Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/20/2001MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 20, 2001, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes a. February 5, 2001 o Unfinished Business None New Business a. Beaver Lake Townhomes (Maryland Avenue, Lakewood Drive to Sterling Street) 1. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Planned Unit Development (PUD) 2. Street Right-of-Way Vacations 3. Easement Vacations 4. Preliminary Plat b. Antenna and Tower Ordinance Amendment 7. Visitor Presentations o Commission Presentations a. February 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler b. February 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller c. March 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina Staff Presentations Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2001 I1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost Commissioner Matt Ledvina Commissioner Paul Mueller Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Eric Ahlness Commissioner Mary Dierich Staff Present: Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Absent Present Richard Fursman, City Manager Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Asst. Community Development Director Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Recording Secretary: Lori Hansen III. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Frost moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes-All The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 5, 2001 Commission Trippler moved approval of the minutes of February 5, 2001. Commissioner Rossbach seconded the motion. Ayes-5 (Fischer, Rossbach, Mueller, Trippler, Dierich) Abstention-3 (Frost, Ledvina, Pearson) The motion passed. Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 2-20-01 UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS Beaver Lake Townhomes (Maryland Avenue, Lakewood Drive to Sterling Street). Mr. Ken Roberts gave the staff report for the city. Mr. Tony Emmerich, of the AJE Company, is proposing to develop a 162 planned unit development called the Beaver Lake Town Homes. This is proposed for a 27-acre site on the south side of Maryland Avenue between Sterling and Lakewood Drive. To build this project, Mr. Emmerich made several requests of the city including: A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 162-unit housing development. The PUD is required because of the shoreland ordinance and its regulations. The proposal is to have a mix of housing with 42 single family detached townhomes and 120 rental units in 15 8-unit buildings. 2. Street right-of-way and easement vacations. These would be for the unused street right-of-way and easements on the site. 3. A preliminary plat to create the lots in the development. The applicant has not yet applied for design approval. If the city approves the above-listed request, then the applicant will apply to the city for final PUD approval and design approval (including architectural and landscape plans). There are numerous concerns with this proposal. They include: The Maplewood Open Space committee reviewed numerous sites in 1992 for possible purchase as part of the bond referendum. Although this site was ranked 5th out of the 66 sites reviewed, Maplewood has not included this site in its park or open space acquisition plans. In 1999, the city received a $100,000 matching grant from the Minnesota DNR Greenways Program. The purpose of the Metro Greenways is to project, connect, restore and manage a network of significant natural areas, parks and other open spaces interconnected by habitat corridors. The grant for this site is for the city to acquire part of this property as a natural greenway between Beaver Lake and the city pond to the south and west of the site and the wetland area north of Maryland Avenue. Mr. Al Singer, the Metro Greenways Coordinator, stated that the "proposed site plan, with the apparently stated intention by the land owner of not wanting to provide public access, would no longer meet our program criteria and objectives. If the plan as submitted is not substantially altered, Metro Greenways funding would no longer be available for this project." Mr. Bruce Anderson, Maplewood Parks and Recreation Director, reviewed the proposed plans. He expressed his concerns with the plan and its possible negative impacts on the stream and as well as preserving the pine grove on the property. Jean Moulle, The Urban Best Management Practices Coordinator of the DNR, also expressed several concerns about the proposed development. He stated "the stand of pines near the stream provides significant ecological benefits to the watershed district including the wildlife habitat corridor and water quality as well as social benefits including recreational opportunities such as trail and open space benefits to future residents. Preserving the pine stand as open space will add significant real estate values to the subdivision". Planning Commission Minutes of 2-20-01 -3- The city ordinance states there should be no intensive vegetation clearing on steep slopes. This is defined as the complete removal of trees or shrubs in a specific patch, strip, row or block. A slope is any land having a slope of more than 12% measured in a