Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/15/20001. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 15, 2000, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes Public Hearing a. 2001 - 2005 Maplewood Capital Improvement Plan 6. Unfinished Business Dearborn Meadow (Castle Avenue) 1. Comprehensive plan change - M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) 2. Zoning map change - M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) 3. Lot-area and lot-width variances 4. Preliminary plat b. White Bear Avenue Corridor Study 7. Visitor Presentations Commission Presentations b. May 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler c. May 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller c. June 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina Staff Presentations 10. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MAY 15, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Present Jack Frost Present Matt Ledvina Present Paul Mueller Present Gary Pearson Present William Rossbach Present Milo Thompson Present Dale Trippler Present III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Frost moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Commissioner Rossbach requested the addition of 8.d. Mr. Seeber. This amendment was agreeable to Mr. Frost and Mr. Pearson. Ayes--all The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes. V. PUBLIC HEARING A. 2001--2005 Maplewood Capital Improvement Plan Ken Roberts spoke about the capital improvement plan. Ken Haider, the acting city manager, and Dan Faust, the finance director, primarily compiled the plan and were at the meeting to give a presentation and answer questions. There were technical difficulties and, therefore, they were unable to show a video about the plan. Commissioner Frost asked about the proposed projects in the Maplewood Heights area. Mr. Haider confirmed that both sides of McKnight Road and the streets south of Lydia in the Tilsen development are included in the project. Commissioner Rossbach thought the section on undeveloped land (pages 1-16) should be changed to read "in addition to commercial development in this area." He said the city was not necessarily looking at retail development in this area. Commissioner Rossbach questioned why the new bridge being proposed over Highway 36 at Hazelwood Street is thought to be a project which is in line with the land use plan. Ken Haider said the intent was to "connect the city again on a street that was an actual Maplewood street." Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-00 -2- He was "surprised there hasn't been more debate about this." Mr. Rossbach did not see this project as being consistent with the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of the 2001-2005 Capital Improvement Plan. Chairperson Fischer preferred waiting to see a video presentation of the plan. Commissioner Trippler felt the criteria for choosing the projects didn't seem clear. He remarked on the condition of English Street north of Frost Avenue, which is in poor condition but not included in the plan, as opposed to Hazelwood Street which is in relatively good condition and included in the plan. Mr. Haider explained that residents of the English Street neighborhood met with city staff last year. The consensus of those attending the meetings was that they wanted no improvement to the street. Mr. Haider contended that, unless he brings support from the neighborhood to the public hearing at the city council meeting, there is not a "whole lot of sense in me bringing up an improvement to the city council." Mr. Trippler said he lives a block and a half off English Street and did not get a notice. Mr. Haider replied that they contacted those people who were directly adjacent to English Street and would bear the brunt of the assessments for the project. Commissioner Rossbach was comfortable with the improvement plan but would like to see the video at some future time. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Dearborn Meadow (Castle Avenue): Comprehensive Plan Change--M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-2 (Single and Double Dwellings); Zoning Map Change-M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-2 (Single and Double Dwellings; Lot-Area and Lot-Width Variances; and Preliminary Plat Ken Roberts, associate planner, summarized the staff report. Commissioner Frost asked how the city ensures that the drainage plan, which the applicant submits, works as proposed. Ken Haider, city engineer, said many grading inspections are done to make sure the water goes where it is planned to go. However, the city does not "as built" the site where survey measurements are taken. Commissioner Trippler asked the city engineer to address specific aspects of the drainage plan. Mr. Haider explained that D.2.c.(3) was basically saying "when the developer of the Dearborn site establishes the sanitary sewer, they must run an extension to the east property line so that there is access for the property to the east--that undeveloped property." This property to the east is not owned by the City of Maplewood. Mr. Haider said the same applies for storm sewer as identified in a previous condition. He thought the information provided by the developer's engineer addressed the drainage issue, in the city's opinion, from a "qualitative perspective as opposed to a quantitative perspective." Mr. Haider said the city was not sure that all the areas and the analysis were exactly accurate but they are representative of the situation in this development. Mr. Haider explained that a significant area that now drains south and west through this site will be intercepted by the roadway that is proposed as part of this project. Everything east of the roadway will be picked up by a 27-inch storm sewer that this project will connect into. He said that "some of the back