Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/03/2000~ 1. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 3, 2000, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call Approval of Minutes a. March 6, 2000 4. Approval of Agenda New Business a. White Bear Avenue Corridor Study Review Draft of Land Use Issues Identify Remaining Land Use Issues Unfinished Business a. Historic Resources Management Plan 7. Visitor Presentations o Commission Presentations a. March 13 Council Meeting: Ms. Fisher b. March 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson c. April 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Frost d. April 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Seeber Staff Presentations 10. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost Commissioner Matt Ledvina Commissioner Paul Mueller Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Michael Seeber Commissioner Milo Thompson Commissioner Dale Trippler Present Absent Present Present Present Present Absent Present Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. March 6, 2000 Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the minutes of March 6, 2000, amended to have the second to the last paragraph on page 6 read"...3M Building #1 on page 13. She also felt..." Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Thompson moved that Item 6. Unfinished Business be considered ahead of Item 5. New Business. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Historic Resources Management Plan Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Trippler referred to his request, at the previous meeting, to have some consistency provided when referring to "Maplewood shall" or "the city shall" in the discussion about the historic preservation policies, action plan and goals. He said that the chair had asked that it be one or the other and this does not seem to be reflected in this submittal. Mr. Roberts replied that his focus was more on what the policies and actions were saying and who was going to do the actions. Mr. Trippler recommended that this wording be changed. As an example, he referred to #2 on page 21. Mr. Trippler asked to whom the historical society would be making recommendations, advising, and assisting. Mr. Roberts said it could be the city, city council, planning commission, or the public. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-03-2000 -2- Commissioner Trippler also asked what the result of designating significant historic properties (#6 on page 21) would be. Mr. Roberts did not have the answer to this question. Then Mr. Trippler questioned how reviewing demolition, moving and remodeling applications and permits (#16 on page 22) would fit into the current process for review and approval. He felt it was necessary to have a specific time period given, if this needed to be a requirement. Mr. Roberts thought this would have to come in an ordinance adopted by the city council. He pointed out that these requirements were more general and the specifics would be covered by an ordinance. Chairperson Fischer said #16 on page 22 was a good example of a concern she expressed at the last meeting about not having the action plan incorporated in the same format as the rest of the comprehensive plan. Ken Roberts answered that he wanted to get the plan, especially the policies and action plan, to a point where the historical society representatives and the planning commission agreed. Then he would put the results in a table format. Commissioner Thompson asked if #8 on page 9 should read that the committee will review "all applications or permits..." or just historically significant applications. Mr. Roberts said this statement was in the first draft and was more for a comparison. Then Mr. Thompson referred to #7 on page 20. He was concerned, but thought it might be a little more acceptable, because this item stated that the historical society may comment on all development proposals on the historic list. Mr. Thompson mentioned page 21 where it states the city will periodically review and update the preservation action plan. He asked if it would be possible to be more specific or would the ordinance cover this. Commissioner Thompson was in favor of the sunset provision in the present ordinance. Mr. Roberts wasn't sure if a sunset provision could be put in a chapter of the comprehensive plan. He thought a definite time period for review could be specified. Commissioner Pearson asked who, in the event of a dispute, would reign--the body and powers as outlined in the ordinance (Sec. 2-89 and 2-94) or the standards and guidelines of the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Roberts thought it might be the ordinance that would prevail. Mr. Pearson asked for the city attorney's opinion in this regard. Commissioner Rossbach questioned whether it would be the historical society or historical commission that would be formed by these actions. Because the historical commission will sunset at the end of this year, Mr. Roberts said the city council will have to decide whether the commission should be continued. If the council does not renew this commission, the only advisory body in the city would be the historical society. Chairperson Fischer thought the plan should include an appeals process. Mr. Roberts explained the Maplewood Historical Society and the Maplewood Historical Advisory Commission (referred to in the plan text as the Historical Commission). Robert Overby, of 1829 Furness Street in Maplewood, felt the draft presented at this meeting "cleans up" most of the issues or concerns. He suggested that it would be more appropriate to have the review of applications and permits done by the Historical Preservation (or Historical Advisory) Commission (#16 on page 22). The Historical Society could advise the commission. Mr. Overby felt that the statement prohibiting or regulating the demolition of property on the National Register (page 19) was misleading. Because a property is listed on the register, which takes action by the state historical society, it doesn't prevent someone from tearing down or modifying it. He recommended putting language in the ordinance that would connect back to how the city would want to protect those properties. Mr. Overby thought this sentence should be eliminated. