mentioned. She doesn't see those lots as part of the master plan. To add those two lots to the master plan now and change the density from single family dwellings to 7 to 12 units per acre would not be fair because it was not part of the concept that has been on the website for people to look at. We don't want this to happen when our homes next to this. The density doesn't gradually change from single family homes to slightly higher density, instead it jumps from single family homes to 7 to 12 units per acre. There are a number of other parcels on Phalen Place that are adjacent to this property. If you are going to add some other areas into this development you should think about adding those as well. There is one area that is for sale with two single family parcels, why don't you make those multi-family dwellings as well? Please don't add those areas to this master plan. Relating to the Gateway Trail, it is a wonderful, secluded area with a canopy of trees over it and to think of that being open to a lot of yards is something that is not as nice as what is there now. It is a wonderful area and she appreciates that the commission is looking at trying to do the right thing here but she hopes the commission won't agree to switch from single family dwellings to medium density when that is not part of the master plan, so there is no reason to do that. 8. Cheryl LeMire. 1886 Adele Street. Maplewood. Ms. LeMire asked if the number of units for the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site has already been approved? She is concerned about the environment, the amount of concrete, the exhaust, the traffic and the loss of the trees because it sounds like you are increasing the current zoning there and the impact it would have on the entire area. She is all for the senior housing and for the development. It is a beautiful area and she is concerned that they are planning for it to be too large. Ms. Finwall said the proposal at the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site is for 180 units of senior housing with four stories which would allow for less impervious surface on the site. They would be required to treat the storm water runoff as specified by Mr. Ahl. The city has a tree preservation ordinance in place which will help protect the trees or if trees are removed they would have to be replaced based on a certain calculation, so staff understands your concerns about the environment and the area. The site is also in the shoreland overlay area of Lake Phalen so there are other standards and concerns the city will have to address with the DNR. She said currently there is only a concept plan in place.180 units is something that was adopted in the master plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-07 -15- Ms. Finwall said we have a concept plan but it's still a concept plan at this stage and it has not been approved by anyone yet. The concept plan looks larger than what she would have thought would be accepted here. It should be pointed out that there were environmental concerns with the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site. With new development this area would be connected to the sanitary sewer and water and would have less impervious surface on the site. Because it's in the shoreland overlay area the development is only allowed to have 40% impervious surface on this site. There are a lot of issues the city needs to deal with. There will be a public hearing with the city. But the DNR would only be notified of the development but they do not hold their own public hearing. The DNR will have an opportunity to comment to the city council. 9. Debbie Salav. Trustee for 1844 Phalen Place. Maplewood. She said she is the Trustee of this property because her father lived there for 56 years. Regarding the two parcels we have been discussing, there appear to be roads on the master plan that do not exist now such as Edward Street and there is a field there currently. She asked how those roads would be built or go through? We are not in favor of those two parcels being such a large density right next to single family homes such as ours. Ms. Finwall said that was an item of much discussion regarding Edward Street going through to Ripley Avenue or not. There is an unused right-of-way that runs north south to Ripley Avenue. In one of the concept plans that showed the roadway going through to Frost Avenue and that is really where the whole proposal for reguiding this to medium density came about. Currently there is no proposal for that roadway to go through except as a green street as it is called out in the master plan. If future developments did happen in that area it would require some sort of access in that unused right-of-way and that would be for future reviews by the planning commission and city council but there is no concept plan in place. 10.Kim Schmidt. 1800 Phalen Place. Maplewood. She said she has been part of this process for a long time. At that time city staff stated to us that this was a guide for future redevelopment of the Gladstone area because we were almost completely built out. As we look at this plan we are taking single family homes and turning them into high density. Think about the implications as far as redeveloping into Maplewood and if it is something you wish to set as a pattern and or a model in the future. She doesn't think the neighborhood agrees with this model but maybe the model is something the city works with into the future. Regarding those two parcels north of Ripley Avenue, she has been part of this process for a long time and those parcels were not discussed as far as increasing the density. The character of the neighborhood is single family and there isn't a need for higher density. To her that is called "development" not redevelopment as we thought this was be,ing called the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan. The key focus of this project was the area north of Frost Avenue because that is the roughest looking area of the neighborhood which looks very blighted. That being said, the neighborhood has always said we don't want to take any plan just because it is new. We want to move forward with a dedicated plan. This has been a very long process with the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan and a lot of people have been very dedicated to working on this. Regarding the "form base design" term mentioned earlier, she thinks that is a slippery term and it requires more specific terminology because it isn't controlled enough and this process is supposed to be controlled. She said last night at the city council the form base design term was used as an overall affect and look rather than stating a certain percentage of stone or brick on the building exterior. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-07 -16- Ms. Schmidt said she would prefer to have more control over that rather than a general word "form based" which is too loose of a term, especially when we are trying to "upgrade" the area. It was stated that this form base design would be used to reflect the architecture of the neighborhood. What architecture are you planning on reflecting, the single family homes that are all one level, or the larger homes along East Shore Drive or are you going to stick with the overall architecture that already exists? Please consider having more control over these aspects. 11.David Bartol. 