ends" of the proposed project will drain to the west and south as they currently do, but the area is "significantly decreased." Therefore, it is the city's opinion that the Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-00 -3- drainage situation will be improved. Before final engineering drawings are approved, the city will want more definitive information from the designer as to how "they came up with these things." Commissioner Trippler thought the driveways, on the house in the northwest corner, that lead out to Castle Street could be in a dangerous location because of limited visibility. The road drops off and curves. He felt it would be better to rotate this unit so that the drives exited to the road within the project. Mr. Roberts said the developer considered this but felt the unit would be getting too close to the wetland. He suggested that the community design review board require driveway turnarounds on this building so it wouldn't be necessary to back out onto Castle Avenue. Commissioner Thompson asked about the discrepancy in classifying the wetlands. Mr. Roberts did not know why it was called a Type II on the plans. He thought it could have been a Type II in a different criteria. Mr. Roberts said it is a Class V by Maplewood ordinance. Commissioner Rossbach asked what the rear yard setback would be in an R-2 zone as opposed to what would be required in an M-1. Mr. Roberts said, in an M-1 (depending on the wall size of the building), the setback would be at least 50 feet up to 100 feet if it is adjacent to residential. In the R-2, it is 20 percent of the lot depth of each townhouse. Mr. Rossbach said the problem he had with this plan is that he thought it "imposes too heavy of an aesthetic burden on the existing neighborhood in that these buildings are too close to the existing houses that are on Cope." He also noted that they sit uphill from the Cope Avenue houses so they will be "big and imposing." Mr. Rossbach referred to the large commercial building that was constructed on Cope Avenue, east of English Street. He felt that allowing this building to be built so close to single-family homes was an error. Mr. Rossbach emphasized that he had no objection to this development being R-2 and no objection if a bigger building was put on this lot. He summarized by saying this "was too big an imposition on the existing neighborhood." Commissioner Frost felt the only issue was that the intent was to have another street between Castle and Cope Avenues (which was vacated at some time). He was satisfied with the drainage issues. Commission Thompson complimented Bill Priebe of the Engineering Department. He said Mr. Priebe "knew every manhole, every catch basin" and he hoped the community appreciated his expertise. Mr. Rossbach rebutted Mr. Frost's comments about the vacated street. He said "we are not comparing where the street is now, we are comparing that it is currently M-1 and that will be under certain standards which would restrict the building's closeness to certain houses on Cope." Rich VanSickle, who worked with Mike Ackerman on this project, was present. He pointed out that they had been working with staff on the drainage and felt the commission was satisfied that the drainage will be improved when the project is built. Mr. VanSickle noted that having this density, which is less than would be allowed under R-2, satisfies some of the Met Council goals. He didn't think the project would be too appealing for families with children because of the single-level floor plans and association taking care of ground maintenance. There were no questions for the applicant. Charles Themmes, 1928 Castle Avenue, claimed that every project that has taken place in this neighborhood during his 40 years of residency has turned into a "nightmare." He contended that Ariel Street down was a "natural runoff" and shouldn't be interfered with. Mr. Themmes was also against this project because of the traffic situation on Castle Avenue. He said that, in spite of what the engineers say, the water cannot be made to run back up the hill and the result of this project will be drainage problems for the three houses near the nursing home. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-00 -4- Commissioner Thompson said there are two intakes to a storm sewer to alleviate some of the ponding problem. Mr. Themmes acknowledged that this does help somewhat when it is not plugged. Richard Oie, 1937 Cope Avenue East, was concerned that the setbacks on the back sides of the homes on the south end of the project were very close to the back of the houses facing Cope Avenue. He said headlights would shine on the homes to the east of his. Mr. Oie did not want a drainage way across his yard. The ground north of his property is about three feet higher than his basement floor. Mr. Oie said he has lived here for ten years and never had water in the basement until the two houses were built to the east of his residence. He maintained that the R-2 was put in as a buffer zone to go from R-1 to M-1. Since there is no longer M-l, Mr. Oie felt these homes should be single family. He said he would prefer M-1 zoning because a commercial facility would shut down for the weekend and evenings. Jim Oswald, 1948 Cope Avenue, questioned why ten units should be put on this site. He advocated single-family homes. Mr. Oswald also mentioned the increase in traffic from this many homes. Commissioner Thompson said that the 2.11 acres in this development would qualify for 7.65 single-family homes. Commissioner Rossbach pointed out that even though there was this much acreage, there was not street frontage so it would only be possible to put in four houses to front on Castle. Chairperson Fischer asked staff about attempts to control the water problems in this area. Mr. Haider said there was a drainage swale that came down through these back yards from