Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/19/2007 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesdav. June 19. 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 June 5, 2007 5. Public Hearings a.7:00 2008 - 2012 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) b. 7:45 Lot Division Proposal (Carye - 2291 Hazelwood Street) Lot Area Variance Lot Width Variance Rear Yard Setback Variance 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations June 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Walton June 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai July 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Hess July 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson July 30: Annual Tour 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Joe Walton Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Present Present Present Present Present at 7:05 p.m. Absent Staff Present: Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Bob Mittet, Finance and Administration Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for June 5, 2007. Commissioner Hess had a correction to the minutes on page 3, in the 11 th paragraph, before the last word in the paragraph it should read below qround tank. Chairperson Fischer had a correction on page 8, in the sixth paragraph, the second sentence should be rewritten to read She asked if they have model ordinances reqardinq whether that is counted as net or qross acreaqe? Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for June 5, 2007, as amended. Commissioner Hess seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Trippler Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARING a. 2008 - 2012 Capital Improvement Plan (C.I.P.) (7:04 - 9:15 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said the city updates the Capital Improvement Plan (C.I.P.) each year. The Capital Improvement Plan is part of the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. State law requires the planning commission to review all changes to the comprehensive plan. The purpose of this review is to decide if the proposed capital improvements are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director, went through the 2008-2012 Capital Improvement Plan with the commission. Mr. Ahl said this is an exceptional time to bid out road projects because bids have been coming in 25% below 2006 prices. The city hasn't seen prices this low since 1999/2000 which is due to the slow down in the housing market and contractors are eager for work. Contractors are operating below costs in order to maintain their business. Maplewood has looked at funding park improvement projects. New home construction is slowing down and Maplewood is getting built out therefore, park funds are low as the city sees a slow down in new development. Currently, with new construction in Maplewood, the applicant is required to pay a PAC fund along with the building permit. The PAC fund for 2007 is around $3,000 PAC charge per unit and that money goes back into the park system. The fewer homes that are built mean less PAC funds that the city can collect. For a commercial development the PAC charge is 9% of the land value before improvements. Because of these facts there may be a need for another way to fund parks in Maplewood. A question to consider is should the city focus on funding trail conservation in Maplewood? This is a discussion the commission may want to have. Mr. Ahl said the Gladstone Redevelopment Area is in the plan but it will now be done in four different phases. Three years ago the city estimated it would cost about $6 million. Now the cost has risen to $15 million. When the city first started thinking about the Gladstone Area, even before the master planning process began, the city thought it was important to invest in streetscaping improvements and the Savanna. The city figured about $400,000 would be needed to invest in the Savanna. As the city got more involved with the figures the city discovered more work needed to be done. That cost has now risen to $900,000 including spending $750,000 on storm water improvements. The City of Maplewood is planning to spend $1.6 million on the Savanna. Three years ago the city was proposing to spend $400,000. The city has now extended the Gladstone Master Plan to include $600,000 of improvements from TH 61 and Frost Avenue to Hazelwood Street by the time the trails are put in. Additionally, in the C.I.P., the plan was for local developers to do the improvements and receive (TIF) money as part of the assessments. The city didn't show that in the original plan because those were assessments, but that probably should have been included in the C.I.P. This Gladstone plan is a complicated process. The city is now showing $15 million worth of updates in the Gladstone Area. There are a number of city projects that are being deferred. Fuel charges have increased. Much of the public works equipment needs to be replaced but has been deferred from the proposed CIP. The Legacy Village sculpture park and the Hillcrest Redevelopment Area have been deferred. In summary, the proposal is to spend nearly $87 million over the next 6 years. Two years ago, the city was to spend $64 million in the CIP, so this is a major change. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -3- Mr. Ahl said 2008 has the largest expenditures proposed in the plan at $22 million. 76.3% of the proposed spending is Public Works projects, which is fairly typical. By 2012, the projected debt for the city would be $87 million should the C.I.P. be approved. What that means for the City of Maplewood is a charge of $2,209 per person, but because taxes aren't charged per person the numbers don't work out that way. Maplewood just went through a bond rating review and Maplewood is in the top 13% for bond ratings in Minnesota. The city council approved the sale of bonds June 11,2007. One thing that Moody's Investors Services asks each city is, do you have a C.I.P., and is your city investing in its infrastructure. Maplewood has over $250 million worth of value that needs to be replaced. The reason Maplewood has such a good bond rating is because the city is investing in the community. Mr. Ahl said the next important thing is the ratio of debt to market value. That is how property taxes are considered. We all pay properly taxes based upon market value. The state law is that you can't exceed 2% of your market value towards debt. The City of Maplewood is currently at 1.1 % and should the city council pass the C.I.P. plan at $87 million because of debt being retired and the way this is supported with other funds; that will decrease to 0.9%. That is the indicator that Moody's Investors Service looks at. That means this is reasonable for Maplewood to invest the increase from $64 to $87 million dollars and still not impact the taxes. Commissioner Trippler said since we already know thatthe City of Maplewood is 85% developed, it seems fairly obvious that even if the economy takes off again there is only so much space to build new structures. He said staff said the city council had talked about other forms of financing for the parks. He asked if staff could elaborate on that. Mr. Ahl said that has been discussed but that needs to be further explored. Most ofthe discussion has been amongst the Parks Commission. From the council's standpoint, the city could dedicate more money from the general fund. The discussion has come from many different directions and has been very spirited. Commissioner Trippler said there has been a policy change apparently from the City Manager's office, to move away from developing parks and to refocus any money that is available to the trails in the city. To him that sounds like a political decision that should be coming from the city council rather than from the City Manager's office. He asked if there had been anything in writing about this, or if this is a rumor? Mr. Ahl said that is something that should be discussed and that is shown in the C.I.P. From staff's standpoint, it's a direction the city has been looking at. City staff thinks it's appropriate for the planning commission as well as each of the other boards and commissions to comment on that idea. Share your comments with the city council regarding whether or not that is appropriate. If the commission feels this is an issue that needs to be brought forward to the council, they should discuss that. CommissionerTrippler asked if the idea to focus on trails rather than on the parks in the CIP was something that staff recommended to the City Manager or did the City Manager recommend it? Mr. Ahl said the reason for focusing on trails in the C.I.P. is that there was a change made to not focus on park reconstruction but park city staff didn't request money for the trails in the C.I.P. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -4- Commissioner Hess said on page 54 in the C.I.P. booklet it reads in addition to providing a west to east trail connection, the Public Works Department is proposing to complete the Bruce Vento Trail to the west paralleling Beam A venue on the south side of the road from Beam A venue to Highway 61. He said he thought there was a trail that crossed over Beam Avenue which is closer to Hazelwood Street. Commissioner Trippler said there is a bridge that crosses on the old railroad grade, west of Hazelwood Street, but not over Hazelwood Street itself. Years ago there was an extensive debate regarding a traffic/pedestrian bridge across Hazelwood Street in order to join together the north and south portion of northern Maplewood because there is a fire station on the north side and one on the south side of Hazelwood Street. The idea was the bridge would tie the two stations together if there was a need. However, the bridge would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 million over a two-year period costing $6 million so they discontinued that idea. This request for money in the C.I.P. may be to have a pedestrian crossing over Hazelwood Street. Commissioner Hess said in the C.I.P. it said something regarding the extension of the Bruce Vento Trail from TH 61 to Highway 694 where it then stopped. He wondered where the Bruce Vento Trail would extend to at Highway 694. Mr. Ahl said the Bruce Vento Trail was already extended all the way to Buerkle Road in White Bear Lake in 2005 and it extends across Highway 694, so if that wording was in the plan, it should not have been. Commissioner Hess said maybe it was to link the trails together. Mr. Ahl said that would probably be correct. Commissioner Hess said page 17 is missing in his C.I.P. booklet. (Some commissioners had it and others didn't). He said he could get a copy of that page later if he needed it. Commissioner Trippler said the clerical staff may have had problems with the copier. Commissioner Hess said he couldn't remember if the city's debt ratio was a good or bad thing? Mr. Ahl said page 30 in the C.I.P. for 2008 the debt to market value without new debt would be 1.1 % and with new debt it would be 1.3%. In 2012 without new debt, it would be 0.4% and with new debt it would be 0.9%. Commissioner Hess asked staff if they knew if there was any money left in the state's $2 billion surplus for city's to use? Mr. Ahl said the $2 billion has already been committed as part of the recent legislative session. The way government funding works, the city borrows the money they need. Maplewood would have preferred to get money from the $2 billion surplus to help with costs. He said personally, he would have preferred to get funding towards transportation, but it didn't work out that way. Commissioner Trippler said staff said during the presentation that bonds are a good deal. Personally, he views bonds as the coward's way of pushing your debt to the next generation avoiding having to pay for your fair share. He asked why staff believes bonds are the way to go? Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -5- Mr. Ahl said everyone would love to have enough money so they didn't have to borrow money. However, bond debt indicates the city's ability in the way it operates, to have money available. The reason cities do financing through bond debt is that otherwise the city would have to raise Maplewood residents' taxes for future improvements in the city. Bond debt allows the city to do the improvements and charging the residents later after the improvement is done. Bond debt is used so property taxes are paid by those who benefit from the improvements. That's why with $24 million worth of special assessments, the city cannot go out and assess all the residents. $87 million isn't all tax debt, but it's against the goodwill of the city. If the residents forfeited on their city assessments the city would have to raise taxes in the city in order to pay for all the improvements. Right now the city has a 98% recovery rate on the city assessments. The city gives the residents 15 years to pay the assessment off and the city issues the debt. It's the ability for the residents to pay the assessment over time and have the benefit of the improvement being done. It isn't necessarily that debt is good; it's that the city recognizes the reliability and the need to invest funds in its infrastructure. In the 1990's the City of Maplewood didn't invest much in its infrastructure which has caused the city to pay for more street improvements recently thus acquiring more debt. Commissioner Trippler wanted to make it clear that he isn't opposed to capital improvements and keeping the streets in good condition, but establishing this debt isn't free either. There's a charge to the city to incur debt. He said you can relate the debt to running up credit card debt that the city has to pay for. Mr. Ahl said the bonds were recently sold at 4.25% and now the city can do over $10 million worth of improvements and the city will pay the money back at 4.25% a year. Commissioner Trippler asked how long the bonds are for? Mr. Bob Mittet, Finance and Administration Manager, addressed the commission. He said a portion of the bonds are issued in advance for state aid funds and those are done on a 4-year amortization and the general improvement is done on a 20-year amortization. Commissioner Desai said on page 9 of the C.I.P. booklet, for the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan Projects for 2008, it says the cost would be $24,277,880. Commissioner Desai said he thought he saw in the PowerPoint presentation it said it would cost $22 million. Mr. Ahl said if in fact it showed $22 million in the PowerPoint presentation that was an error. The numbers on page 13 are correct in the booklet. Commissioner Desai said he understood how the Gladstone plan has come to where it is but when he heard that the Gladstone plan went from $6 million to $15 million; that figure more than doubled over a period of time. He asked whose responsibility it is in the city to go back and revisit the project to decide if the plan is cost worthy enough to pursue or if it should be revisited? Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -6- Mr. Ahl said when the first estimates were done for Gladstone, the city was looking at some of the public improvements necessary to make the overall project happen. Without knowing the full extent of what the city wanted to do, the city put money in the C.I.P. to do that. Mr. Ahl said he did those estimates not knowing everything the city was going to be involved in. Fully knowing that redevelopment doesn't build itself, however, not knowing the extent of the redevelopment, the city council eventually approved a master plan. Not knowing the types of improvements and the extent of the public improvement involvement, he thinks that's where staff missed the calculation. The city knew there would be some (TIF) Tax Increment Financing. The city didn't know how much TIF financing or if it would even be available. Right now there are a lot of improvements in the Gladstone plan for $15 million. Over $9 million are listed as assessments. He asked what gets charged to the property owners? $9 million is in the assessments to benefit the property owners. Three years ago when staff put the Gladstone estimates together staff looked at how much the city would have to take out of the coffers to invest and not assess the property owners. The city probably should've put that cost in the plan three years ago but it was the city's first extension into redevelopment and the city didn't know where things would end up going. Commissioner Desai said because the project is being done in phases and it could take a long time to get completed, the $9 million number could go up or down. He asked if that number was going to be realistic because if the housing market or new development slows down, and people aren't going to be interested in this plan the city could get stuck. What if the city spends the money for the street improvements and the city doesn't actually see the benefit of spending the money, then what does the city do? He asked if there was a plan to revisit this or if this was already a done deal and the city is going forward no matter what? Mr. Ahl said staff fully expects the Gladstone plan will be revisited on a regular basis. The city has received a $1.8 million grant to help pay for the costs of the first phase of this project. This process is difficult because you can't apply for grants until you have a plan. The plan is to do this project in four phases. Staff anticipates going after grants strongly. For right now the $15 million estimate is consistent with the Gladstone master plan. A developer may tell the city they are going to pay for all the improvements on their own. On the other hand, if the city has to pay for the improvements the city needs to be prepared with a plan. Commissioner Trippler said the city appointed the Gladstone Task Force and the task force worked on the Gladstone plan for 2 years. The plan was brought to the city with 850 units and the city council said that number was high and they decided on a number between 650 and 450 units. If the city council had backed up the task force plan with 850 units is it possible that the city's share of the $15 million would have been reduced because of the higher unit count? Mr. Ahl said that's a difficult question to answer. When the original 850 units were proposed there was over $18 million worth of improvements proposed. One significant projectthat was eliminated was the beebo structure or bridge crossing structure which was $1.5 million and there were other projects that were deleted from the plan. The maximum number of units the city council decided on would be 650 units and the lower unit count was 450 units. The expenditures are so dependant upon the unit count for the city, the developer and the community. Everything depends on the housing market, the land, the location and the cost of the project. There aren't a lot of people investing in the housing market right now, other than the senior housing which affects this plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -7- Over the next 20 years the metro area is projected to add a city the size of Maplewood every year. Maplewood is going to need all those housing units in our community. The city thinks the Gladstone plan will move forward. So to answer the question regarding the unit count at 850 helping this project to be self sufficient or not; it might have been cheaper for the city and it might not have been cheaper. It's just too dependant on the type of development and the market as it exists. Chairperson Fischer said on page 87 of the C.I.P., in the justification paragraph, it states the city council will review a high-density residential development for a 26-acre parcel of land. Chairperson Fischer said that had been included in previous C.I.P.'s and she asked if that project was done already? Mr. Ahl said yes, that was an error in the C.I.P. and that was missed in the editing process. Mr. Roberts added that the reference is for the first phase of the Beaver Lake Townhome project. Chairperson Fischer asked if the city had already collected PAC funds from that project? Mr. Ahl said yes. The PAC funds would be made available forthis expenditure whether any more new housing units are built there or not. Commissioner Pearson said most of the land that is developable there would be high density apartments. That changes the formula when you would look at the PAC fund charges. Mr. Roberts said about 100 units could still be built on the vacant land near the Beaver Lake Townhomes. Commissioner Trippler said he had the opportunity to meet with Bob Mittet today and he compared the 2006-2010 C.I.P. to the 2008-2012 C.I.P. During the cut and paste process some omissions were left out in the C.I.P. booklet where paragraphs were copied from one documentto another, dates weren't changed and numbers weren't changed which he shared with Bob Mittet. Commissioner Trippler said he found it interesting that the city council fired the previous City Manager, Richard Fursman, because the council thought he was such a bad City Manager but the new City Manager seemed to copy Richard Fursman's letter word for word from the previous C.I.P. except for changing the date. In the process he also made some mistakes. He said apparently the only thing the new City Manager is good at is copying other people's work and then taking credit for it. He also noted that the tables on page 20, 21,22, and 23 are all exactly the same and need to be updated in the C.I.P. booklet. On page 25, the last paragraph was lifted directly out of the 2006-2010 C.I.P. booklet, so that information needs to be updated. Pages 30- 36 are out of place in the booklet. On page 30, in the first paragraph, third line, the year is incorrect; it shows 20012 and should be 2012. Another paragraph was copied out of the 2006- 2010 C.I.P. booklet in the paragraph it states this was based upon the assumption that it would increase annually by 12.3% which is the same rate as it has increased over the past ten years. Commissioner Trippler said if you are a homeowner, you know your house didn't increase 12.3% last year. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -8- Commissioner Trippler said on page 32, the market value taxable property difference in each of the years between 2008-2009-2010-2011 is 15.5% not 12.3%. So that table doesn't match up with what was said before regarding a rate of increase of 12.3%. If you look at the table in the 2006 C.I.P., the market values in the 2007 C.I.P. are lower than they were in the 2006 C.I.P. table. If the rate has been going up at 12.3% for the past 2 years that number should be 24% higher when in fact they are 2 or 3% lower, so that needs to be looked at. In the 2006 C.I.P. there was a paragraph about property tax levies to fund future park development projects. That has been dropped from the list. There was also a paragraph on the redevelopment fund account which has been dropped and he didn't know why. Both of those things are extremely important to the City of Maplewood. On page 78, in the justification paragraph, it states a proposed improvement is the installation of new electronic scoreboards for adult athletic softball fields. I n a time when the city is trying to cut costs, does the city need an electronic scoreboard for softball? He said it looks like the nature trail was dropped on page 84, Projects located in Beaver Lake- Neighborhood #9 and he asked if someone could explain that? Mr. Ahl said from a staffing standpoint the nature center took some major hits in the overall budget. The city is looking at the overall survival of the Nature Center and whether its programs can continue within the community. The city is looking at the existing Nature Center with the goal of trying to refocus and refine support for growing that program. At this point in time the city is moving in that direction with a new environmental focus and environmental education task. The role for the nature center is to move within the non-degradation and storm water requirements to focus on that and try to become more involved in that. Over the years, the Nature Center has become funded with the Environmental fund rather than from a levy. It simply comes down to what funds are available. A funding decision was made to remove that consideration in order to have the Nature Center work towards the environmental focus and not looking to expand. Commissioner Trippler said on page 88, regarding the City Landfill Closure, the project was delayed from 2007 to 2010 due to funding limitations. He said it was his understanding that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency required the city to close this landfill but that hasn't happened yet, how can the city ignore that request? Mr. Ahl said that is the total opposite of what is happening. The reason the work has been delayed is that the City of Maplewood received approval from the MPCA to continue capping the dump with street sweepings for the next 3 years. The city is following the closing program by not having to pay to dispose of the city's street sweepings. The city is doing that by keeping a cover on the material therefore, the MPCA has approved delaying this project until at least 201 O. If the street sweeping program continues to be appropriately reviewed and good test results continue to come back, the city may be able to delay this expenditure even longer. The city's street sweepings haven't been a concern to the MPCA or haven't shown to cause a negative affect on wells to cause an alert. Commissioner Trippler asked if street sweepings are primarily sand anyway? Mr. Ahl said yes although it can include hazardous materials which the city typically has to pay to take to a dump. In most cases the materials in street sweepings have to be tested. Street sweepings are approved as cover material for landfills. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -9- Commissioner Trippler asked if the city installed an impermeable barrier before they put the street sweepings down? Mr. Ahl said no. The city is just doing monitoring of the wells. Commissioner Trippler asked how the city minimizes infiltration through sand mediums? Mr. Ahl said there isn't a need for a barrier in this case. What the city is doing is as the landfill continues to decay and sink the city needs to keep cover over the material that is in there. There never was a plan to have an impermeable layer over the top. The sand is there to keep any debris from exposing as the landfill sinks over time. That is the closure. The money that is in the report is to line the creek in order to make sure the creek and anything from the landfill are not interacting. At this point test results show as long as the city can continue to keep the cover on the landfill, the city doesn't need to close this landfill. Commissioner Trippler said he worked for 12 years at the MPCA on the closed landfill program and he was involved with the closure of dozens of landfills. Every landfill the MPCA closed they put an impermeable cover on it because the last thing you want is infiltration into the landfill because that infiltration into the refuse simply leeches the contaminants into the groundwater. That's why he's confused as to why putting 10,000 square feet of sand over the top of a landfill is an improved closure plan. It just doesn't fit with what he did while working with the landfill closure program with the MPCA. Mr. Ahl said he can't tell Commissioner Trippler anything other than the MPCA has approved this plan. He understands Commissioner Trippler's expertise and knowledge but he assured the commission the city is doing everything according to the documents from the MPCA. Commissioner Trippler said he's happy the city is getting rid of their street sweepings without cost. He said he would call someone at the MPCA and find out what this is all about and that Mr. Ahl said by 201 0 the city should have enough cover on this landfill to meet the conditions that the city has agreed to and at that point if that coverage meets the MPCA conditions and closure criteria then maybe the city won't need to spend $275,000 to close the landfill. Mr. Ahl said this is a stabilization of the ditch that runs through the middle of the landfill. Yes, the city has a landfill with a drainage ditch running through the middle. This is also near Jim's Prairie. As long as they can keep stabilizing the landfill, the ditch doesn't get inundated with the waste material. Commissioner Trippler said thank you. Commissioner Walton asked about the Wetland Improvement Enhancement Program that is going to happen every year. He just wanted to say he is in favor of that. He wondered how that was different from the Environmental Utility Fee, if they are connected in anyway and if this was going to be mostly raingardens? Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -10- Mr. Ahl said the wetland enhancement program is two fold. On page 143 in the C.I.P. you will see that the program is entirely funded by the Environmental Utility Fee. We have wetlands that the city proposes to expand. In some cases the city will have to put in pretreatment structures in order to protect the wetlands. That provides wetlands an ability to thrive and it provides treatment the city needs to get back to the 1988 level of storm water. It won't be more raingardens. The city is going to be doing some fairly significant features. The city is facing major expenditures over the next five years in order to meet these requirements. The city is going to be looking at ways to infiltrate. One thing the city is working on is the Costco site. Underneath the Costco store, the parking lot will likely be a huge underground vault to store storm water so the city can slowly infiltrate it into the area. This area has a lot of clay and this will be a slow infiltration area. Porous pavement, pervious pavement, etc. The city is trying to retrofit existing improvements, which is a very expensive process. Commissioner Hess asked what Commissioner Tripplerwas referring to on page 30 regarding the 12.3% tax increase? Commissioner Trippler said if you look at the numbers on the table and you do the math, there is a 15.5% difference from one year to the next. Not 12.3% difference as stated in the C.I.P. Mr. Ahl said with the 12.3% increase you can't assume there won't be any new units. The 12.3% tax increase is on the base number. Any new units or new construction that comes up will add to that, which may be what happened when you did the calculation and the percentage is higher. Any new value that comes into the city doesn't get applied to that. We could debate if it's 12.3% or higher but don't forget the fact that the city has new value and new construction coming on board such as Carmax and Costco which is all new value. Commissioner Trippler said that makes things even worse than because if you look at the numbers in the 2006 C.I.P. those numbers are higher than the numbers shown in this table in the proposed C.I.P. So not only do you have the 12.3% increase but you have the new tax base so those things just do not match up. Mr. Ahl said Commissioner Trippler met with Mr. Mittet regarding that today so staff is sure Mr. Mittet will be paying close attention to that. Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing up to the public. Peter Fischer, 2443 Standridge Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said he was here as a Maplewood resident tonight. However, there were some questions that came up earlier and because of his insight serving on the Park's commission he would like to address the Planning Commission as a Parks Commissioner. Regarding the trail on the south side of Beam Avenue, that was being proposed, as an original request that came to the Parks Commission and was incorporated into the C.I.P. A number of the residents that live in the Kohlman Lake Overlook area live on the lower half of the neighborhood and not on the hill. For them to access the Bruce Vento Trail those neighbors had asked to have a trail along the south side of Beam Avenue, which is also where the watershed district did their restoration project. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -11- Mr. Fischer said when you come down to where the Bruce Vento Trail crosses Beam Avenue; there is an exit at the bottom of the south side of the road so if people wanted to connect to the Gateway Trail coming out of the Kohlman Lake Overlook area they would have to come that way. The reason it was being looked at was because for those residents to take the County Road D alignment, they would have to ride up to the top of the hill, go down the hill, cross over at County Road D, and go to the far end about 1 Y:z miles out of the way and come back down. Most people on a bike are going to take the shortest, quickest route. That's why that was put in the plan and he would advocate that be included as part of the packet. Originally, that request was in the park fund. He was looking at the park funds over the next five years and he didn't see that trail addressed so that needs to be looked at and considered, especially when everyone is talking about the strong push for trails in the city. Regarding the Nature Center expansion, the year's C.I.P. for 2006-201 0 was very detailed in the plan. The reason the Nature Center expansion was not done was there were several people who lived adjacent to the Nature Center who had expressed interest in selling their property to the Nature Center. However, during the later part of 2005 those people decided they were no longer interested and decided to put their property on the market so that was dropped from the plan. That was in a report by the former Parks and Recreation Director, Bruce Anderson that year. Regarding the Goodrich standards, he sees a duplication of that in the budget. When the Parks Commission talked about that this year, the commission discussed the backstops being replaced and that the Parks Commission may not go with the four field concept just because it's an awkward layout and the Parks Commission talked about other possibilities. He finds it curious to see the $300,000 is still in the plan. There is a new dollar amount to address the standards at Goodrich and Wakefield Park so there seems to be some duplication in this process. He said there aren't any staff members that still work at the city to speak to these things so he felt it was up to him to follow through. Mr. Fischer said the rest of his comments are based on being a Maplewood resident. He heard the comment made that this C.I.P. should be approved based on the Comprehensive Plan. The planning commission has an opportunity to make recommendations to the city council and should ask the question if this is in compliance or not? He would argue very strongly that this is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not just cover the streets and the zoning, it also covers parks, trails, the Nature Center and the open spaces, etc. We have heard parks are going to be decreased by $2.1 million over the next 5 year period and that most of the projects are being dropped. There is also a list of projects that are being deferred. There was $500,000 worth of projects that were going to be done this year and are now deferred such as Lions Park where over time there is no playground equipment left there. That neighborhood has 1-94 to the south and the next park to the north is located at Gethsemane. The city does not own that land, the church does and the city is leasing the land from Gethsemane and the city will lose the playground equipment there. It's disturbing. He said at the Taste of Maplewood he asked the City Manager what was happening with the parks in the city. The City Manager said the city is going to be adding trails in the city. Mr. Fischer said he was having a difficult time finding line items showing where trails will be budgeted. When the city was going through the planning process for open space and parks in the Gladstone area the city was looking at doing a project that would cost $2 million and $400,000 would come out of the park funds, which was discussed at the July 11, 2005, city council meeting. They discussed having a special parks assessment that would go to fund the park development in that area so that it wouldn't drain the rest of the system within the city. He said he has brought this up with the city over the past few years and it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -12- Mr. Fischer said the reason he brings this up now is that originally when the PAC charge was set at $3,000 a unit, in 2006 that was the average fee in the entire metro area. In fact a number of communities were over $5,000 per unit for PAC funds. This background information is important because when the city was looking at doing open space and parks in the Gladstone area at $2 million. At that it was decided they would have a special charge that would be levied on new units in that area somewhere between $1,000 and $3,000 per unit depending on what the final dollar amounts would be for redevelopment. They were looking at a bond and with bonding fees; by the time you take the bond out and pay the interest, the extra PAC charges collected that would be levied in that area would cover the parks, open space and carrying costs associated with it. So for citizens in the community, the developers would be paying the entire amount. Regarding the 650 units the city was looking at a cost between $1.3 and $1.8 million. That dollar amount is not reflected in the document and the financing tool is not in the document either. The planning commission has the ability to recommend continuing to pursue this. He said because his discussions have fallen on deaf ears he is very concerned that this information doesn't get lost in the process. Regarding the Gladstone Savanna project, the cost would go from $400,000 to $900,000 and this doesn't come close to accomplishing what was originally set out in that area. This was to be the centerpiece of the Gladstone community. In order for developers to come to Maplewood and pay those charges you need to grab the developer's attention with something that has eye appeal before the city can move forward with Gladstone. To do this project right, it would cost $1.8 million and once you get into the development process you can't go back and charge these fees, it needs to be addressed now. On page 9 in the C.I.P., only $350,000 of new money is going into a project. That has already been accounted for in the backstops and other parks project. He also discovered that was being allocated for the park improvement projects for the neighborhoods that don't have any playground equipment which came to $500,000 and those have been cancelled. That is how they plan on funding that next year. He sees no other way the $900,000 could be added in and that concerns him. The PAC fund is part of the plan the commission has in front of you. It shows what is expected for fees coming in and the PAC and SAC funds were charges for the next few years. Originally in the 2006-2010 budget, it was listed that there would be an additional park levy of $360,000 a year, which is about $1.8 million. He can understand that in the current climate in the city that extra taxes going out are not going to occur. He can understand why that would be deleted from the fund but that is a significant amount of money. The reason the city is not showing any fees coming in is because development is so slow coming into the city and Mr. Copeland told him the city can't count on that money. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -13- Mr. Fischer said Mr. Copeland said if new development did come the city would prefer to take land instead of taking PAC fees. Mr. Fischer said he disagreed with Mr. Copeland on that. In the long range plan the city has you are looking at 1,900 new housing units coming in by the year 2025. That comes out to be 74 new units per year, which isn't a lot. But if you take the 74 new units and multiply that by the current PAC fee of $3,000 that equals $228,000 a year. To him that is not an insignificant amount. That adds up over time to equal $1.1 million which is significant. He has heard reference to the Gladstone area and the potential for 650 units. Within the next five years the city can assume something is going to happen with the Gladstone area. If you take the PAC fee and multiply that you get $1.8 million. He said all the sudden he's listed a substantial amount of money that certain individuals have said are inconsequential. He is disturbed by this and the fact that the city is looking at a budget that is proposing no new fees coming in over the next five years, when he just listed the potential of multi-million dollars available. It signals to him that instead of being pro parks and supporting park development, it looks like that is going by the wayside and being minimized. The city is looking at focusing on trails, but it looks like the city is letting the rest go by the wayside. Mr. Fischer said the reason this C.I.P. does not work well with the Comprehensive Plan is that parks are more than just trails. Parks covers open spaces, community centers, active parks and passive parks. He said he had a call this evening from the person who is in charge of the soccer association, who is very disturbed by the quality ofthe city's soccer fields and thatthe city doesn't have enough soccer fields and that the ones the city has are being beaten into the ground and are running into low quality. This was addressed at the last parks commission. A week ago a citizen complained to him asking why the city doesn't have more soccer fields throughout the community. All these concerns require funds. The city needs to reevaluate things because these things are not coming forward in the planning process. Then there is the question that came up at the planning commission meeting a few weeks ago. A caretaker of the Legacy Village apartment building asked where the playground is that was promised with the Legacy Village plan. The plan showed a sculpture park but also a playground area. The parks commission didn't know "what" the demand would be there. Now there are over 100 kids living there who are waiting for a playground in an area where there is no playground equipment or anywhere for kids to go play. This area is bound by high intensive areas on all sides of them. To him that playground should not be cut out of the plan. These are needs that are not being met. This is a safety issue for the children. Those are all issues that need to be addressed as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The needs aren't being metfor the parks and are being cutfrom the plan. There are literally millions of dollars that the city has the opportunity to go after that is totally being missed in this process. He would encourage the commission to take a very strong look at this and make some suggestions and recommendations noting that the current proposal is not adequate and it does not meet the Comprehensive Plan as outlaid. The commission could make requirements to have these projects restored and the funds put back in the plan. He thanked the commission for their time. Commissioner Hess said regarding the trail extension that Mr. Fischer brought up earlier, on the south side of Beam Avenue, where is it being connected once the trail gets to Highway 61? Mr. Fischer said the parks commission had looked at coming down the side of the Kohlman Lake Overlook neighborhood. He doesn't know the area very well. One of the parks commissioner's, Craig Brennen, lives over there. He knows how to get to the intersection but questions getting from the intersection to the rest of the area. Beam Avenue changes dramatically. When you get west of TH 61 the traffic drops down substantially. The problem is when you cross TH 61 onto Beam Avenue, the traffic is so heavy, and being a biker and having traveled there, that is the last place he wants to ride in conjunction with the traffic. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -14- Commissioner Hess said that's why he mentioned that. With no plan to cross there, currently the other crossing does go across Beam Avenue and probably would be the natural way to cross. Then the trail could go on the north side, even though it might not be as desirable, at least it still goes to TH 61. He said Mr. Fischer mentioned the lady that came to the planning commission meeting a few weeks ago, he also didn't notice anything in the C.I.P. regarding that playground and he thinks it's important for that to be reflected. Commissioner Trippler said he recollected that the developer had the responsibility of installing the tot lot in the area underneath the electrical wires but the city allowed the delay of that until there was a need. Mr. Ahl said the reason the Legacy Village playground equipment isn't in the C.I.P. is that the playground is already underway because there was money in the budget to do that this year. There were funds as part of the Legacy Village financing established which was non PAC fee money and hopefully that playground equipment will be installed yet this year. Because the city doesn't have additional expenditures it doesn't show up in the C.I.P. but that is being done. So is the construction of the Legacy Village lake links trail connecting Hazelwood Street over to Southlawn Drive which is under contract right now and will be constructed this year. There is money in an account which is developer funds that were set aside from the Legacy Village plan that isn't PAC money. The playground will be installed either this fall or for sure next year depending on how quickly the trail can be done. Chairperson Fischer said the process is grinding along slowly. Mr. Ahl said yes. Commissioner Walton said he lives behind the Maplewood Toyota dealership and it makes sense to have the trail go across County Road D for safety to cross TH 61. The intersection at TH 61 and Beam Avenue is a tough one to cross, the more trails the better. Commissioner Hess said he was thinking more of where the existing access goes across County Road D. Commissioner Trippler said he would agree that even if the city develops the 650 units that the council currently is supporting, his recollection of the Gladstone plan is that 2/3 or:y. of the units would not be single family, they would be town homes, or apartments, so you can't count on the full PAC fee of $3,000 per unit, you may be looking at $1,000 - $2,000 per unit. Mr. Fischer's points were well taken. There is a substantial amount of money that could be coming in for PAC resources. He said he brought this up with Mr. Mittet today. The city is already 85% developed and there is only so much space and so many units that can be added to the city. He asked Mr. Fischer if the Parks Commission has been discussing and making recommendations of alternative ways to fund the parks system in Maplewood? It seems fairly obvious that the PAC fee is only going to last so long and will run out soon. The city is going to have to find another source. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -15- Mr. Fischer said the Parks Commission has talked about this over the past few years and when the Parks Commission talked to the city council the council felt it was important enough to have a property tax levy that would help fund the areas. That is something that was shown through time until this current year. So somewhere along the line, if the city is taking that radical departure. The current people in charge at the city were given some direction, at least informally, because if you are in charge of a major organization and you are going to make a large change in your city like this, you should be getting an idea if there is support for this idea or not so you don't get the idea shot down right away. In the past when this came up at the city council meeting the only council member who raised an objection was Will Rossbach. Mr. Fischer said he imagined there is support from the city council that there would be no tax levy at that point. He said having conversations with the Mayor they discussed the possibility of having a referendum at some point in time to help funding along the way and that was not well received because there is no support from the top - down. The answer is to get funding from the legislature and other areas. Mr. Fischer said talking with the legislature he was told by both Democrats and Republicans, why should the legislature support new playground equipment and parks equipment for Maplewood when the legislature won't do it for Edina. There have been attempts to get some funding, there are some limited funds that come through but not on an ongoing basis because other communities want the same thing and they have to keep things the same as they go through the process. Carolyn Peterson, 1801 Gervais Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. She said the parks and trail systems are very important in Maplewood. She said the Parks Commission has discussed alternative funding and the Parks Commission has talked about doing a referendum, but a referendum can be a short term solution for certain things and then you look for other solutions. Trails are very important and people really use them and want the trails to connect. Recently there was a bike ride that started at the MCC and went around to the different parks and open spaces in Maplewood which was good. She isn't sure this should be an either/or proposition to fund trails or parks. To her that isn't a good solution. The wisdom of letting your parks go can cause big problems down the line because if the parks start getting run down and then you go back to try and build them up again, you've got a much bigger problem rather than just maintaining the parks and trails along the way. Regarding the playground for the Legacy Village area, if you have ever walked under the power lines, you will find that your hair stands on end from the power of the power lines. When she brought this fact up to the Parks Commission they didn't believe it but at the next meeting Bruce Anderson, the former Park and Recreation Director, had gone out there and he said "you were right your hair does stand on end"! She didn't know if that was a safe place for a playground to be built. Even though that's probably not for the planning commission to deal with she thought she would offer those comments. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -16- John Nephew, 628 County Road BEast, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said he has been looking at the C.I.P. and he has a few questions about the impact to the taxpayers. On page 34, the impact on property taxes, there must be some typos there because it says taxes in 2006, the debt service was $2.3 million and in 2005 it was $3.0 million. He said he didn't think the taxes dropped that much so the figures must be reversed. The draft budget on the city website indicated the 2006 debit service property tax levies were $3,016,800, butthe current C.I.P. shows it as $2,315,500 and for 2007 the citywebsite shows it was $3,140,800 but in the C.I.P. it shows the number as $3,336,800 and that number is the same for 2008.He wasn't sure why there were so many inconsistencies. Mr. Nephew was trying to figure out the impact of the individual taxpayer regarding what this bonding plan means. Something he thought would be helpful, that he didn't see amongst the various charts was, because much of the bonding is covered by dedicated revenue sources such as assessments, state aid funds for roads etc., would be something that gives the residents a measure of how much of the bonding is strictly taxpayer obligation versus how much is covered by these other sources that are being passed onto the taxpayers. In particular he thinks this is something the city should be concerned about since he has heard at various city council presentations by Mr. Ahl, regarding what the city is assessing on street improvement projects and that is becoming a smaller percentage of the cost of the street improvement projects. That is something that may be changing over time. It should be made apparent to citizens what exactly this document means to the citizens of Maplewood. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing at 8:57 p.m. Commissioner Trippler said the C.I.P. has a lot of problems and needs to be revised. He asked if this document had a 60-day clock running like planning items do? Mr. Roberts said this C.I.P. does not have a 60-day clock. The C.I.P. does have to get completed so the city can start preparing the budget for next year. He didn't the exact date that the city council would review the C.I.P. Mr. Ahl said the city would like to start the 2008 budget. City staff had originally proposed this item to go to the city council on July 9, 2007, which is why the planning commission is reviewing it this evening. If the planning commission were to delay this document he wasn't sure with the July 4 holiday when it could be brought back to the planning commission in order for the document to be heard by the city council on July 9. It may have to be delayed until July 23,2007. The other issue we will need to look at is the incomplete nature of the Park fund in the C.I.P., even though it shows the expenditures, it doesn't recognize the revenues. We are talking about spending $15 million in Gladstone and not showing any revenue from any new units that would come forward as the city goes through the four phases. That is a glaring example of something that needs to be updated in the C.I.P. and it will take some time to make those corrections and changes. Commissioner Hess asked if the figures that John Nephew mentioned on page 34 were mistakes? Mr. Mittet said he would look at those numbers and double check things. Commissioner Walton asked if the commission could discuss the idea of park funds versus funding for trails in Maplewood? Carolyn Peterson asked why it has to be one versus the other. He asked if anybody on the commission has a feeling regarding this either way? Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -17- Commissioner Trippler said he didn't know where the idea came from to plan money towards trails instead of parks. That is a decision that should be put in a written policy since it is a major policy decision and it should be something discussed at the city council level. He asked if that was something the City Manager should be deciding on his own? As Peter Fischer pointed out, it doesn't comply with the language in the Comprehensive Plan. He questioned whether the city is going to change the Comprehensive Plan stating the city isn't interested in maintaining the city's parks anymore. He said he wouldn't vote for something like that. He can only guess that the City Manager felt switching from Parks money to trails would be cheaper or less of a controversial thing to do. Commissioner Pearson said he isn't sure this C.I.P. is going to be an either/or situation with parks and trails but with previous city council's and previous C.I.P.'s the city has seen what Chuck Ahl has described as terrible and horrible streets that have been continually delayed. To some extent the delay was to the benefit the parks and trails in the city. He is glad to see that a lot of these projects that have been delayed several times are going to be taken care of in the 2008-2012 C.I.P. He doesn't see a lot of problems with the C.I.P. There may be some inaccuracies and incorrect verbiage in the report but it doesn't change the "affect" of the plan. He thinks the city staff and the city council is planning for the street repairs which is correcting many years of deferred street maintenance. Commissioner Trippler said he strongly supports maintaining and upgrading the city's infrastructure. It's important to keep the streets in good repair; it helps the bond rating, as pointed out by staff. The city has to keep putting money into the infrastructure. He said the problem he has with the C.I.P. is that the city is looking at an increase in funding of about $20 million over the period of this plan from 2008-2012, and yet he sees over half of that being devoted to Gladstone. It seems to him it's a political decision that was made by this administration to bow down to a few individuals that didn't want a lot of development in the Gladstone area but wanted all the amenities and bells and whistles. The city went from a project that the task force proposed 850 units that would almost pay for itself to a city council that threw that idea out and said they wanted a lower unit count and decided that the rest of 35,000 residents in Maplewood are going to pay for what the people in the Gladstone area want. He said he has lived in Gladstone and the area does need work but he thinks this has been done backwards and behind closed doors, and he thinks the people in Maplewood need to know what has been going on. In his opinion it sounds and seems like this is purely political. Certain people were elected because of what was going to be proposed for the Gladstone area and are getting their payoff and the rest of Maplewood is going to pay for it. If you put the Gladstone unit count back to the level offunding that was in the C.I.P. for 2006 that would free up $9 million. The city could do improvements in other areas of the city. Staff has said there is a reduction in charges to do road improvements, based on that the city should be signing contracts as fast as they can to do street improvements as long as the prices are this low. He said he wouldn't support this 2008-2012 C.I.P. as it is. Commissioner Desai said he also brought up the fact that Gladstone went from $6 to $15 million. He agrees with Commissioner Trippler's comments regarding putting an extra $9 million in the plan for Gladstone which doesn't look realistic to him and he would definitely consider that an issue that needs to be addressed before this C.I.P. goes to the city council. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -18- Chairperson Fischer said when the city balances budgets there are times when you might like something done over here but if the roof is leaking, or the basement is flooding, you have to make some adjustments. The city has seen over the years that some items have gone from being in the future to being moved sooner on the list. Things change, it's a matter of priority and where money is available and sometimes emergencies come up. She can see where staff is coming from ifthis is a good time for bituminous improvements. Some streets have been postponed for a long time and this is the time streets should be given priority even though other things are important and they end up being delayed a few years down the road. She thinks she heard that given the fact the city is almost fully built and could no longer have PAC fees available, the city council should be giving serious consideration to alternate methods of funding the parks, playgrounds and trail systems. She asked if that be part of the motion to the city council? The commissioners agreed with that. Commissioner Trippler said Mr. Ahl mentioned the Hillcrest Redevelopment area in his presentation. He said maybe the commission should encourage the city council to look at where they are going to prioritize the Hillcrest Redevelopment area in terms of how that fits in with the Gladstone Redevelopment plan and the priority system. He believes the council should come up with some way to fund the park system in the future. That needs to be resolved sooner rather than later. Commissioner Pearson said he agrees with those comments. He agrees that projects like electronic scoreboards for a softball field may require fundraising in order to acquire those types of things. In terms of soccer, the private soccer enterprise should be an asset to that sport also. He is concerned that the more Maplewood is developed and the potential of drying up PAC fees, the city may get to a point where you have to assess taxes to pay for these playgrounds, trails, community centers and open spaces which may change the level of support for the citizens of Maplewood. He said the city has done a very good job on trails and parks for several years. The city has not done that good of a job on the streets and this is the most opportune time to get the streets redone. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the 2008-2012 Capital Improvement Plan (C.I.P.) with the followinQ chanQes: the city council should look at alternate means for future fundinQ of parks and plaVQrounds in the city. The city council should express their plan for the Hillcrest Redevelopment area in coniunction with the Gladstone Redevelopment area. The tVPoQraphical errors and editinQ corrections shall be made in the C.I.P. before movinQ forward to the city council as well. Commissioner Hess seconded. Ayes - Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Walton Navs - Desai, Trippler The motion passed. This item is scheduled to go to the city council on July 9,2007. b. Lot Division Proposal (Carye - 2291 Hazelwood Street) (9:15 -10:15 p.m.) Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -19- Mr. Roberts said Robert and Linda Carye are proposing to subdivide their 21 ,780 square foot lot at 2291 Hazelwood Street into two single family lots. The Caryes are proposing an addition and improvement to the existing house on the corner lot and a new single family house will be constructed on the new lot to the west (on Cope Avenue). In 2000 the Carye's purchased the single family house. Prior to moving into the house a storm caused extensive damage including the loss of several trees, destruction of the detached garage and shed, and interior damage. In 2001 the home was flooded by a defective water softener, which was followed by four sewer backups. The flooding and sewer backups resulted in the production and spread of mold spores throughout the entire house. The house sat vacant since approximately December 2006, after the Carye's moved to Boston to tend to family matters. Commissioner Pearson asked what had been done to prevent any more sewer backups from occurring in the future? He asked if the Fire Marshal or if the Building Inspector had been inside the house recently to see the condition because it sounds like the house is very old and run down. He asked why the fence that had been built had been allowed to stay this way for this long? Mr. Roberts said regarding the fence, staff was not aware of any fence complaints, if there was a complaint; it wasn't raised until this proposal came up. Commissioner Pearson asked if the fence was built with a permit, and if it was inspected? Mr. Roberts said because of the height ofthe fence, no permit was required. Regarding the sewer and the condition of the building, the only comments staff received are from Dave Fisher, the Building Official, on page 4 of the staff report. Staff is not aware of any recent interior inspections. Regarding the sewer, Mr. Ahl may have some comments; otherwise the commission would have to ask the applicant that question. Mr. Ahl said he isn't aware of any ongoing sewer problems here. He said he doesn't have the history of the sewer at this address so that answer may have to come from the applicant. Commissioner Trippler said he doesn't approve ofthe outlay and granting a variance even though it's only for 7% feet. It looked to him that the portion of the house that extends off the back was an addition. If the applicant is going to build an addition it didn't seem that it would cost that much more money to remove the area off the rear of the house that looks like an addition and decrease that area by 7% feet so the house would be in compliance with the setback. Mr. Roberts pointed out the south view of the house that Commissioner Trippler questioned. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -20- Commissioner Trippler said regarding moving the driveway location, when he looked at the property he noticed a curb cut on Cope Avenue. He wouldn't recommend the driveway in the location staff recommended because Cope Avenue crests 200-300 feet and when he tried to back out he couldn't see cars coming up from the lower part of Cope Avenue but the cars kept coming and coming. Each time he tried to back up he had to continue waiting to get out. It seemed Hazelwood Street would be a better place to exit the property if in fact the highway department gets their wish to shut down Hazelwood Street at the Highway 36 connection. If and when that occurs, Hazelwood Street would be used much less compared to Cope Avenue. Because this is the corner lot, you not only have to keep watching for traffic which is hard to see from the west coming up the hill but you also have to figure out which cars are going to turn, it's basically a nightmare trying to back up out of there. Commissioner Hess agreed with Commissioner Trippler's comments. If the setback is supposed to be 20 feet by code, he wasn't sure how the proposed addition was going to tie into the existing home to the rest of the house. He is thinking about the future resale issues. Regarding a 20 foot setback, he would be more in favor of trying to comply with the setback. He said this property is in rough shape. He was concerned how much of the sewage issue had been taken care of. Commissioner Desai asked if the city required a habitation permit for this existing residence because he understood no one had lived in this house for a few years. Mr. Roberts said the city would have to find that this house is habitable in order for it to be occupied. If it's found to not be habitable the city would declare that. Staff doesn't have enough history with this home but its staff's expectation that the issues will be taken care of in order for this to move forward. Commissioner Desai said the mitigating mold issues are a tough issue to deal with in a home. It may be easier to tear the house down and start all over. Maybe the architect can shed some light on this subject. Commissioner Hess said kitty corner and across the street from this site the Comforts of Home Senior Housing will be built and maybe that will add more traffic to the area making it more palatable to have the driveway on Cope Avenue. Mr. Roberts said Comforts of Home would have 44 senior housing units including some memory care units so that building will not generate a lot of traffic however, there will be more traffic than what exists now. Commissioner Trippler asked if the commission would be approving a variance to the west because that lot is only 76-feet wide instead of 1 OO-feet wide? Mr. Roberts said because that is an interior lot the minimum lot width is 75-feet wide. Chairperson Fisher said a corner lot needs to be 1 OO-feet wide. Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing up to the public. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -21- Linda Carye, 2291 Hazelwood Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Ms. Carye thanked the commission for their time. She said regarding the recommendations in the staff report, her and her husband are in agreement with the conditions. She said she would like her architect and landscaper to speak as well. She said she purchased this house in 2000. One week after she purchased the house, there was a storm and the wiring in the house was fried. New wiring, new plumbing and new interior walls have been done on the interior of the house costing $60,000. She knows from the exterior, the house looks horrible. Driving by the house you wouldn't believe she spent that much but she said she has the receipts to prove it. Her father had cancer and she and her husband went to stay with him in Boston so the property has been vacant. She hired two other landscapers, besides Dan Stone, who is her third landscaper, to take care of the property that didn't conform to the job and her and her husband were not aware of the problems until the City of Maplewood made them aware of the situation. Regarding the mold and sewer problems, after the storm in 2000 they stored their personal possessions down in the basement because they were working on the interior of the house. Their water softener got stuck on the discharge cycle and flooded the basement when they weren't home. They imagine what happened was that the cardboard boxes disintegrated from being wet and the debris went down the drain because they had the sewer cleaned out after it backed up four other times. Then they had a camera put down the sewer and everything had checked out fine. The house has been checked out and there is no longer any mold problems. Commissioner Trippler asked if it would be possible to take 7% feet off of the western edge to meet the 20 foot setback requirement and move the proposed addition over 7% feet? Mr. Roberts said if that lot line is moved then the new lot would be too narrow. Ms. Carye said because it is getting so late she would like to have her landscaper speak and then the architect can speak. Dan Stone, 2686 Mackubin Street, Roseville, addressed the commission. He said he was hired to take care of the property. He does the weekly mowing and maintenance of the property. He was also hired for the future landscaping at the proposed property. There were no questions by the commission for Mr. Stone. John Gasper, NAI Architects, residing at 1594 Mary Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Mr. Gasper said they removed the small shed on the back end of the property. What's left is the kitchen area which looks like an addition but isn't. To remove 7% feet off the rear of the house would cost a lot of money because they would have to cut the kitchen in half. The applicant had already upgraded the electrical, lighting and plumbing in the original part of the house. He said on the plans they show the west part being removed. Mr. Roberts pointed out on an aerial photo where the shed was that was referred to that had been removed and where the kitchen is located on the property. Commissioner Trippler asked if the kitchen was part of the original house because it looked like that area of the house was added on. Mr. Gasper said he didn't know for sure because he didn't know the history of the house, but he assumed it was part of the original building. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -22- Commissioner Trippler asked what would be built in the addition that would be attached to this portion of the house? Mr. Gasper said on the south end there would be a two car garage with an upper office area. Between the garage and the other portion of the house is a breezeway with stairs that will go over the garage and stairs that go down into the basement. The area to the west that they would remove is where the stairs are right now. Commissioner Trippler asked if he knew how much it would cost to move the kitchen and put the kitchen in the northern portion of the breezeway and make that all one unit? Mr. Gasper said that would cost quite a bit because the wiring, plumbing and lighting is all done in the kitchen. Commissioner Hess said following the roof ridge line to the west, he sees a line that looks like there is two pieces of house there, unless that's another roof ridge. Mr. Gasper said they are adding a master bedroom over the kitchen there. Commissioner Hess wondered why they couldn't slide the addition to the east and comply with the 20-foot setback for the future sale. Mr. Gasper said you could slide the garage and the breezeway east, but the original footprint of the house is right where it's at. Mr. Roberts said the first floor exists and the architect is proposing to put a second floor addition on-top of the existing footprint so the rear wall becomes two stories. Mr. Roberts pointed out where the addition would go with the existing house footprint. Commissioner Hess asked where it's listed as the proposed addition, could you move that section of the building so it would comply? He realized it would be a hardship to tear out the lower area in order to comply with the setback. There is a wood fence up against the chain link fence and there is a fence down the center of the yard, he asked what the situation was with the fences? Ms. Carye said regarding the chain link fence that runs down the middle of the property, the intention was that was a temporary fence because they knew they were going to build an addition to the property. Last fall she was under a court order not to touch the property. The property is still in litigation but she wants to move forward and finish the house and move back there. The chain link fence was always intended as a temporary fence, she said she will take that fence down. Regarding the wood fence, with the finished fence facing inward toward her home, she said she didn't receive permission from her neighbor to unhook his chain link fence. They needed to unhook the chain link fence in order to shoot straight forward from the neighbor's property line. If she has permission she will definitely make sure that gets done if you allow a contractor to come in. She said she would resurface that with the same material. Commissioner Hess said it seemed strange that the applicant would invest $60,000 on the interior of the house and do nothing on the exterior which would have pleased the neighbors since the home is in such rough shape. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -23- Ms. Carye said she is aware of that and she never thought this would go on this long. Because the property is still in litigation, in the last year she was just released to work on the property. It has always been their intention to build an addition to the property. Yes, she said she could've put siding on the house for two years or so. To reside the house and then do the addition and take the siding down and reside the house again seemed not worth it since you could never match the stock material. Commissioner Pearson said it states in the report that the sewer backed up 4 times. He asked if this was the sewer main? Ms. Carye said there was a drain in the floor and it backed up through there. The four incidences were in a three or four day period and until they had the drain cleaned out when the boxes disintegrated and the debris went into the drain. That was the cause of the backup. They had the sewer cleaned out and had a camera inserted down there, everything checked out fine and there haven't been anymore problems since then. Commissioner Pearson asked if the sewer line from the house to the city's main line had been dealt with if it had been a problem? Ms. Carye said it hasn't been a problem that she was aware of. Chairperson Fischer asked if the applicant had any questions for the commission or staff? Ms. Carye said not at this time. Jim Hakala, 1515 Cope Avenue East, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Mr. Hakala said regarding the chain link fence on his property, it was there before the neighbor put in the privacy fence and they never came over to ask if he would do anything with the fence and the fence was put up backwards. He contacted the city and the city suggested that he just live with the fence that way so that is what he has been doing. Then the rest of the problems have been going on. He said he wished the commission wouldn't approve this proposal. Patricia Collier, 1526 Cope Avenue East, Maplewood, addressed the commission. She lives across the street from this property. She would like to know if this is connected to the city sewer or if there is a septic tank here? If the sewer could be inspected before they start construction on this that is where the city should start. She would like to know if there could be a timeframe for completion if this is approved? This project should have a final inspection afterwards. She put a fence up 4 years ago July 4, 2003. Her fence had to have a building permit. She has a cedar fence, the company that installed the fence got a building permit from the city so she wondered why she had to have a permit and the neighbors didn't have to get a permit? Mr. Roberts said if the fence is 6 feet high or less, the city doesn't require a permit so if the company that installed your fence told you they had to pay the city for a permit, they did not have to. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -24- Ms. Collier said her fence is 6 feet tall and it looks the same as the neighbors. She would like to know about the storage trailer that was out there for years even before she moved there. It was finally removed this year. Her concerns are two fold, she would like to know if they intend to take residence here upon completion of this addition. She would like to see an escrow deposit requirement with the timeframe for completion in order to keep the mess down to a minimum. She thinks 6 months is a good timeframe even with all the neighbor is proposing to do. If they are only going to remodel the existing home and do siding to the house, she would like to see that done in 30 days. Ray Pogue, 1516 Cope Avenue East, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said he has lived here for 52 years and he has seen the whole neighborhood change many times. This is the oldest house on the block. Ms. Carye really gutted the place, he hasn't seen the inside of the house so he doesn't know what it looks like now. The basement was a mess the only time he did see it, he has no idea what it looks like now. In January 2005 there was going to be a sheriff's sale because the bank had foreclosed on the property. Then the Carye's declared bankruptcy and the sheriff's foreclosure sale was cancelled. The Carye's made arrangements with the bank to make small payments to hold the property. Later they refinanced with another bank and that is where it sits now. The house is deteriorating. There are cats and birds flying in and out of the house and he assumes the house is uninhabitable. He is worried that this project isn't going to be completed, especially because they filed for bankruptcy and he is concerned there is enough money to finish the project? There is a sizeable mortgage on this property already. That's the real concern of the neighborhood; will this project really be finished? If it does, great! He said he is so sick of looking at this place, it's the biggest eyesore that there is. If the Carye's finish this the whole neighborhood would be in favor of it looking nice, but is there any assurance that this will ever get completed? Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pearson asked if this property is connected to city sewer or if this has a septic tank? Mr. Roberts said the applicant testified that she had the sewer line cleaned and it was inspected with a camera and that tells staff that they are connected to the sewer. Commissioner Pearson said that doesn't necessarily mean they had it inspected from the house to a septic tank or from the house to the main. Mr. Roberts said he interpreted it to mean the sewer line was check from the street to the public sewer. Mr. Ahl said the public works department knows where the septic tanks are and this address is not on the list of septic tanks. He guessed this address gets a sewer bill from the city and he would be very surprised to see a septic tank in this area. The city hasn't done a dye test or anything but the city could do that. Commissioner Pearson said it would be phenomenal to miss that step during this messy process. Mr. Ahl said the city will definitely check on this before any permits are issued through the city. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -25- Chairperson Fischer said some of these requests are small enough that they would have been allowed as administrative variances and could have been done administratively. Mr. Roberts said what changed things was the proposed rear yard setback variance. Otherwise these requests would have been done administratively and this would not have come before the planning commission. Commissioner Desai asked if the addition is moved back 7% feet to comply, than it would fall within the administrative requirements? Mr. Roberts said they can't do that because of the existing home and the proposed property line of the lot and then the lot gets too narrow for the 75-foot requirement. Commissioner Pearson asked if this property is still tied up in a lawsuit, and a fence can't be altered or taken down, how can this proposal go forward even if it were approved by the city? Mr. Roberts said this approval gives the applicant approval of a site plan with the variances and approval of a lot division for a second lot. It is up to the applicants when they use these approvals. If it takes another two years of litigation so they can actually build this, it is between the courts and the lawyers. This only gives the applicant approval to move forward with the city. Commissioner Hess said right now this is 76 feet from the line, what if the commission moved it back to the 75 foot line, which then makes it 13 feet to the existing property and then suggest that the proposed addition gets moved over so it is code compliant to 19.8 feet? Mr. Roberts said the problem is that this lot is only proposed to be 9,500 square feet because the width is fine but north to south the lot is not big enough to make the 10,000 square feet city requirement, so by moving the line over you make the second lot that much smaller. It's a balancing act between lot area and the rear yard setback. The 9,500 square feet is in keeping with the character of several other lots in that block. Commissioner Trippler asked if the commission could approve condition number two and not condition number one? Mr. Roberts said no, because the applicant needs the variances to the rear otthe house to put the new property line for the second lot. Commissioner Trippler said he has the same problem that Commissioner Pearson has that if this property is tied up in a lawsuit he thinks nothing is going to happen here for awhile. The neighbors have expressed the concerns and it has already taken this long for something to happen here. Mr. Roberts said it appears the applicant would like to speak. The commission agreed to open the discussion up again. Ms. Carye said she is not under a court order to leave the house as is. She can do what she wants to the property as far as construction goes. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -26- Commissioner Trippler asked what is tied up in court? Ms. Carye said she still has a lawsuit ongoing, but both parties have done their inspections and they have what they need for a trial and they can't tie the property up forever. Commissioner Trippler asked what the lawsuit was about? Ms. Carye said it encompasses several areas. There was the mold remediation and the damage to contents of the house. Commissioner Trippler asked if she was in a lawsuit with the insurance company to recover your damages? Ms. Carye said yes. Commissioner Hess said based on past history at this address, he was concerned that this project may not get finished and he wondered if a timeframe could be attached to this project. He asked if this should be added as a separate motion. Mr. Roberts said that becomes difficult to do. There could unforeseen circumstances, delays with the city, or by Mother Nature, etc. The city is confident that with the escrow for the siding, the normal building permit process and the escrow for grading and drainage as part of the building permit so if it is disturbed and things don't get finished, the city has money to stabilize the ground so erosion doesn't occur and dirt won't be washing down the street. Ifthe siding doesn't get done, the escrow money would allow the city to hire someone to finish the job for the applicant. Commissioner Trippler said the applicant could sell the new lot first and then take the money from the new lot to help pay for the addition on the existing house. There is nothing in the resolution that says they have to do things in a certain order. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the attached variance resolution in the staff report. This resolution approves three variances associated with the creation of the new lot for a single dwelling west of the house at 2291 Hazelwood Street. These include having a lot area of 9,500 square feet (500 square foot lot area variance), a lot width of99.01 feet for a corner lot (.99-foot lot width variance), and a 12.16-foot rear yard setback variance for the existing house to the new lot line (7.64-foot rear yard setback variance). The city is basing this approval on the fact that the lot area and lot width variance are in keeping with the surrounding properties and the ability of the applicant to prove a specific hardship for the rear yard setback variance that meets state law requirements including: a. The problem requiring the rear yard setback variance in this circumstance is a problem that the current owner did not cause (i.e., location of the existing house). b. The variance will only be required for the 20-foot-width of the existing house, causing minimal impacts to the adjacent property. c. The variances and the creation of a new lot and construction of a single family house in this location will not change the character of the area as surrounding properties are all single family houses with similar lot sizes. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -27- Approval of these variances is subject to the following conditions: 1) Submit a cash escrow or letter of credit to cover 150 percent of residing the existing house. 2)Sign a right-of-entry agreement allowing the city to enter the property at 2291 Hazelwood Street to complete siding of the house if necessary. 3)Sign a maintenance agreement promising to maintain the property per city code requirements throughout construction of the addition. 4)A revised site plan or survey showing that the addition will maintain a 19-foot rear yard setback to the new rear yard lot line and the relocation of the driveway from Hazelwood Street to Cope Avenue. 5) Removal of the temporary chain link fence. 6) Removal of the 6-foot-high wood privacy fence or alteration of the fence to ensure that the side of the fence facing the neighbors is finished, with no structural supports showing. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the lot split plan date-stamped May 15, 2007, for a lot division request to subdivide the 21 ,780-square-foot single family lot located at 2291 Hazelwood Street into two single family lots. Lot division approval is based on code requirements (Sections 34-14-lot divisions) and is subject to the following: a. Submit a survey to staff for approval which shows the following: 1) Legal descriptions of both lots. 2)Location and setbacks of existing house on the corner lot. b. If the new lot (adjacent Cope Avenue) is to be sold or deeded to another party, deeds describing the two new legal descriptions for both lots. c. Once the above-mentioned conditions are met, the city will stamp the surveyor deeds. These must be recorded with Ramsey County within one year of the date of the lot division approval or the lot split will become null and void (city code requirement). d. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the new house on the new lot (adjacent Cope Avenue), the following must be submitted to staff for approval: 1) Proof that Ramsey County has recorded the lot division. 2)A signed certificate of survey showing the location of all property lines and the location of the new house with at least a 10-foot setback from the house, garage, and deck to both side property lines. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -28- 3)Submittal of a screening plan ensuring screening from any proposed deck on the new house to the existing house to the west at 1515 Cope Avenue. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Trippler, Walton Nay - Pearson The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on July 9,2007. The planning commission stressed that the city council should look at placing a time restriction on this project at 2291 Hazelwood Street to ensure that this addition be done within a certain time frame to satisfy the neighbors. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Walton was the planning commission representative at the June 11, 2007, city council meeting. Items to discuss included the (CUP) for the Corner Kick Soccer Center at 1357 Cope Avenue and the (CUP) for Costco at the north side of Beam Avenue, west of the Bruce Vento Trail, which were both passed by the city council. b. Mr. Desai will be the planning commission representative at the June 25,2007, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the Pond Overlook, Rezoning (F(farm to R-2) for Planned Unit Development, and the Preliminary Plat. c. Mr. Hess will be the planning commission representative at the July 9, 2007, city council meeting. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-19-07 -29- The (CUP) for (The Keller Lake Convenience Store, 2228 Maplewood Drive may be heard.) The (C.I.P.) Capital Improvement Plan for 2008-2012. Carye Lot Division Proposal at 2291 Hazelwood Street, for Lot Division proposal, Lot Area Variance, Lot Width Variance, and Rear Yard Setback Variance. d. Mr. Pearson will be the planning commission representative at the July 23,2007, city council meeting. e. Annual Tour Mr. Roberts reminded the commission that the Annual Tour is scheduled for Monday, July 30, 2007, from 5:30-8:00 p.m. Please call Community Development to RSVP. f. Update on planning commission openings Commissioner Trippler said the planning commission is short by two members and the planning commission needs to begin working on the comprehensive plan. In the summer months we run the risk of not having enough commission members to have a quorum. He would like the City Manager to get these openings filled. He hasn't seen any openings advertising for openings on the advisory board. The Recording Secretary asked if she could answer that question? The commission agreed. Recording Secretary, Lisa Kroll, stated in her new position of typing the city council minutes, City council member Will Rossbach asked the City Manager, Mr. Copeland, what was happening with the openings on the planning commission and other advisory boards at the June 11, 2007, city council meeting. The City Manager said the city had been advertising the openings in the Lillie News and on the city's website for the past few months and has only received two applications for the Environmental Commission and that those interviews would be held soon. However, there was no mention of any other applications on file for the other openings. Commissioner Trippler said he reads the Lillie News all the time and he hasn't seen any openings advertised. Commissioner Walton asked if the openings could be advertised in the Maplewood News? Commissioner Trippler said he would like the City Manager to give a report regarding what the city is doing to advertise these openings and how the city proposes to fill the openings. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.