1249 Frisbie Avenue. Maplewood. Mr. Bartol said the master plan has been approved by the city council but it was amended. The plan that he sees on the screen tonight is the original plan not the new master plan. If you take the densities as suggested and you apply them which will go over the maximum units allowed you will be well over 650 units which was what the city council approved. He is willing to go through the numbers and make sure they all calculate correct. He said not to include the areas we discussed tonight. That is not part of what we wanted to do. Table this discussion until we can actually see the densities in the areas and make sure it's really going to be 650. We could start this debate all over again. He is going to do the calculations and he will be addressing the city council and we will be starting this all over again. He suggests tabling this until you can actually see if this comes close to the 650 units because he is confident it will come to well over 650 units. He would like to see calculations on just the Gladstone area we are talking about. He would hate to come back and have to redo this so his suggestions is there is some analysis to be done to see if this is correct. Ms. Finwall said included in the staff report was the comprehensive plan amendment submittal form which was drafted by Hoisington Koegler Group and on page 6 itreflects the calculations that Mr. Bartol is referring to. The land use designations are shown on the left. This is after the change in the comprehensive plan so you can see the existing single family (R-1), existing double dwelling (R-2), and the change is the medium density which we are calling Gladstone medium density (G- M), the high density which we are calling Gladstone high (G-H)and then the mixed use which is called Gladstone mixed use (G-M-U). You will see the acreage before the CPA and then the acreage after and then the number of units before and after. This reflects the number of units before, this doesn't reflect what is there now. It reflects what "could" be developed under "current" comprehensive plan guidelines. Under the proposed comprehensive plan guidelines you have the total of 733 to 1,223 units and that is "new" and "existing" units and that is based on the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan. The densities that were assumed would be 650 new housing units. Mr. Ahl said if you look at the chart and do the math on the far right columns the difference between 576 and 1,223 is 650 units. It's just the reporting system to the Metropolitan Council that requires you to count the existing units and adding in the new units. So the range as listed below that on the chart is 450 which is the difference between 336 to 733 and the range gets you 576 up to 1,223 which is almost 650 so that is the range, the numbers are there and that is the bases of what was approved. Your planning commission action is to take the input, use your judgment as commissioners and ask if it seems right or not. We are talking about the areas on Clarence Street and the area north of Ripley Avenue that might impact this chart. He said it won't lower the 450 unit number; it might lower the 650 unit number if you put a control on that you might take the 650 unit down to 625. That's in the range of what is being discussed. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-07 -17- Mr. Ahl said understand that this chart reflects what was in the master plan and how you distribute that is what the planning commission is doing tonight. Commissioners should consider if those transition areas are appropriate or not and city staff wants to hear comments the planning commission so city staff can pass that along to the city council. Ms. Broin asked if the 650 units also included the 180 units for the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site? Mr. Ahl said yes. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody else wanted to speak? There were no other speakers that wanted to come forward. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pearson said when you are looking at the future land use comprehensive plan there is a high density area on Birmingham Street and Frost Avenue and it carries through to the redevelopment plan concept but when we get to the land use change there are three categories that are no longer there. In Neighborhood figure 3, Frost Avenue and Birmingham Street, there is a two lot block that looks like high density multiple dwellings and then on the Gladstone Neighborhood Figure 4 it's still there but in figure 5 it's no longer there. He asked if that was a trade off for what is on Clarence Street? Ms. Finwall said the parcels shown in tan on the map are not being proposed to change and that's why it appears different. Commissioner Yarwood said he isn't comfortable designating the properties east of Curve Street for up to 30 units per acre because he doesn't think that would allow an appropriate transition between the high density to the west of Curve Street and the single family homes between Clarence Street and Curve Street. If we keep 30 units per acre he would not be comfortable for voting forthe change in land use but he would be more comfortable with the (G-M) zoning allowing 7 to 12 units per acre. Commissioner Trippler asked if we table the motion for more discussion how would that affect the time schedule? Ms. Finwall said city staff is hoping to submit the master plan to the Metropolitan Council and surrounding and adjacent governmental units so the 60-day clock can begin. We are proposing to bring this to the city council on February 26, 2007, for their review pending Metropolitan Council approval. All of this is based on the proposed development of the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site and is the reason staff would like to continue on with this proposal. The developer does propose to submit land use applications as early as early March with the hopes of breaking ground in September 2007. So a decision to table this would affect the time line. There are things we can discuss and work on tonight and making recommendations to the city council for their final review February 26. She said with this high density there are opportunities within the zoning code to create buffers whenever these properties are adjacent residential. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-07 -18- Ms. Finwall said with this land use plan seeing high density next to single family dwellings this form based zoning will allow for buffers to be created whenever adjacent to the residential uses and with the zoning in place here. Knowing that some of the Gladstone residents aren't supportive of the land use here this plan would give them the option in the future to possibly redevelop their land because some of those landowners in 20 years may prefer to sell their property and move on and this would give them the opportunity to do so or they can stay on their properties without redeveloping. It just opens up more options for those land owners. Commissioner Hess asked if there would be another planning commission meeting before this item goes to the city council so the commission can work out some of the concerns especially concerning the naming of the zoning designations in time to get this to the city council in time? Mr. Roberts said we have another planning commission meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 20th, 2007, however that would not allow the recording secretary enough time to type the planning commission minutes and for staff to update the report in time for the preparation of the city council packet for the meeting on February 26, 2007. Commissioner Trippler said if we divide the zoning designations such as (G-H1) and (G-H2) into separate areas then staff can decide which parcels could be the lower and the higher densities based on the information that has been shared this evening. The commission has conveyed to the city staff and to the city council through the minutes that we would like to see a smoother gradation from single family dwellings to higher density. He would prefer to move forward with a recommendation and the commissioners can vote accordingly. Commissioner Trippler proposed there be four separate motions. (The motions shown below in bold print were additions or changes from staff's recommendation in the staff report.) Commissioner Trippler moved to divide the hiah density classification into 2 sub-aroups of G-H1 to (12 to 20 units per acre) and G-H2 to (20-30 units per acre). Commissioner Walton seconded. Ayes - Fischer, Pearson, Trippler, Walton, Yarwood Nay - Hess The motion passed. Commissioner Trippler moved that the parcels located south of Gloster Park and North of Ripley Avenue frontina on the Edward Street riaht-of-way indicated on the map as medium multiple residential dwellina (R-3M) should remain planned (R-1) sinale dwellina residential density. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Walton, Yarwood The motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-07 -19- Commissioner Trippler moved to have city staff look at the high density parcel which is South of Frost Avenue between Curve Street North of Clarence Street and show it on the land use map so that it giyes a better aradation of density from sinale family to hiah density. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Walton, Yarwood The motion passed. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the comprehensive land use plan amendment and map change resolution attached in the staff report. This resolution changes the land use designations in the Gladstone area from light manufacturing (M-1), business commercial (BC), business commercial modified (BC-M), limited business commercial (LBC), medium multiple dwelling residential (R-3M), double dwelling residential (R-2), and single dwelling residential (R-1) to the land use designations as described in the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan dated December 2006. This includes land use designations which will be called Gladstone Medium (G- M), Gladstone High (G-H1 and G-H2), and Gladstone Mixed Use (G M-U). The comprehensive land use plan amendment is based on eight specific comprehensive plan land use and housing goals and four land use policies as follows: Goals: 1. Provide for orderly development. 2. Protect and strengthen neighborhoods. 3. Promote economic development that will expand the property tax base, increase jobs and provide desirable services. 4. Minimize the land planned for streets. 5. Minimize conflicts between land uses. 6. Provide a wide variety of housing types. 7. Provide safe and attractive neighborhoods and commercial areas. 8. Plan multi-family housing with an average density of at least 10 units per acre. Policies: 1. Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents. 2. Disperse moderate-income developments throughout the city near bus lines. 3. Support innovative subdivision and housing design. 4. Protect neighborhoods from activities that produce excessive noise, dirt, odors, or which generate heavy traffic. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Fischer, Pearson, Trippler, Walton Nays - Hess, Yarwood The motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-07 -20- Commissioner Yarwood voted nay because until we change the Gladstone designations for a more generic use that could be used elsewhere in the city orto at least be consistent with the rest of the city plan he isn't comfortable voting for this recommendation. Commissioner Hess said he would agree with those comments in addition to the fact that he is not too comfortable with those unit designations per acre and he would like to see that reexamined. Commissioner Trippler said he would strongly encourage the city council to have a discussion regarding how they want to proceed with planning or development in the future whether they want to do those individually or peace meal and develop criteria and standards for each development or if they want to develop criteria so they could be applied to the whole city. This item goes to the city council on February 26,2007. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Election of Officers Commissioner Trippler said the city ordinance states we should elect officers during the second meeting of the year and it has already been the second meeting of the year. He said we have a quorum but we don't have a full commission this evening. If we are going to follow the dictates of the ordinance we shouldn't we hold an Election of Officers? Chairperson Fischer asked if we could table the Election of Officers until we have a full commission? Mr. Roberts said the difficulty with waiting to vote for a full commission is that it would be probably 6 to 8 weeks before we have a full planning commission, this is because we have two openings to fill with Commissioner Mary Oierich's resignation and Commissioner Michael Grover's recent resignation even though he said he would serve until a replacement is found. Chairperson Fischer asked staff why this item was not on the agenda tonight? Mr. Roberts said staff forgot to include it in the agenda so it would be staff's recommendation to move forward with the voting process. Chairperson Fischer said we need to elect a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson to serve on the planning commission. Commissioner Pearson nominated Lorraine Fischer as Chairperson of the planning commission and nominated Tushar Desai as Vice-Chairperson. Commissioner Trippler said he would be interested in serving as Vice-Chairperson and would like to be considered. Commissioner Pearson moved to recommend Lorraine Fischer as Chairperson of the planning commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-07 -21- Commissioner Yarwood seconded. Ayes - Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Walton, Yarwood Abstention - Fischer The motion passed. Commissioner Hess said because Tushar Desai was absent and could not speak for himself regarding his nomination for Vice-Chairperson he did not feel comfortable voting in his absence. Commissioner Pearson moved to table the nomination for Vice-Chairperson until the next planning commission meeting. Commissioner Trippler said he would not be present for the next planning commission meeting February 20,2007, so he would be unable to vote. Commissioner Yarwood said he would be absent as well for the planning commission meeting of February 20,2007, for the vote so the commission would still be short planning commissioners as we are tonight. Chairperson Fischer asked if Commissioner Trippler felt it would be appropriate to have his name put in the running as a nominee for Vice-Chairperson in his absence? Commissioner Trippler said yes. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Walton, Yarwood The motion passed. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Historical Commission member, Richard Currie, gave a handout to the planning commission regarding the upcoming 50th Anniversary of Maplewood at the Maplewood Community Center on Saturday, February 24,2007, and gave a brief summary of what would be happening that date. He said that if you would like to help out with the 50th Anniversary party to contact Pauline Staples at the Maplewood Community Center or Richard Currie on the Historical Commission. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Pearson was scheduled to be the planning commission representative at the January 22,2007, city council meeting; however, there were no planning commission items to discuss. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-07 -22- b. Mr. Desai will be the planning commission representative at the February 12, 2007, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the 2006 Planning Commission Annual Report, Resolution of Appreciation for Mary Dierich and the Rules of Procedure for the Planning Commission. c. Mr. Hess will be the planning commission representative at the February 26,2007, city council meeting. The only item to discuss is the Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Gladstone Redevelopment Plan (for the English Street and Frost Avenue area). d. We need a representative to volunteer at the March 12, 2007, city council meeting. The planning commission decided to table looking for a representative until the February 20, 2007, planning commission meeting. e. Lorraine Fischer discussed upcoming training sessions. Ms. Fischer said the planning commission was given a handout regarding the 2007 Land Use Planning Workshops that the planning commissioners may be interested in attending. There is money in the budget if any of the planning commissioners are interested in attending these informative sessions. To get signed up for one of these sessions please contact Andrea Sindt, the Community Development Department Secretary at 651-249-2301. You may also read more about these sessions on this website www.mnqts.orq. f. Dale Trippler spoke about the ordinance and changing meeting nights for the planning commission. Commissioner Trippler said when we discussed the 2006 Planning Commission Annual Report there was an attachment with the ordinance that governs the planning commission. In the attachment it stated the planning commission shall determine when they meet. He's concerned that the planning commission has been told we would no longer be able to meet Monday evenings and that the meeting night has been changed to Tuesday evenings. This decision has caused one planning commissioner to resign and it has caused another commissioner a great deal of hardship. In addition we were just reinterviewed by the city council because our terms were expired. There was no discussion regarding changing the meeting night at that time. If the planning commission decides that it works better for them meeting the first and third Monday of the month we should be able to continue meeting on those Monday evenings. Unless the city council decides that it wants to change the ordinance which they have the authority to do, the ordinance does allow the planning commission to pick our meeting night and we should be able to keep meeting Monday evenings. Commissioner Hess was absent from the planning commission meeting for the discussion regarding the possibility of moving the meeting night to either Tuesday or Wednesday night. The reason he accepted the position to serve on the planning commission was because Monday nights worked well with his schedule. Commissioner Hess asked why the planning commission was told they had to move their meeting night from Monday evenings to Tuesday evenings? Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-07 -23- Commissioner Trippler said he understood the city council was not able to complete their meetings in one evening so they want to have every Monday of the month open. The rational is that the city council wants to have as many public meetings televised on cable television as possible and the only room capable of television the meetings is in the city council chambers. If we were to continue meeting on Monday evenings we would have to meet in the Maplewood Room and the meeting could not be televised on cable television. It seemed to him that if we meet on Tuesday nights we may lose our viewing audience. The city is going to have meetings televised every night of the week. Most of the planning commissioners had Monday evenings available and that is why they wanted to serve on the planning commission. Commissioner Walton (the newest appointed commissioner) said Monday evenings wouldn't work well for him anyway. Commissioner Trippler asked Commissioner Walton if the city council told him during the interview process that the planning commission meetings were on Monday or Tuesday evenings and if that would be a problem for him which was a standard question asked during the interview process? Commissioner Walton said actually the discussion regarding which night the planning commission meets was never brought up in the interview and he said he left the interview with the city council without thinking about which night the commission met. Commissioner Hess asked if the option to meet on Wednesday night is still open for discussion because he prefers meeting Monday night. Sometimes having an additional evening to review the packet is helpful. Tuesday night is a bad night for him because he has boy scouts and he would prefer to meet on Wednesday and this was never brought up during the planning commission opening interview process. Chairperson Fischer said if she would have been given the option between meeting Tuesday or Wednesday night, she would have chosen Wednesday night. Commissioner Pearson said he would work his schedule out for either evening but Wednesday would be better for him. In terms of the openness of the city council meeting, he likes as many meetings to be televised as possible. He would even like to see the city council workshops televised as well. The residents would rather see the city council meetings more than the planning commission meetings. He would not be opposed to meeting in the Maplewood Room on Monday evenings. Commissioner Yarwood said if the Maplewood residents wanted to participate in public hearings that would not be possible if we met in the Maplewood Room if the Planning Commission continues to hold the public hearings. He can make any evening work with his schedule. Chairperson Fischer said as many of the city meetings that can be put on cable television is only for the betterment of the citizens of Maplewood because it keeps people better informed. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-07 -24- Mr. Roberts said one reason Tuesday evenings were chosen was because another commission or committee group was going to be cable cast on Wednesday evenings. He would have to check to see which committee was going to meet on Wednesday evening. Chairperson Fischer said if that group met on the 2nd and 4th Wednesday's we could the 1 st and 3rd Wednesdays. She asked if staff could check into that or has the city council already made the final decision on our meeting night being changed? Commissioner Trippler said he understood it was the City Manager, Greg Copeland who decided the planning commission had to move our meeting night from Monday to Tuesday. Mr. Roberts said that is his understanding as well. Whether that can be changed or not he didn't know, if another commission or committee group is willing to make a change staff isn't sure about that. Commissioner Trippler said maybe the city council could meet earlier on the second and fourth Monday's such as 5:00 p.m. and we could meet at 7:00 p.m. Chairperson Fischer said the HRA ran into an interesting situation before where they were supposed to hold a public hearing in the city council chambers regarding the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site but the city council chambers were still full of people. The HRA moved their meeting into the Maplewood Room and when they adjourned, the city council chambers were still full of people, so that doesn't always work the way you would like it to as far as timing. Commissioner Trippler said he understood the city council was setting the 1 st and 3rd Monday evening aside incase they need to meet, that doesn't necessarily mean they "need" to meet and are still sticking with the 2nd and 4th Monday evenings as well. It would be nice if the city council could finish their meeting in one evening. The city council is asking the commission and other groups to shift their meetings around to accommodate the possibility that the city council may need additional time to finish their meetings. It's a lot of shuffling around that may not even be necessary. The recording secretary added that changing the meeting night means that instead of the minutes beginning to be typed on Tuesday morning now it is Wednesday morning. If you move the meeting to Wednesday night the minutes couldn't be typed until Thursday morning. That just takes another day away from getting the planning commission minutes started and a day longer to finish them so that staff can proofread them and get the packet ready for the Department Secretary to copy and send. Mr. Roberts said the packet for the next meeting would go out Wednesday or Thursday and the mail has to be sent and then received by planning commissioners allowing enough time for them to visit the site and review the packet before the next planning commission meeting. Commissioner Trippler said the city manager needs to be made aware that it's more than a decision to shuffle other meeting nights around to accommodate the city council possibly needing to meet and it may not even be necessary for them to meet. The Mayor did raise the issue of starting the city council meeting at 3:00 p.m. so they could be done by 7:00 p.m. and if we are scheduled to start the planning commission meeting at 7:00 p.m. the city council could adjourn their meeting until later. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-07 -25- Commissioner Hess said if the city council holds their meeting Monday at 3:00 p.m. that would cut out a majority of Maplewood citizen input because people are working at that time of the day. The city hall is also conducting business during that time. Mr. Roberts said the idea is if the city council meeting was from 3:00 to 7:00 or 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. that would be for city council workshops and the public would not be present for those meetings and the city council meeting would start at 7:00 p.m. for the public to attend. Commissioner Yarwood asked if staff could check into the possibility of having the Planning Commission meeting on Monday evening's and if that isn't possible, could staff check into having the meeting on Wednesday evenings? Mr. Roberts said he already knows the answer to that question. If the planning commission wants their feelings passed onto the city council the planning commission minutes will reflect that. It is up to the planning commission to let their feelings known and we will relay this to the city manager and city council through the minutes from this evening. You as a planning commission can certainly call city council members and share your feelings. g. Introduction of the newest planning commissioner. The newest planning commissioner Joseph Walton introduced himself to the planning commissioners and staff. He has lived in Maplewood since 1989 and lived on Cope Avenue for 15 years and for a few years now he has been living on Duluth Street behind Maplewood Toyota. He said he has two high-school aged daughters and he is happy to be serving on the planning commission. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Permanent planning commission meeting night change from the first and third Monday's of the month to the first and third Tuesday's of the month. The planning commission discussed this subject at length during Board Presentations so there was no need to discuss it again under Staff Presentations. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Concept Plan Review. Pond Overlook Town Houses 2161 County Road D February 12, 2007 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Doug Andrus, representing Andrus Homes, is asking the city to provide him with preliminary comments about a proposed senior housing development. He has prepared a preliminary site plan that shows 10 housing units (in five, two-unit town houses) for persons aged 55 and over. This development would be on about two acres of land between County Road D and 1-694 on the property known as 2161 County Road D. Refer to the applicant's statement on pages five and six and the maps on pages 7 - 13. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. The developer has not finalized the design of the buildings, but I expect that each town house building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick or stone veneer on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have a two-car garage. The applicant did submit pictures to city staff of another project that he recently finished to help the city get a feel for the type of units that he has constructed. (Please the list of developments and the pictures on pages 14 and 15.) Requests To build this project, Mr. Andrus will be requesting that the city approve: 1. A change to the zoning map. This would be from F (farm residence) to R-2 (double dwellings) for the site. 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This PUD would allow the project to have a variety of setbacks and to have the town houses be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width). 3. A preliminary plat for the lots for the town houses. (See the concept site plan on page 12.) 4. The project design plans. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan and Zoning Map Change As shown on the land use plan map, the city has planned this property R-2 (single and double dwellings). (Please see the land use map on page 9.) The proposed development, with five twinhomes (10 total town house units) on the two-acre property would be consistent with the existing R-2 land use designation. To build the proposed development, Mr. Andrus would need the city to change the zoning map for the site from f (farm residence) to R-2 (double dwellings). (See the zoning map on page 10.) For R-2 areas, the city plans for single dwellings on lots of at least 6,000 square feet of area and double dwellings on lots of 12,000 square feet in area (6,000 square feet for each unit). The R-2 zoning in Maplewood allows for single or double dwellings. Preliminary Project Review Comoatibilitv This proposal, if approved by the city, should be compatible with this area of Maplewood. With the pond and commercial properties to the west, the Bruentrup fanm across County Road D and the sin91e dwellings to the east, the proposed town houses would fit with the character of the area. In addition, the site is between Interstate 1-694 and County Road D. The proposal is consistent with the existing R-2 land use designation. In Maplewood, developers will often build town homes next to single dwellings. An example is with the New Century Addition in south Maplewood. The developer, Robert Engstrom, is developing this neighborhood with a mix of single dwellings and townhomes. There are many other examples in Maplewood, such as Afton Ridge, Southwinds, Bennington Woods, Olivia Gardens and the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. Densitv As proposed, the 10 units on the two-acre site means there would be about 5.0 units per gross acre. This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for the R-2 (single and double dwellings) land use designation. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Section 44-1093(b) of the city code says that it is the intent of the PUD code "to provide a means to allow flexibility by substantial deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments provided that: 1. Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. 2. The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. 3. The PUD would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter. 4. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. 5. The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons.' The applicant would apply to the city for a conditional use penmit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the 10-unit housing development. They would request a PUD to allow the project to have a variety of setbacks and to have the town houses be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width). The developer is proposing a small lot around each townhome unit. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the rest of the land, including the private driveways, green areas and the ponding areas. In addition, having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard city requirements would nonmally allow. It is the contention of the applicant that the proposed code deviations meet the findings in the city code for approval of a PUD. 2 City staff agrees with the applicant that the development as proposed (shown on page 12), with the proposed code deviations, would produce a development of equal or superior quality, that the proposals do not constitute a threat to the area and that the deviations are required for reasonable and practicable development of the site. Having reduced town house setbacks should lessen the amount of grading and tree removal on the property. Public utilities Sanitary sewer and water are in the right-of-way of County Road D. The developer is proposing to have the city extend the utilities from County Road D to serve the proposed development. There is, however, limited stonm sewer in this part of Maplewood. The concept plans show new ponding areas on the site that would over flow onto the 1-694 right-of-way to the north. Managing the storm water, as with every project, also will be a critical part of the success of the development. The watershed district usually requires the grading plan to show that there will be at least five feet of free board (bounce) in the ponds from the first 100 year high water level to the lowest floor elevation of the units. Michael Thompson of the Maplewood Engineering Department reviewed the preliminary project plans and provided staff with comments about the proposed project. Please see his comments on page 16. RECOMMENDATION Review the proposed concept plan and the above-listed requests (zoning map change, PUD and site plan) and be prepared to discuss the proposed preliminary plan with staff and the applicant. 3 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: Two acres Existing land use: A single dwelling and accessory buildings SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South West: East: 1-694 Prairie Farm City open space Ponding Area Single dwellings on County Road D PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-2 (single and double dwellings) Existing Zoning: F (farm residence) Proposed Zoning: R-2 (single and double dwellings) and PUD Findings for Rezoning Section 44-1165 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. 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. Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approyal Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. p:sec 35-30IPond Ove~ook Concept review 0 - 2007.mem Attachments: 1. Applicanfs Statement dated February 5, 2007 2. S~e Photographs 3. Location Map 4. Land Use Map 5. Property Line Zoning Map 6. Address Map 7. Concept S~e Plan dated February 5, 2007 8. Proposed Grading Plan dated February 5, 2007 9. Applicanfs list of other developments dated February 7, 2007 10. Project Photographs 11. Memo dated February 8, 2007 from Michael Thompson and Erin Laberee 4 ANDRUS HOMES Attachment 1 2440 Charles Street N.. Suite 210 North St. Paul. MN 55109 651-777-0111 Fax 651-777-0999 andrusbuilt.com ~~@~DW~m W FEB 0 5 Z007 ~ Dear Planning Commission: By Please find enclosed a plat layout for a P.D.D. that we are proposing at 2161 County Road D. The layout is for a ten-unit townhome development consisting of one-level townhomes with full basements. We have been in contact with the city planners and engineers and have drawn several different layouts; and this one seems to work the best using the natural grade of the land for the buildings, water runoff and road design. We have done the majority of the work needed to apply for preliminary plat but are waiting to hear from MnDot on our proposed draining of the site (which could take 30 days or longer); so while we are waiting, we thought we would get some feedback from the Planning Commission before we submit the preliminary plat. I am enclosing a blueprint of the units I plan to build; each unit is 1,148 sq. ft. on the first floor with a full basement. My goal is to build an affordable one-level townhome for the senior residents of Maplewood, who are tired of the upkeep on their home, want to sell their existing home in Maplewood and buy an affordable one-level townhome in Maplewood. I have done several small townhome developments like this in the past; and what we have found out is that no matter community you are in, the senior people that want to move to a one-level townhome have two top priorities: 1) To stay in the same community that they have lived in for all of their adult life; 2) To be able to sell their existing home and be able to purchase a one-level townhome for the same price or less without having to dip into their retirement funds; if they have to kick in extra money, the majority of the people cannot afford to do so. Based on information from the Regional Multiple Listing Service of Minnesota, Inc., for the year 2006 the ayerage selling price of homes in the Maplewood/North St. Paul area was $238,968. I believe that we can market these townhomes between $229,000 - $239,000, which would make them very affordable for the average senior resident of Maplewood to be able to sell their home and buy a new one-level townhome without dipping into their retirement funds and also being able to stay in the community. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT 5 I am also enclosing a picture of the proposed site and a brochure of my company that has pictures of homes and townhomes we have built in the past. Thank you for taking the time to review the proposed plan. S,,"=ly, J--- DolL ANDRUS HOMES DA:id Enclosures 6 r.;:) ~ ~ ~ ~'>--. "" o v - ~ - ~ Attachment 2 ~~, 1~<,!',;;~'jX'i'i;',:';,;;,~ 7 --- :IE ---- ------------- :x: -------_______ :;:; ----- Attachment 3 WHITE BEAR LAKE --~---~---~-------------~~- -----~----- =~:~~=~~~~~~~:~;~~~~y------ TI_1__J! i, - _______ _ ___________ ...J~_~_____ '" ill III '" 11,1 III Ihl -.... ., ,I I II 111 II! ~=:...; J.! ~ -Ii 'I _..:.-.:-'--:.....-=. ::>-----~ !~Ii~~ f"ICi /0:) /1" \!~-~ .---;., .- II II II II II II II II I , 1..'1'9~ ~---- .- , , 1 , " , , , , I " " 'I 'I " " :' :11 ,I: ,'I (I I_~ - --== I , :1--- I , ...~ - I . "- ""-. o ------~-- --- rr~ - II -III Ii Iii 'I, ,Ii ,! ,II III , , I , , , , I I " Jf = --~.::-::-_~---------.~~---~-;--:~- - --- -- - ~--.::-~----:.~--:.~ - -~~- -~~ I t--- --_-:...-:_-------.__ : I. .- , I, ~;tI:"'ll1,~-(_~,~... -) ~--------~--- --- --- -- -:-,. --- --- ---- , I , I , I I , , 1 ~ -, ':;;:~" (.1 1 I ~ -ell t~ I \ -'- V-f- 1: p!t-- T I -------- ~'~ '\ L...-. I -...<1." ""'I --..l I I::::" f1>/ -" I ...",,- _ _ 1 -ji"r-I- I 1'ir-- : Ilr I I!f I,~I,L . - rr - I I a I I " ,'I \ ! II II " 1,\ II ! II 'L... ---, .... --":---', '" ,Ik. ~ ~~,/t=:\R\1 I! ;-v. ~ Ji'f I \ 1 ----<' I n: -H \ I I I 1- /' 1 i " , I, - - P1aycrest Park ~ r---#lJr v I - - fi , --- , ~ , i l- I ~ I , , ~ I J J -, , I , I '" (l Maple od He; ts Park I I 1\ 0=' - I, -p.VE --.- , H " LOCATION MAP ~ N 8 Attachment 4 WHITE BEAR LAKE -__u --~-- ------ --- --------- - --~-~- ---- ------ -~~- ---- <J -------. SITE . ~ . N pDD rl Ie Cii N N o o _______QQ~~!YBQ~Q~____ _______ 2170 o ~lJ oDd -- --- -- --- --- D[] o o os WODilIyn,,~c __I.Q~_ti~~~~__ WOODLYNN AVE dJ ~ rn [fu " OD D n ,---L 9 o N LAND USE MAP -~-----~- Attachment 5 WHITE BEAR LAKE -~ ~~- o ~~-- ~~ -~ --- --- ---~ SITE. CJ D --- --- --~-- 1;; .. ___________________________ ______QQQ[D[ffQ~~______ ___________________ 2170 ccr~ 8~ld DE DO L1 0 f !:l WOODLYNN AVE ~------------------------~~---------------~-- ~ ~ [fu PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP " D o 0 !;; q ~ 11 N 10 _. Attachment 6 --- WHITE BEAR LAKE ------ ---- ---...... ~ --~------ -~------- --------- ---...... --''-,-,.. -~--- -------~-- ...... ---- --- ------ . ~..- ~ ~ ~ ~ Q N N N ~ - ----------- -- -------------- --- -- ----__gJJ;J!'iIrrJN~!IP_-~~_-~_-_-~_-~~__:.:__-~_~-~-~~_-~_-_-__:..-~_-_-~_-~~_- ---- --.-......... <:l ~ SITE c c=J pDwd D o 2170 D r '" ~, o Oc] Q D jg -'" ..... <=> '" "'lO..... ......... r r r .".l.Ot-.-01,.... 'O:j-U'")l.OLOIOq:J or- r- ,.... ..- or- 'II"'"" N NNN WOODL YNN AVE -~ - --- -- ---- --~ -- ---- -- ------------- --------------- - -- --- ---------- --- - - ----- --- ---- - --- I 12120 2122 .31J4 I,,:l I A. I 1-, I~ \ ~,,\,,~ I ~ 11 11 N ADDRESS MAP Attachment 7 I~RlIll ----------- BUILDING. LOT DSTAIL (tJp.) --+------- I - -~:.- -iifJr--______ I ;...._ .=..":.~=_ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , :~ :0- : "-Ji , , , I : ill [ ~I , , , , , ~, ~: , , , , , , , '2111\"' N'1"a<sTAre ~AY No. 694 GRAPHIC SCALE . L..J...-J ' ~-- -:-: - ("'-1 l_~" ... e- _g _ ------ ~ . . . . . .k I . "...... ------2/i/2007--;.;J~;PIl CST -------~-=-J\,l6'8a\06;e8~~.P"t.dwg S.\rUCI\CAD\~..... 0 12 11 N SITE PLAN Attachment 8 ,.,~-\- -------- ~ i I ~/ &/ Q.h~ '''I ", ", I i . i ~1 \ , , , i I I ! S' _.-,w~ "~I - ~ II~ ) I (~/ ) ~~ /' . :'R / . ~ i !I,// ,f-- -- -.. --- 7-5"-07 ,000~onciPP-t.d.g 2/"2007 lz,53t:i~ PM CST o N PROPOSED GRADING PLAN 13 ANDRUS HOMES Attachment 9 2440 Charles Street N.. Suite 210 North St. Paul, MN 55109 651-777-Dlll Fax 651-777-D999 andrusbuilt.com ~~@~~w~~ W FEB 0 7 Z007 W Past Townhome Developments: By 1) Prairie Hamlet Townhomes of Lake Elmo - Eight (8) one-level townhomes with upper loft/extra bedroom. Directions: Highway 36 East to Keats Avenue; go south to 59th Street Court North; go West. 2) Northwinds of Chisago - Eleven (11) two-story townhomes. Directions: 35E North to Highway 8; go East to Old Towne Road (77); go North to North Avenue; go East to North Court. 3) Northwinds of White Bear Township - Eight (8) one-level townhomes with full basements. Directions: 35E North to Highway 96; go West to Centerville Road; go North to County Road H2; go East crossing over 35E to your first left, which is Saxony Court. 14 15 Attachment 10 Attil.chmentf 11 pagelol Concent Plan Review PROJECT: Pond Overlook Townhouses, 2161 County Rd D PROJECT NO: N/A COMMENTS BY: Erin Laberee (Maplewood Engineering Dept, Assistant City Engineer) Michael Thompson (Maplewood Engineering Dept, Civil Engineer I) SUBMITTAL NO: N/A COMMENT DATE: February 8, 2007 Doug Andrus is looking into developing the property at 2161 County Road D. The concept plan proposes five two-unit buildings on the 2-acre site. General Comments I. The storm water run-off for the site needs to be at or below existing conditions. The project engineer shall provide calculations showing that rate and volume controls are being met, including infiltrating at least I" of runoff for the impervious areas. The assumed infiltration rate shall be 0.23 inches/hour unless testing shows soil are capable of an increased rate. 2. It is extremely important that the developer make contact with MnlDOT since the proposed storm sewer layout shows the onsite runoff traveling into the MnlDOT 1-694 right-of-way and then into the MnlDOT pond/wetland to the west of the site. 3. The developer should be aware of noise levels created by the traffic on 1-694. The city will require the developer to take great measures regarding noise mitigation. The developer should be prepared to identify the existing noise levels for the site and show or document the effectiveness of proposed noise mitigation measures. 