horizontal distance of at least 50 feet. There are several areas that fall into this distinction along the stream corridor. One site plan concern noted by Ramsey County was the area along Maryland Avenue that has eight proposed driveways. Maryland is a county road, and the county prefers that there be only one or two driveways coming out to Maryland Avenue. There are existing easements and right-of-ways on the site. Mr. Emmerich has asked the city to vacate all the unused street right-of-ways and easements within the project area. However, for the city to vacate a right-of-way or easement, the council must find that there is no public interest in keeping the right-of-way or easement. Mr. Cliff Aichinger of the watershed district has done a preliminary review of the proposed project and noted several major concerns. The proposed grading plan shows grading infringing on the buffer areas to the creek and has areas of potential significant erosion that would affect the creek. Also, he noted concerns with water quality and environmental issues. Because of all the numerous concerns from the various agencies outlined in the report, staff is recommending denial of the proposal. Mr. Trippler asked staff what the meaning of the $100,000 grant was and if the developer has expressed a willingness to work with the city on preserving a portion of the site. Mr. Roberts responded in saying the $100,000 would have to be returned if the city is not able to purchase a portion of the site. He also noted the applicant has not spoken to any of the staff about this, and this would be a good question for the applicant. Mr. Frost clarified that at least 100 feet on each side of the stream was needed for this Metro Greenways project. Mr. Ledvina asked the staff when reviewing the site and grading plan if they felt the altering of the steep slopes would require a variance to the shoreland ordinance. Mr. Roberts stated if the proposal was approved as submitted, that would indeed be the case. Mr. Roger Larson, Midwest Land Surveyors and Civil Engineers, Inc. from Anoka, Minnesota, was present for the applicant. He stated they received the staff report on the 16th of February, and have just been able to respond with a three page rebuttal (which he distributed). Mr. Larson referred to the staff report that indicated there are four areas where there is proposed grading within the stream buffer. The grading proposed were four narrow strips in different areas. They have looked at the use of retaining walls to stay out of the buffer area, along with minimum grading that could be covered with shrubs and trees rather than a man-made retaining wall. There are also areas where a steep slope was discussed. When the applicant looked closely at the shoreland zoning ordinance, the steep slope areas refer specifically to areas that are adjacent to public waters. Public waters defined as Beaver Lake, but Beaver Creek is not defined as a public water. The way the ordinance is written, those steep slopes are to be reviewed by the city engineer and erosion control methods applied. The definition to the intensive vegetation rule with regard to the steep slope areas, as interpreted by Mr. Larson, was concerned mainly with tree and shrub removal. This removal would be in straight line corridors that would open up an unobstructed view away from the lake. Some of these steep slopes were man made and are green areas. He stated the stream corridor has been significantly altered in the past already. He also stated the mowing along the gas pipeline has been quite wide and felt it could be narrowed in the future. Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 2-20-01 The developer has a concern with the pine trees in that they were never properly maintained after they were planted. He noted that the exterior trees are very short of branches on the inside. The interior trees are quite stunted with a high canopy and the tops of the trees are quite small. The developers are afraid those interior trees will begin to die out, and they will be responsible for the maintenance when problems begin in 10 to 20 years. The applicant disagrees with the statement about the development changing the character of the surrounding area. Mr. Larson stated the surrounding area is multifamily residences, a mobile home park, single family residences and quad homes. They feel their development will not be a substantial change in the character of the area and that it would fit right in. Recommendation A.3, the applicant feels, would only apply during the shod term construction period and feel the comment is completely out of context. The applicant agrees that the 162 units of residential housing could cause increased traffic. They state there are currently eight curb cuts on Maryland Avenue and no additional driveways are being proposed. The developer feels the townhomes provide a buffer along the stream so you do not have large apartment units next to the stream. They feel this is an esthetic buffer to the steam corridor. Mr. Larson also stated the developers are willing to negotiate and work with the city in regard to the stream corridor either as a park dedication plus purchasing additional land. If the city wishes it, the whole corridor is about 4.8 acres. The