Ariel Street. A storm sewer project with additional capacity was added after the nursing home was built. He claimed that years of flooding, septic systems and drainfields in this area caused the land to take a long time to dry out. Mr. Haider said it was thought that the city-owned lot on Cope Avenue, between 1937 and 1949, would be filled and sold at some time. Because the homes on both sides of this lot were built Iow, he now feels that this lot will remain vacant to receive localized drainage. Mr. Haider said an option at this time is to clean up this lot and create a sump with some stone or rock in an area in the lowest part of the lot. There would then be a convenient place to put a pump if it was needed. Mr. Haider also said the city would like to put in a little storm sewer pipe but this would require tearing up Cope Avenue which is a relatively new street. Commissioner Trippler observed that it looked like about four feet of elevation difference between the house on Cope and the elevations of the end of the proposed street. He asked what accommodations would be made to alleviate the problem of headlights. Mr. Roberts said the developed planned to install a six-foot-tall privacy fence along the south line of the site. Commissioner Ledvina thought the development seemed "just too packed in" and would not support the project. Commissioner Thompson asked if the developer would be agreeable to a time extension to work out some of these issues. Rich VanSickle said he was not authorized by the developer to agree to an extension. He also wasn't sure what issues some additional time would resolve. Commissioner Frost suggested voting on a motion, taking the proposal to the city council, and then the applicant could consider his options after that. Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission recommend: A. Approve the resolution which changes the land use plan for the Dearborn Meadow plat and two adjacent properties on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. This change is from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The city is making this change because: Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-00 Bo C° D° -5- 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. This area would eliminate the planned commercial area that would have been between two residential areas. 3. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for medium-density residential use. This includes: a. Creating a transitional land use between the existing Iow density residential and commercial land uses. b. It is on a collector street and is near an arterial street. c. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 4. It would be consistent with the proposed zoning and land uses. Approve the resolution which changes the zoning map for the Dearborn Meadow plat and two adjacent properties on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. This change is from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The reasons for this change are those required by the city code and because the owner plans to develop this part of the property for double dwellings. Approve the resolution which approves lot area and lot width variances for each lot in Dearborn Meadow. The city is approving these variances because: 1. There is an unusual hardship. A homeowners' association will own and maintain the land that the developer would normally use to meet the lot area and frontage requirements. 2. This variance would meet the intent of the ordinance since the project would meet the city's density requirement. 3. Maplewood has approved the same variance for the Holloway Pond Town House developments at Holloway Avenue and Beebe Road. Approve the Dearborn Meadow preliminary plat (received by the city on March 31, 2000). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no-parking signs. d. Provide all required and necessary easements (including ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). e. Cap and seal any wells on site. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-00 -6- Have NSP install a street light at the intersection of Castle Avenue and the proposed private driveway (Castle Place). The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. go Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer easement. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state that there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling, grading or dumping beyond this point. City staff shall approve the sign design and location before the contractor installs them. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues building permits in this plat. h. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall: (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Include contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Show housing pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. (4) Show the proposed street grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) Include the tree plan which: · Shows where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. · Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (6) Show drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the run off from the surrounding areas. The undeveloped parcel to the east of this site shall have unrestricted access to the storm sewer with a capacity to accommodate post development run off. c. The street and utility plans shall show the: (1) Water service to each lot and unit. (2) Repair of Castle Avenue (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveways. (3) Design of the sanitary sewer allowing for the unrestricted access to the sanitary sewer in the development from the undeveloped properties adjacent to the site Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-00 -7- (primarily to the east). 3. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. b. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. c. Label the private street as Castle Place and label Castle Street as Castle Avenue on all plans. d. Label the common area as Outlot A. e. Provide easements to allow for unrestricted access to the storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water main in the development from the undeveloped parcel to the east. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. 6. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 7. If necessary, obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 8. If the developer decides to final plat the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. 9.* Submitting the homeowner's association bylaws and rules to the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the private utilities, driveways and common areas. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Commissioner Mueller seconded. Chairperson Fischer chose to call for a separate vote on each request. She asked for a vote on the comprehensive plan change from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). Ayes--Fischer, Frost, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler, Thompson Nay--Rossbach Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-00 -8- Ms. Fischer asked for a vote on changing the zoning map from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). Ayes--Fischer, Frost, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler, Thompson Nay--Rossbach Ms. Fischer then called for a vote on the lot-area and lot-width variances. Ayes--Fischer, Frost, Ledvina, Muller, Pearson, Thompson Nays--Rossbach, Trippler A vote was taken on the preliminary plat. Ayes--Fischer, Frost, Mueller, Thompson Nays--Ledvina, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion failed. Commissioner Ledvina said his concerns were that the two southerly units would be "in conflict" with the existing houses and the buildings in the development were "too tightly laid out." Commissioner Pearson also thought it was "too intense a plan for the amount of area." In addition, he was concerned about the drainage. Commissioner Trippler thought "it was cramming too much in too small an area." Commissioner Rossbach said the majority of his concerns had been stated but he "agreed most" with Mr. Ledvina's thoughts. He said if it wasn't for the way the rear two buildings at the south end were located, he would not have as much problem with the proposal. Mr. Rossbach advocated combining units closer together so that there is more open space on the property and "a smaller footprint of buildings." B. White Bear Corridor Study Melinda Coleman, director of community development, referred to the final copy of the White Bear study that was included in the agenda packets. She asked the commission to look for possible implementation steps that can be drawn from the study and incorporated in the review process. Ms. Coleman identified six or seven elements of the study that she thought should be considered. She requested the commissioners to think about the possible use of banners, particularly in the mall area. Ms. Coleman thought gateways could be used in the vicinity of 1-694 and White Bear Avenue and at Highway 36 and White Bear. As an outcome of this study, Ms. Coleman said the city will be working with the property owner of the large parcel by the Maplewood Mall to prepare a request for proposal to "test the market" in an effort to determine what type of interest there is for development of this parcel. She asked the commission to consider whether neighborhood input should be solicited. Commissioner Frost noted that the area west of the Maplewood Mail, near Highway 61 at County Road D, needs to be considered further. Ken Haider, city engineer, suggested connecting the freeway off ramp to County Road D. He described this intersection. Mr. Haider said they envision merging the freeway ramps and County Road D together on either side of Highway 61 so that the ramp would come off on to County Road D and merge to create one intersection at Highway 61, then cross Highway 61 and diverge--one section of the road going Planning Commission Minutes of 05-15-00 -9- up to the ramp to enter 1-694 and the other go easterly to become County Road D again. At some point, Mr. Haider said the bridge would need to be replaced, hopefully with a pedestrian bridge. Commissioner Rossbach thought it was a good idea to look at signage to improve our ordinance. Mr. Rossbach and Ms. Coleman discussed the study done by the Maxfield Group that supported a blend of uses on the 80-acre site located northwest of the Maplewood Mall. Mr. Rossbach expressed a deep concern about the thought of additional development without another access route to the mall. Commissioner Thompson addressed signage and emphasized that "the southern portion has to get to where we are before they can go beyond that." There was additional discussion on transportation issues and signage. Based on the commission's discussion of the study, Ms. Coleman will compile a summary report of implementation ideas and bring it back to the commission for their review. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS A. May 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler reported on this meeting. B. May 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller will attend this meeting. C. June 12 Council Meeting; Mr. Ledvina will attend this meeting. Commissioner Rossbach asked about Commissioner Seeber's intent in regard to his service on the planning commission. Mr. Rossbach also stated that he once heard it was a commissioner's job to protect the public from staff when reviewing development requests. Something about commissioner's job to protect public from staff??????? IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS There were no staff presentations. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m.