4. The city will require the developer to do soil borings on the site (IS-foot depth minimum). The soil borings would be analyzed specifically in areas of proposed infiltration to verify infiltration rates and time of standing water. 5. The plans and construction must provide for equipment and maintenance access to each pond, infiltration basin, rain garden, and/or sump structure on the site. 6. The MnlDOT pond is listed on the city and Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District wetland classification maps as a wetland. The developer will have to ensure that all grading and construction will meet all buffer requirements for the wetland. 7. The minimum allowable cul-de-sac diameter must be 84-ft face of curb to face of curb. 8. The developer is proposing that the street and utilities be public. As such, the developer shall submit, to the city, a petition requesting that the city build the streets and utilities as part of a public improvement project. The developer also will need to request that the city prepare a feasibility report to begin the public improvement process. These are preliminary comments. As the developer and project engineer further develop the project plans, city staff may find other or additional issues or concerns to comment on as the project progresses through the review process. 16 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Planning Commission Resignation January 30, 2007 INTRODUCTION Michael Grover has resigned from the planning commission. I have attached his letter of resignation and a resolution of appreciation for him. RECOMMENDATION Approve the resolution of appreciation on page three for Michael Grover. kr/p:planning commission/pcresig6.mem Attachments: 1. Michael Grover Letter of Resignation 2. Michael Grover Resolution of Appreciation Attachment 1 Michael Grover 1758 Edward Street North Maplewood, MN 55109 January 30, 2007 Ken Roberts Planner City of Maple wood 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Ken: Due to the change in meeting times from Monday to either the first and third Tuesday or Wednesday nights of each month for the planning commission coupled with repeated scheduling conflicts with my family and personal commitments on both of those nights, I am, regretfully, forced to tender my resignation as a citizen member of the Maplewood Planning Commission. I do understand and support the rationale for this change in the meeting schedule, as it will allow for more time for the City Council to conduct city business and allow for the public broadcast of all board and commission meetings. I also understand that I will continue to serve as a commissioner until the City Council appoints a replacement, and I will do my best to adapt to the revised meeting schedule until that time. While I regret having to make this choice, I have greatly enjoyed my time on the commission and haye learned a great deal about planning and development from my fellow commissioners, city staff (especially you and Lisa), applicants and the public. I wish you and the commission well in the coming year. Sincerely, Michael Grover 2 Attachment 2 JOINT RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION WHEREAS, Michael Grover has been a member of the Maplewood Planning Commission since May 24,2004, and has servedfaithfully in that capacity to the present time; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has appreciated his experience, insights and goodjudgment and WHEREAS. he has freely given of his time and energy, without compensationJor the betterment of the City of Maplewood; and WHEREAS, he has shown sincere dedication to his duties and has consistently contributed his leadership, time and effort for the benefit of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED for and on behalf of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, and its citizens, that Michael Grover is hereby extended our heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for his dedicated service, and we wish him continued success in the future. Passed by the Maplewood City Council on , 2007 Diana Longrie. Mayor Passed by the Maplewood Planning Commission on February 20, 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: February 12, 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 commission first approved the rules of procedure on February 21, 1983. The commission has reviewed and changed their rules several times since then. On January 3, 2005, the planning commission reviewed the rules and made a change to them 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. On January 16, 2007, the planning commission considered and adopted revised rules of procedure. DISCUSSION Since the planning commission meeting of January 16, 2007, the city manager reviewed the commission's rules of procedure. The city manager suggested several changes to the rules before staff sends them to the city council for approval. As such, staff is bringing the rules back to the commission with additional proposed changes. The parts of the rules the city manager suggested changing include: Section A2 - Meeting schedule. The current rules state the planning commission will meet on the first and third Mondays of the month. The city manager, however, decided that the planning commission should meet on the first and third Tuesdays of the month. As such, there is a conflict between the current planning commission rules and the schedule set by the city manager. For reference, I have attached Sections 2-246 through 2-255 of the city code. These code sections provide for the establishment and duties of the planning commission. Section 2-251 (a) of the city code says, "The planning commission shall elect its own officers, establish meetinQ times and adopt its own rules of procedure to be reviewed and approved by the city council." Section D1 - Election of Officers. The current rules state, "A chairperson and a vice chairperson shall be elected at the second meeting of each calendar year and will serve until their successors have been elected." The city manager suggested that it would be better for the commission to hold the election of officers later in the year after the council makes the appointments and reappointments to the planning commission. This change would allow the entire body of the commission to vote on the election of officers. However, Section 2-249 of the city code states, "The planning commission shall elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson at the second planning commission meeting in January each year." Section J - Appointments. The city manager suggested a change to Section J of the rules to simplify the language of the rules. I have included the proposed change in the attached rules. In addition, city staff is proposing changes to Section F (about the community development director) to reflect the current organization of the city and the current code section numbers. If the commission wants to make other changes to the rules, they may propose them. COMMISSION ACTION On January 16, 2007, the planning commission adopted the attached rules of procedure. RECOMMENDATION Approve the planning commission rules of procedure starting on page three. p:\commdvpt\pc\pcrules.2007 Attachments: 1. PC Rules of Procedure 2. Sections 2-246 - 2-255 of the City Code 2 Attachment 1 RULES OF PROCEDURE Approved by the Planning Commission on February 21, 1983 Revision on February 17, 1999 Revision adopted on January 3, 2005 Last Revision proposed on January 16, 2007 We, the members of the Planning Commission of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, created pursuant to Chapter 2 :!&; as amended, 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 member with the concurrence of five other members of the Commission. At least 48 hours notice shall be given to all members for special meetings. B. QUORUM 1. A simple majority of the current membership of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. 2. Any member 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 detenmining a quorum for the consideration of that issue. 