Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/17/2001MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, December 17, 2001, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. November 19, 2001 5. Public Headng a. Carefree Villas (Gervais Avenue) (1) Land Use Plan Change (R-1 to R-3H) (2) Conditional Use Permit (3) Lot Division 6. Unfinished Business a. ISTS (Individual Sewage Treatment Systems) (1) Water Resoumes Management Plan (2) Code Amendment 7. New Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. November 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Roberts b. December 10 Council Meeting: ?? (was to be Mr. Mueller) c. December 17 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina d. January 14 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2001 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Staff Present: Eric Ahlness Present Mary Dierich Absent Lorraine Fischer Present Jack Frost Present Matt Ledvina Present Paul Mueller Present Gary Pearson Present William Rossbach Present Dale Trippler Present III. APPROVAL OFAGENDA Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Mr. Roberts added an item for staff presentations regarding planning commission terms. Commissioner Frost moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes- Ahlness, Fischer, Frost, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes for November 19, 2001. Commissioner Ledvina had a question about page 4 in the bottom paragraph regarding Hailers Woods, but Commissioner Dierich was not present to explain exactly what she meant by that statement. Chairperson Fischer would like to make changes to page 4, the third paragraph from the bottom of the page, remove Chairperson Fischer asked about the procedure. The second sentence should read To meet the specifications today, what would be the procedure? Another change is on page 9, in the first sentence, change the word utilize to mean. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -2- Commissioner Frost moved to approve the minutes of November 19, 2001, with the changes as noted. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Ahlness, Fischer, Frost, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Abstentions - Ledvina, Mueller V. PUBLIC HEARING Carefree Cottages Villas (Phase IV) Behind 1733 Gervais Avenue Mr. Roberts said that Bruce Mogren, representing the Carefree Cottages Villas, is proposing to build 12 units of senior housing and 2 single dwellings. He is proposing to build this project on the north side of Gervais Avenue between the Carefree Cottages of Maplewood and the property at 1733 Gervais Avenue. The development would have two areas. As shown on the proposed site plan, there would be two one-story buildings with a total of 12 town home units north of Gervais Avenue, next to the driveway for the existing Carefree Cottages. The other part of the project would be along Gervais Avenue and would include 3 single dwellings (the existing house at 1733 Gervais and 2 new houses on either side of the existing house). The 15 total units would be on a 1.9-acre site for an average of 7.9 units per acre. The site would have 12 open parking spaces - one in front of each garage stall. (The proposed plan does not show any guest parking spaces). The buildings would have exteriors of vinyl horizontal-lap siding, gray asphalt shingles and vinyl trim and fascia boards. To build the development, Mr. Mogren is requesting that the city approve the following: 1. A change in the city's land use plan. This change would be from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3H (residential high density) for the 12 town house units. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 15-unit housing development. This PUD would have 12 units of rental senior housing and three single dwellings. The applicant is requesting the CUP because the proposed development has a mix of housing types, lot sizes and densities. In addition, having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard zoning requirements would normally allow. For example, the new proposed lots on Gervais Avenue would be 9,375 and 9,384 square feet in area. 3. A lot division to divide the property into four lots - 3 lots for the single dwellings along Gervais Avenue and one lot for the 12 townhouse units. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -3- Item D. on page 7 of the staff report was a Community Design Review issue that was done atthe meeting December 11,2001. Mr. Roberts said there is a typo on page 6 item C. 3. b. removing the * from item b. Mrs. Fenton of 1725 Gervais Avenue called Mr. Roberts today and said she was unable to attend the meeting but wanted Mr. Roberts to relay to members that she is very supportive of the project and would like to see it go forward. Mr. Roberts said one recommendation from Mr. Ahl, the public works director, is that the developer extend the sidewalk that was built with the earlier phases of the cottages to the west along Gervais Avenue as part of this project. It is staffs opinion that the city council is going to be looking into more detail regarding the opportunity for developers to build sidewalks for people to use as a means of transportation whenever possible. Mr. Roberts said the developer, Mr. Bruce Mogren, has some concerns regarding the sidewalk issue and that will need some discussion. Mr. Roberts said this item did go to the Community Design Review Board December 11,2001. The members did have several concerns with the proposal, one