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-03-2000 -3- Commissioner Trippler asked, if the commission was established and functioning in accordance with this plan, would it be possible for someone to acquire property without knowing it was on the register. Mr. Overby replied that this information would need to be recorded on the property deed. Pete Boulay, 1100 County Road C East, said it is very difficult to get a building or property on the National Register. He felt it would be hard to buy a property and not know it was on the register since a plaque is affixed to it. He thought that legally a realtor needed to tell a buyer about this. Mr. Overby pointed out that the Secretary of the Interior's guidelines were meant to be advisory. Commissioner Thompson asked what would happen if a property at 1915 DeSoto North were to be demolished with this ordinance in effect. Mr. Overby assumed the property owner would apply for a demolition permit. If the city was aware that this was on the list in the historic plan or had some historic significance, staff would hopefully contact the historical commission. Mr. Overby did not know if it would be possible to stop the demolition, but the state historical society could be contacted to evaluate the site. Mr. Boulay said there would be a list with the condition of all the properties. He said the property on DeSoto was checked in 1982 by Ramsey County and was judged to be in poor condition. There would be a recommendation from the county on a course of action. Mr. Boulay felt ideally the commission would be informed of the permit request. They would contact the property owner and at least take a photographic record of the property. Mr. Overby commented that the historical advisory commission, in most city ordinances, is designated as the official review body. The historical society is advisory to this commission or a city group that works on research and community education. Mr. Overby suggested putting in a provision for resolving conflicts after #16 on page 22. Mr. Boulay gave some background information on the Maplewood Historical Commission and Historical Society. He said it was up to the city to decide whether they wished to relate to the commission or the society. Commissioner Thompson questioned if it would be unusual to have a nonprofit society, such as the historical society, as an advisory board. Mr. Overby said the society is more of a civic organization. He saw the commission as a body that reports to the planning commission and the city council. Mr. Overby said if Maplewood has a historical preservation commission, they can choose to become a certified local government. Having a historic commission, instead of just a society, gives the city an opportunity to apply for federal funding. Mr. Overby said they have asked the state about the type of funding available and how other cities have used it, but have not received a reply. Commissioner Rossbach said he had "changed his opinion to some degree" since the last meeting. After a recent drive in the Gladstone area, he felt that there might be some interest in retaining some of these buildings, i.e. the Gladstone fire station, Mike's LP, Richard's Market. He also suggested that new buildings might be encouraged to have a design that would "fit in." Mr. Rossbach personally thought" we are giving these people way too much of a hard time for wanting to help out the city." He advocated a historic preservation commission where the members would be appointed by the city council and function in the same manner as the other existing Maplewood commissions. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend the continuation of the Historic Preservation Commission. Commissioner Thompson seconded. Commissioner Pearson said he would like to support the motion but he questioned "which of these applications, if they come into conflict, is going to be superior--between the Planning Commission Minutes of 04-03-2000 -4- comprehensive plan and these other." He preferred an answer from the city ,attorney in this regard. Commissioner Rossbach replied that he was going to make another motion related to the historic resources management plan and request this information. Ayes--all The motion passed. Commissioner Rossbach recommended adoption of city staff's proposal for the historic resources management plan. Before this is presented to the city council, the following changes shall be made: 1) all references to the city shall be consistent throughout the plan, 2) an item that will set out a mechanism to resolve conflicts shall be added in the guidelines, activities section or in the historic preservation action plan, 3) the action plan shall be put into the same format as other action plans in the current comprehensive plan, 3) the city attorney's opinion will be requested on whether the city's guidelines or the Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines (referred to in the historical preservation action plan) would take precedent in an area of conflict, 4) "As such, any change or demolition of a property on the National Register may be prohibited or strictly regulated" will be eliminated in the third paragraph under guidelines and activities and 5) staff will ensure that there is consistency in the plan when referring to the commission or the society. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. Mr. Overby referred to Commissioner's Rossbach's comments about Frost Avenue in the Gladstone area. He said the history of Maplewood that was compiled for the city's 40th anniversary "opened his eyes to what use to be" and he thought it was a good insight into why a historic landmark program should be considered. V. NEW BUSINESS White Bear Avenue Corridor Study: Review Draft of Land Use Issues and Identify Remaining Land Use Issues Melinda Coleman, director of community development, asked for commission comments on the draft of White Bear Avenue: A Walk Through Time (the White Bear Avenue corridor study). She saw this as a beginning point and asked for direction on where the city should go. Ms. Coleman noted that there were many typographic, spelling, map, etc. errors in the document. Ms. Coleman said the city and the property owner have agreed, after much discussion on the land use study for the 80 acre Maplewood Mall area property, that the next step would be a request for proposal "to test the development waters to see what the development community would recommend" for this site. She offered questions for the commission to consider. How should the city implement this in with the comprehensive plan-- is there anything that the city needs to be doing with the comprehensive plan itself or should it be kept in its current holding pattern until this proceeds a step or two further? Ms. Coleman mentioned that Woodland Hills Church has reached an agreement with K-Mart and will be occupying the Builders Square building. She suggested working with the church to ensure that the future tenants of the south part of the building "make sense for the neighborhood." Commissioner Rossbach saw traffic as the biggest problem in the Hajicek/Maplewood Mall area. He thought, even if County Road D was extended to Highway 61, the result would not be a good Planning Commission Minutes of 04-03-2000 -5- interchange situation because it is too close to the freeway and there are too many stop signs. Mr. Rossbach could foresee more traffic using County Road C and Hazelwood Avenue. He suggested that it was important to plan development, such as additional senior housing or medical businesses, that would not generate a lot of traffic. The eastern end of the development area could be transitioned with office/warehouse and then some commercial to complement the Maplewood Mall area. In regard to the Hillcrest area, Commissioner Rossbach recommended shifting North St. Paul Road to Ripley Avenue. Ripley Avenue has stop lights at White Bear Avenue and is a better traffic situation. Commissioner Thompson thought the corridor study used a "soft sell," especially on the traffic area. He said no provision was made for alleviating the congestion caused by bus traffic. Mr. Thompson pointed out that the study called for putting bicycles on the sidewalks and yet bicycles must abide by the same rules as automobiles. He also mentioned the hazard of crossing White Bear Avenue from the west to the east, particularly in the vicinity of Hazel Park Academy. Initially, Commissioner Trippler thought the study was trying to make White Bear Avenue more productive for area businesses. After looking at the goals and principles, he felt they were not being consistent--it seemed they were trying to improve the aesthetics and have better traffic flow. Mr. Trippler agreed with Commissioner Rossbach in regard to the 80 acres by the Maplewood Mall. He questioned how much authority the city had to plan this parcel. Ms. Coleman offered "some perspective" to this. She felt the Planning Commission had been at a "distinct disadvantage" because this has not been your planning process." Ms. Coleman said this planning process originated from the White Bear Avenue Business Association. She felt they were very happy with the plan but, for Maplewood, there were some good things in it that the city could start from. It did get the various cities and groups participating in a positive way. Ms. Coleman said the Hajicek property is zoned farm and guided for business commercial. She thought it was realistic to have a mixed-use development for the site. The city does have the authority to plan and zone the parcel but typically does not do so without input from the owner of the property. Ms. Coleman concluded by saying she saw the White Bear Avenue Corridor Study as a document that starts the process for Maplewood. She suggested using ideas from this study, such as Gateway signage, neighborhood identification, streetscapes, etc., when looking at development proposals along White Bear Avenue. Chairperson Fischer asked if the map on page 21, which includes the Builders Square site, should be corrected to reflect that this site is now a church, not planned single-family housing. Commissioner Thompson said he appreciated Melinda Coleman's frank appraisal of the traffic situation. It seemed to him that the investment in a traffic plan would be appropriate because it would "dictate the density of the development." Ms. Coleman advocated proceeding with an RFP for the Maplewood Mall area to see what happens. Then she suggested a community meeting when these proposals are returned. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Pete Boulay, 1100 County Road C East, commented that the bridge that is buried near the intersection of County Road D and Highway 61 is "probably the most studied bridge in Maplewood and the oldest." He claimed it was a real "death-trap" when it was in existence. He offered a copy of a study that was Planning Commission Minutes of 04-03-2000 done on this bridge in the 1960s. -6- VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS A. March 13 Council Meeting: Ms. Fisher reported on this meeting. B. March 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson reported on this meeting. Commissioner Pearson asked if there was an update on the Route 12, Beaver Lake, bus route. A large area of this route is scheduled to be abandoned. Melinda Coleman said she met with Metro Transit a few months ago and didn't think any final decisions had been made yet. C. April 10 Council Meeting: A commissioner will not be needed for this meeting. D. April 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Seeber is scheduled to attend this meeting. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS There were no staff presentations. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.