3. Approval of any motion shall require the affinmative vote of a majority of the members present. C. DUTIES OF CHAIRPERSON In addition to the duties prescribed in Section 2-249 2&-20 of the Code of Ordinances, the chairperson shall appoint such standing committees and temporary committees as are required, and such committees will be charged with the duties, examinations, 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 submission to the full Commission. 3 D. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 1. A chairperson and vice chairperson shall be elected at the second meeting of each calendar year and will serve until their successors have been elected. 2. In the absence of the chairperson, the vice chairperson shall perfonm all duties required of the chairperson. When both the chairperson and the vice chairperson are absent, the attending members shall elect a chairperson pro tem. 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 commission 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 Commission's recommendation and to answer questions from the City Council regarding the decision. The Commission shall adopt a rotating schedule of its members at the first meeting of each year to attend these meetings. F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT DIRIiCTOR OF COMMUNITY Dlil..lliLOPMIiNT In addition to carrying out the duties prescribed in Section 2-254 2a-2& of the Code of Ordinances, the city Dlanninll staff direGter 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 members of the Commission shall have a copy at least three days prior to the meeting concerned. 2. The agenda shall consist of the following order of business: a. Call to Order b. Roll Call c. Approval of Minutes 4 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 item that is not on the agenda shall be considered by the Commission. 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. Amendments 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 appointments to the planning commission. BY fGllawiAll tile S"'R'eAt sit)' aj:lj:laiAtFReAt j:lalisy. 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 may be amended at any regular meeting 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:\commdvptlpc\pcrules.2007 5 Attachment 2 ~ 2-246 MAPLEWOOD CODE DMSION 4. PLANNING COMMISSION' Sec. 2-246. Established. The city council establishes for the city a planning commission as an advisory board to the city council, as provided in Minn. Stats. ~~ 462.351-462.364. (Code 1982, ~ 25-17) Sec. 2-247. Advisory body; exceptions. All actions of the advisory planning commission shall be in the nature of recommendations to the city council, and the commission shall have no final authority about any matters, except as the council may lawfully delegate authority to it. (Code 1982, ~ 25-18) State law reference-City planning agency to be advisory, except as otherwise provided by state statute or charter, Minn. Stats. ~ 462.354, subd. 1. Sec. 2-248. Composition; appointment; qualifications; terms. (a) The planning commission shall have nine members appointed by the city council. The members shall be residents of the city and may not hold an elected city public office. When possible. the council shall select commission members to represent the various areas of the city and to help meet the needs of the residents. (b) The city council shall appoint members of the planning commission for three-year terms. The city shall divide the membership into three groups of three members each. The terms of the three members in the same group shall end in the same year. If the appointment is to fill a vacancy, the appointment would be to finish the unexpired part of the vacated terms. All terms shall expire on December 31 of the year in which the appointment ends. (Code 1982, ~ 25-19) Sec. 2-249. Chairperson and vice-chairperson. The planning commission shall elect a chairperson and a vice-chairperson at the second planning commission meeting in January each year. The chairperson shall be responsible for calling and presiding at meetings and shall have an equal vote with other members of the commission. If the chairperson is not at a meeting, the vice-chairperson shall assume the duties of the chairperson for that meeting. 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. (Code 1982, ~ 25-20) 'State law references-Municipal planning, Minn. Stats. ~ 462.351 et seq.; city planning agency, Minn. Stats. ~ 462.354, subd. 1; metropolitan government, Minn. Stats. ch. 473; Ramsey County included within "metropolitan area" over which "metropolitan council" has jurisdiction, Minn. Stats. ~ 473.121, subds. 2, 3: metropolitan land use planning, Minn. Stats. ~ 473.851 et seq. CD2:16 6 ADMINISTRATION ~ 2-252 Sec. 2-250. Vacancies. (a) Any of the following may cause the office of a planning commissioner to become vacated: (1) Death or removal from the city. (2) Disability or failure to serve, as shown by failure to attend four meetings in any year, may be cause for removal by council majority, unless good cause can be shown to the council. (3) Resignation in writing. (4) Taking public office in the city. (b) Vacancies shall be filled by the council for the unexpired portion of the vacated term. (Code 1982, ~ 25-21) Sec. 2-251. Officers; meetings; rules of procedure. (a) The planning commission shail elect its own officers, establish meeting times, and adopt its own rules of procedure to be reviewed and approved by the city council. (b) All meetings of the planning commission shall be open to the public. (Code 1982, ~ 25-22) Sec. 2-252. Duties and responsibilities. The planning commission shall have the duty to: (1) Prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan of development for the city. (2) Conduct hearings and make recommendations to the city council about the adoption of the city comprehensive plan and any amendments thereto. The comprehensive plan certified and adopted by the city council shall be recognized as the city's official comprehensive plan. (3) Study and make recommendations to the city council about implementing the comprehensive plan and any land use regulations. (4) Study and make recommendations to the city council about zoning code amendments. (5) Review, prepare and make a report to the city council by the second city council meeting in February of each year regarding the commission's activities in the past year and major projects for the new year. (6) Maintain a liaison and coordination with government and private agencies so that the city council may be familiar with the planning activities of such agencies in order to establish an order of planning and development unity for the city. (7) Review and recommend, on or before June 30 of each year, a capital improvements program to the city council, which is designed to accomplish the comprehensive plan for the city. CD2:17 7 ~ 2-252 MAPLEWOOD CODE (8) Review and make recommendations to the city council on development applications, such as rezonings, conditional use permits, variances, vacations, preliminary plats and home occupation licenses. (9) Accept such other and further duties as may, from time to time, be directed by the city council, including conducting hearings. (Code 1982, ~ 25-23) Sec. 2-253. Compensation; expenses. All members of the planning commission shall serve without compensation. However, approved expenses of the planning commission shall be paid from available city funds. (Code 1982, ~ 25-24) Sec. 2-254. Responsibilities of community development director. Subject to the direction of the city manager, the planning commission and its chairperson, the community development director shall: (1) Conduct all correspondence of the commission. (2) Send out all required notices. (3) Attend all meetings and hearings of the commission. (4) Keep the dockets and minutes of the commission's proceedings. (5) Keep all required records and flies. (6) Maintain the files and indexes of the commission. (Code 1982, ~ 25-25) Sec. 2-255. Duties of city engineer, city attorney, city inspectors and other city employees. (a) The city engineer and the city attorney shall be available to the planning commission. The city engineer and attorney shall have the right to sit in with the commission at all meetings, but shall not be entitled to vote as members of the commission. (b) All city inspectors and other regular employees or personnel of the city shall cooperate with the planning commission and make themselves available and attend meetings when requested to do so. (Code 1982, ~ 25-26) Sees. 2-256-2-280. Reserved. CD2:18 8