developers have major concerns with the trail situation. They feel the single family home owners would not appreciate public access within 20 feet of their back door day or night. Mr. Trippler asked the applicant what definition he was using for public waters. The applicant is using the definition from the city ordinance, and Beaver Creek is not listed as a public water. It is not listed as a DNR protected water or wetland either. Mr. Rossbach felt some of the comments made by Mr. Larson were irrelevant to the issue and without thought to the wildlife. He pointed out the city wants to find a compromise that is workable for both wildlife and humans. He felt the proposal was going to come down to how many people can live within the proposed development area and still protect the wildlife area. There are not eight driveways, as stated by the applicant, but eight curbcuts as clarified by Commissioner Pearson. Mr. Pearson also noted the numerous attempts that have been made by the Maplewood Police Department to slow down traffic in that area. Less than two years ago a child was hit by a car and killed crossing Maryland Avenue due to the sun being blinding at times during the day. He feels it is a hazardous area currently without the addition of 162 more vehicles using that road. Mr. Mueller was concerned there is not a child play area included in the development plans. He was also hoping this development would be part of the future trail system. If the concern is having a trail outside the residents back door, the solution may be to move the back door farther away from the trail. Alan Singer, 49 O'day Street, Maplewood, was present. Mr. Singer is the coordinator of the Metro Greenways project of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Metro Greenways is a regional initiative to create a network of parks natural areas interconnected by habitat corridors throughout the seven county metropolitan areas. Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 2-20-01 Mr. Singer explained if the corridor is going to remain in private hands, that would not agree with the intention of Metro Greenways, and they would have to withdraw the $100,000 they were going to bring to the project. Mr. Frost asked how wide the corridor needed to be on each side of Beaver Creek and what type of wildlife they expected to habitat that area. Mr. Singer stated the corridors, he felt, would need to be 250-300 feet wide, especially if there is going to be a trail included. The type of wildlife inhabiting the corridor is the typical suburban wildlife. Potentially, white tail deer, opossum, squirrel and migratory birds. Mr. Trippler asked how the wildlife cross Maryland Avenue to get to Beaver Lake. Mr. Singer explained the mammals have to take their own chance as they cross the roadway but that critters are amazingly adaptable. Commissioner Pearson noted deer and wildlife cross Century Avenue near the priory and follow the emergency access road to Maryland Avenue to the group of pines on the corner of Sterling. In twenty years, he has never seen a deer hit on Maryland Avenue. Metro Greenways is working with projects in the City of Hastings along the Vermillion River, in Dayton along the Mississippi River, and Browns Creek in Stillwater. Mr. Frost concurred with Mr. Rossbach that there should be a workable solution between the developer and the city in that there should be give and take. For that to occur he feels the commission should go along with the staffs recommendation and deny the request for the conditional use permit. That would then force the city and developer to sit down again to find a workable solution. He then felt a "win win" situation could occur. Mr. Frost moved the board recommend the denial of the proposed conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Beaver Lake Town home development. This development would be on the south side of Maryland Avenue between Sterling Street and Lakewood Drive. The city is denying this request because: 1. The proposed use would not be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. This is because: (a) The proposed development plan is not consistent with the adopted Maplewood Parks Plan since the developer is not proposing to build the part of a city-planned trail that would be within his project site. (b) The proposed grading plan shows grading in several parts of the required 50-foot-wide no disturb buffer areas. These areas are near the rear of proposed buildings 4-8, 22-25, 29- 33, 37 and 44. The city does not allow grading or ground disturbance in the required buffer areas. (c) Several existing areas on the site with steep slopes. These are next to or in the areas where the developer has proposed buildings 4-9, 11-14, 23-24, 28-36, 37-42 and 44. These are all areas on the site that the shoreland code prohibits intensive vegetation clearing. As such, the applicant would need to revise the project plans to ensure that they will not be doing any intensive vegetation clearing on the steep slopes. This also means that grading cannot occur in these areas as that would remove the vegetation. (d) The proposed plans do not meet all the Maplewood Shoreland Ordinance requirements, especially about the removal of vegetation from the site. The proposed use would involve activities, processes, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. Planning Commission -6- Minutes of 2-20-01 The proposed use could create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing streets. The proposed driveway design would have eight driveways going onto Maryland Avenue. Ramsey County prefers to have only one or two driveways onto their road instead of the eight that the developer has proposed. This design change would be to minimize the number of potential conflict points with the traffic on the county road. The proposed use would not maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. The proposed development does not take into consideration the ecological sensitivity of the creek and the abutting vegetation. The pine grove on the property (near the south side of the stream corridor that proposed buildings 26-36 would encroach into) is a significant amenity to the landscape as they are critical for water quality but also for their visual/aesthetic value. The pine stand near the stream provides significant ecological benefits to the watershed district including the wildlife habitat corridor and water quality as well as social benefits including recreational opportunities such as trail and open space benefits to future residents. Preserving the pine stand as open space would add significant real estate values to the subdivision. The proposed development would require the removal of the existing conifers (pine trees) and other plant material on the site. This, along with the damage due to construction equipment, soil compaction and slope alteration, would further degrade the aesthetic and ecological value of the corridor. 5. The proposed use would cause adverse environmental effects. The proposed grading plan has areas of potential significant erosion that would affect the creek and wetlands. Deny the request to vacate parts of the unused Magnolia Avenue and Sterling Street lying west of Lakewood Drive and south of Maryland Avenue in the proposed Beaver Lake Townhomes PUD. The city is denying this request because: 1. The city is denying the proposed PUD and proposed project plans. 2. It is not in the public interest to vacate these right-of-ways since the city is not approving a project for this site. Deny the request to vacate unused drainage and utility easements lying east of Lakewood Drive, west of Sterling Street and south of Maryland Avenue in the proposed Beaver Lake Townhomes PUD. The city is denying this request because: 1. The city is denying the proposed PUD and proposed project plans. 2. It is not in the public interest to vacate these easements since the city is not approving a project for this site. Deny the proposed Beaver Lake Townhomes preliminary plat (received by the city on January 18, 2001). The city is denying this proposed preliminary plat because the city is denying the proposed planned unit development and the proposed street and easement vacations. Mr. Pearson seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. This proposal will go before the city council on March 12. Planning Commission -7- Minutes of 2-20-01 B. Antenna and Tower Ordinance Amendment. Mr. Roberts gave the staff report for the city. Several proposed changes were made to the existing tower and antenna ordinance that was adopted by the city in 1997. The revisions were brought to the commission due to a request by the commission. The intention was to strengthen and clarify the ordinance, especially in the area of co-location and added setback and design standards. Four of the most recent applicants were notified of the proposed changes and the city has received feedback from those companies. Staff also studied six other city antenna and tower ordinances. This is a first draft attempt to address commission and city council concerns. Mr. Trippler asked what the purpose was to limit the location of the tower from a residence and not include a business. Staff agreed business should be added to this statement in the ordinance. Item 9 allows the council and community design review board to approve three or more identical antennas on a tower. Staff clarified for Mr. Trippler that under variances, "undue hardship" is defined by legal practice, not by the city code. Mr. Rossbach was pleased the statement was added to the ordinance that the city may require the applicant to hire or pay for a study or other research by a qualified radio frequency engineer to determine the need for the proposed tower. At times it's difficult when the person representing the applicant does not have the information needed to answer the commission's questions. Mr. Ledvina asked if the city is making any progress in developing a comprehensive plan for locating the towers and accommodating the carriers. Staff responded in saying they were unsuccessful at getting the carriers together and this proposed ordinance is their alternative plan. Mr. Mueller asked if there was a way to encourage a taller tower from the start. Staff stated if they approve 100 feet from the start but they build for 75 feet, they can add on with only a building permit needed. Mr. Jim McGreevy, representing Voice Stream, was present to express a few concerns with the proposed ordinance. He felt the ordinance should be changed slightly for the city council to review case by case the site location for each tower. In some instances it may be advantageous to the city and the applicant to place a second tower on a piece of property. In a providers' view point, there is no difference esthetically from a 75-foot to a 100-foot tower. Voice Stream has not yet had a tower fail or collapse. The towers installed in this area are made to progressively fall onto themselves. A practical problem for applicants is that providers feel coverage areas are proprietary information. Mr. McGreevy's understanding of the ordinance was when a tower applicant comes forward they would need to provide coverage maps for all existing towers within a mile, including towers that are not owned by that applicant. Voice Stream does not feel that information would be available in many instances. Mr. Rossbach stated that it is virtually impossible to get coverage information from any of the providers. Therefore, the city's only recourse is to come back and try to redefine the ordinance to obtain the information the city needs. As a group, Mr. Rossbach does not feel as though the providers communicate with each other. He feels if the companies would only talk to each other they would save themselves a lot of money and make the cities life a whole lot easier. Planning Commission -8- Minutes of 2-20-01 Mr. McGreevy responded in saying whether it was in the ordinance or not, the city could require each applicant to provide coverage information. But to require an applicant to provide coverage information for another provider would be difficult. Mr. Mueller did not understand why it would make any difference if one wireless provider knew the coverage area of another. Mr. McGreevy stated there have been plenty of instances where companies have claimed the information was proprietary and a trade secret. This information is helpful to their business. Whether it would hold up in court, he did not know. Often times, the cooperation between providers is not in evidence to city employees. The first thing Voice Stream Minneapolis is going to do when they look around for another site is to try to locate another tower they can put an antenna on. "It costs money to build towers" stated Mr. McGreevy. Mr. Frost asked if the city requires conditional use permits for all towers, can they require all applicants to provide a coverage map. Staff stated there are ways that the industry can give the city their coverage information, while at the same time, protecting their proprietary interests. Mr. Trippler noted that with the State of Minnesota, if someone claims proprietary information, he cannot provide that because the minute they hand him the information, it becomes public information. Mr. Frost recommended that the commissioner table the ordinance until staff has time to look at the response from the applicants, make changes and bring it back to the commission. Mr. Ledvina asked why the commission has abandoned developing their own plan for locating these towers. They talked about that as a commission several months ago, and at that time, thought that was a good approach to the problem. If staff was unable to get carriers together in a room, he felt they needed to take the next step and get some professional assistance in developing a plan. Mr. Roberts responded in saying it was a matter of money and priorities. He did not feel the city council has felt it was a high priority, or if they were in a position to fund consultants on behalf of the city. Mr. Rossbach felt because of the continually changing industry, the city may be spending a lot of money to hire outside guidance to create an ordinance that in the near future was useless. He viewed it as the cost versus value equation. Commissioner Rossbach seconded Mr. Frost's motion to table the ordinance. Ayes-All Motion carries. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors were present. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS February 12, 2001, City Council Meeting. Mr. Trippler attended and gave his report. The lot split proposal for Mr. Callahan was approved. A number of citizens did attend concerned with an individual who filled in the wetland, and got fined $2,000 but had made $10,000 on it. The used car lot on Rice and Roselawn was denied due to the applicant not showing up. B. Mr. Mueller will be attending the February 26 City Council Meeting. C. Mr. Ledvina will be attending the March 12 City Council Meeting. Planning Commission Minutes of 2-20-01 -9- IX. Mr. Mueller noted the used car lot on the north side of Rice and Roselawn has cars parked right up to the stoplight, the bench to sit on to catch the bus and right up on Roselawn and Rice. It makes it very hard to see to make a turn. Staff would check and see if the parking situation was a violation of their permit. Ms. Fischer asked about pipeline maintenance in the no disturb zone. Mr. Roberts noted that the city has no jurisdiction. Pipelines and their maintenance are governed by federal law. Mr. Frost asked if staff was aware of what was going on with the Pep Boys property. Staff noted that the property looks for sale. He highly doubts that they are going to build. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:17p.m.