that needs to be worked out is the property line of the garages and the setbacks and the building code. In this case the garages should be setback three feet. Commissioner Trippler asked staff in the recommendations on page 5 item B. 3., it talks about the city defines senior housing as being for persons that are 62 years of age or older. In the applicant's presentation he talks about persons over 55 for this development. Will there be a problem with this? If in fact it is a senior housing development and there is age restriction, how does the city get involved with finding out if people are of the appropriate age or not? Mr. Roberts said the city has required from some developments that annual reports be filed with the city showing the ages of the tenants and the city would get a copy of this which is one way to review that. As far as the age of senior housing being 55 or 62, the city has had senior housing developments with 55-age minimum and some with 62-age minimum. He believes if you go to the age 55 there are some different rules that come into play with HUD and fair housing law verses age 62. What ever works with the developer is probably fine with the city but the city and the developer should be consistent. Mr. Bruce Mogren could probably speak more about this issue. Commissioner Trippler asked if the city gets a report from a housing unit and there are people that are under age 55 or under age 62, then what does the city do? Mr. Roberts said fortunately the city has never had that happen. But if it did happen the city would have to contact the management and see why it happened and try to get the problem resolved as quickly as possible or bring the conditional use permit back into the council for a review. Mr. Bruce Mogren did give Mr. Roberts a slightly revised plan with changes to show additional parking spaces. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -4- Commissioner Frost asked Mr. Ahl regarding reviewing the initial project they did talk about sidewalks from that development to Flandrau. They ended up stopping short of the three single- family lots. One of the issues was a large tree in front of the existing single-family house. Because the lot is so small, would you move the tree in front of their window to put this sidewalk in or cut the tree down? He is not sure you can get a six-foot sidewalk in and still meet the requirements. Mr. Ahl said his opinion is that the city can make it work, if necessary they may not have to make it a full six-foot sidewalk in some areas. He feels it is necessary to provide a facility to make sure the pedestrians are not out on this roadway. He feels the road has enough traffic that this should be provided for the pedestrians and the traffic will increase if these units are built causing more need for the sidewalk to be there. Commissioner Ahlness asked what is the legal justification for having garages come directly up to the property line? Mr. Roberts said the term in the past that has been used is called zero lot line. For example, if you have a duplex, you have a property line down the middle between two units, there's wall against wall and there is a property line down the center of that. In speaking to the building official David Fisher, he wasn't sure that could be done along the garage wall because there is an opening there and that wall moves with the garage door going up and down. So the way to possibly resolve that is to do a lot division so the lot line is moved up three or five feet away from the units and the development parcel becomes a little larger, the existing cottages site becomes a little smaller by transferring that strip of land to this development site. It doesn't change the look of it, it simply moves a line on paper. The intent of the building code is that you don't want building next to building with openings and have a fire spread from building to building. In this case with having the driveway there they know it is going to stay, but you still need to meet the technical needs of the building code. By moving the property line, that may be one way to resolve this issue. Commissioner Ahlness said it would also be true at this point, as it is drawn, the construction is too large for the lot because it does not meet the setback requirements. It requires a change in property line for it to meet the standards. Mr. Roberts said yes, although through the PUD process the city could approve the site plan if they think it is a good fit and wave the normal setback requirements. The proposed plan is meeting the 50-foot setback requirement on the west that is the minimum code requirement for a multiple family building from residential. It is the internal property lines with the buildings that are becoming a difficult challenge. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if this property would be in one-ownership right now then these would not be problems? If you combined the property into one site the problems would disappear?. Mr. Roberts said correct. Because it has been under separate ownership and now Mr. Mogren has assembled it there are existing-property lines to deal with. Commissioner Ahlness asked staff about the parking spaces, some of the issues have been answered, but how much green space does that actually leave around the properties once you Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -5- add in the six or eight additional parking spaces? Mr. Roberts said it does reduce the green space some. On the western edge the plan does leave a fairly green area even though it is shown with landscaping and trees. This green space is really no different than the cottages that are already built and occupied as far as the green space verses the number of buildings on the site. It is in character with what is already there. Commissioner Trippler said the one thing that was an issue for him was the parking. When he drove back in that area a lot of the existing cottages have two garages which allows for an additional parking spot and they have adequate spots available behind the garage before you get to the street so if they had company come they would at least be able to park their vehicles on the driveway and off the street. The streets are extremely narrow and you would basically have to pull up onto someone's yard to park to make room for a car to get down the street. Particularly for the eight unit development there just isn't enough space south of where the garages are on the four units to the south unless they park their car diagonally across two garages. He feels real uncomfortable saying go ahead and build this development and if the city finds out that there is inadequate parking something will be worked out to find more parking space. There just isn't enough space for parking. In the new plan where the architect squeezed a few more parking spaces in here and there that may alleviate some of the problem. However, this is senior citizen housing and he uses his parents as a good example, if his father had to walk 30 or 40 feet to get to someone's house, he probably could not go visit them. So, unless you have parking that is very near the door, that is why there is handicap parking near the door and not in the back lot, even if you provide some additional parking spaces hero and there that would not be adequate. Commissioner Trippler asked what the developer had in mind if the parking was inadequate to needed to find adequate space? Mr. Roberts said what staff was looking for is exactly what Mr. Mogren provided here with the additional parking spaces in this new revised plan. He agrees that there is not a lot of room for parking and that was a concern of staff as well. This new plan adds eight new parking spaces to the site, four areas with two parking spaces each. It was staff's and the developer's intent to have enough room between the garage and the road to allow a car to park. He believes the parking spots are 18-to-20 feet long in front of every garage door on the south side. On the north side it is about 22 feet. Commissioner Rossbach asked if there is any roason that these would not be exactly the same as the other cottages, are they not owned by the same people? Why wouldn't we take this new area and make it part of the cottages? Mr. Roberts said he would have to defer that question to Mr. Mogren to answer. Commissioner Mueller asked who owns the cottages to the north? Mr. Roberts said Mr. Mogren is a partner in those cottages, but they are not the same partners in this development. Commissioner Mueller asked if it is a matter of conversation with Mr. Mogren and these other partners to determine the property line matter or would this be a significant issue? Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -6- Mr. Roberts said that would be a question for Mr. Mogren. Commissioner Ledvina asked what the purpose was for placing the orange fencing around an entire property? Mr. Ahl said it is used to restrict the area that is disturbed so the fence keeps the contractor doing exactly what your plans say. If you get the fence established it makes sure somebody doesn't get carried away in doing more grading and it makes the construction plan equal the plans. Commissioner Ledvina asked if this is something new that is being done now? Mr. Ahl said it is relatively new in the industry in the past five years. Commissioner Mueller asked about the south side of the driveway is far south as it can actually be placed according to the property line of the homes down below? Mr. Roberts said the gap between the driveway and the property line is for screening and landscaping to provide a separation of properties. Commissioner Trippler said on page 6 on item B. 8., does this pertain just to the three single- family dwellings or does it pertain to the three pieces of property that they sit on? Because he noticed in the plan unit development the rain holding basin has a tail that extends across the property of 1733 Gervais. If it is stated that they are excluded from any review or conditions would that possibly cause a problem in the installation of the storage retention pond if they decide they don't want it there? Mr. Roberts said the intent for number 8 was if the plan does go ahead and there are two new single-family homes there and somebody wants to put a deck on or an addition that they do not have to get an amendment to the PUD to be allowed to add on. The rain water garden and the drainage areas and all going to be covered by drainage and utility easements which gives the city some review and control of what happens in those easements. So if people start changing approved plans within those easement areas they would be allowed to do so and would need city approval to do that. So in both ways the city has it covered and he would not foresee a problem. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant address the commission. Mr. Bruce Mogren, of Mogren Development Company addressed the commission. Mr. Mogren said regarding the age 55 for senior housing, you can restrict the age level for senior citizen housing but the lowest age level you can have is 55 years old. He currently has 248 units of senior housing and he would not want to jeopardize his federal standing on any of those existing units so they are very careful to check that. That is federally regulated. He would like to recommend that he could still comply with federal law but drop the age restriction from 62 to 55 years of age for his residents. He would have to verify but he believes his second project age restriction is 55 years of age. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -7- Mr. Mogren said regarding the onsite parking, he met with the architect to add eight additional parking spaces. Most of the time he has found they don't have issues with parking. Occasionally people have birthday parties or special events then they do need some additional parking but otherwise it hasn't been a problem. Mr. Mogren said he would disagree with Mr. Ahl regarding the sidewalks. In.walking the development in the early 1990's that sidewalk issue came up then as well. At that time it was determined he is not sure how sidewalks could be added without taking down three or four decent sized trees. There is also some significant grade changes there between the driveway of the existing home and the lot to the east. Also, when Gervais Avenue was expanded it made the front yards smaller, and if you introduce a six-foot sidewalk into a restricted front yard you will have it right up to the front door. He has a very hard time envisionir,,g putting a sidewalk in that location. He did speak to Mrs. Fenton at 1725 Gervais Avenue and she did not want the sidewalk to be put in all the way through because she has some large trees in her front yard. When you weigh the situation, where does the sidewalk go? Gervais Avenue is four lanes right now. Mr. Mogren said in his opinion when you weigh the cost of the trees and the grade change the disadvantages outweigh the advantages of putting a sidewalk in. As far as the property lines go, Mr. Mogren owns the property for the cottages along with two other partners and he and his family own 80% of the cottages. He would appreciate it if he did not have to move the property lines because of the different financing they have for the development to the north and to the east. It becomes more difficult with lenders to work with changes to the property lines. They have financing with Freddie Mac for 15 years and there is 7 more years before it expires. At the end of 15 years then he is sure they will be refinancing that at that point and time they would be paying it off. If they did a realignment of lot lines he would prefer to do it at that time. Mr. Mogren said he would not mind moving the pine trees onto the back of one of the single- family lots to produce more screening. If the pine trees were to be put on the side of the lot they probably would be destroyed or disrupted in the building process. Commissioner Frost asked Mr. Mogren since he owns the three single family residential lots couldn't you move the lot lines to equal out the size of the lots? Mr. Mogren said if he moved the trees onto the back part of the lot that would make the lot size even smaller, if a person likes trees they won't mind the smaller size for privacy. Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Mogren if the lots are less than 10,000 square feet? Mr. Mogren said yes. Commissioner Rossbach asked how much smaller than 10,000.square feet? Mr. Mogren said you would have to ask Mr. Roberts. Mr. Roberts said on page 19 of the staff report, one lot is 9,375 square feet and the other is 9,384 square feet. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -8- Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Mogren if the existing house on one lot and it would be subdivided to create the other two lots? Mr. Mogren said that is correct. Commissioner Rossbach asked why was it chosen to make the lots less than 10,000 square feet which is the minimum lot size? Mr. Mogren said this is the way the engineers laid it out and to accomplish what they wanted and they are applying for under a PUD. Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Mogren if these lots are to be sold off individually? Mr. Mogren said yes eventually. Commissioner Rossbach asked why would you want to intentionally set up lots that less than 10,000 square feet which is the minimum requirement? Mr. Mogren said in the past when did that over on Lydia Avenue. Commissioner Rossbach said yes but those were R-1S they were designed to be small. None of the adjoining single family residential homes in that area are that way. He finds that to be a big stumbling block that you are creating individual house sites that are less than the city's minimum size whether it is a PUD or not. PUD allows the mixture of the two together. He has a 10,000 square foot lot right next to his and it is a postage stamp. Their backyard is no more than 20 feet wide and it adjoins his backyard, so basically they are in his backyard. He finds it a real problem having these tiny lots. Chairperson Fischer said a tiny lot depends on the zone and the density. If you are on a R-M density when you have those smaller lots they are quite acceptable in that zone. Commissioner Rossbach asked if these lots are in R-1 correct? Mr. Mogren said yes. Commissioner Mueller said right now in looking at this plan it is one big lot. Your engineers have decided to divide it up parcel a, b, c, d. Because parcel c has the largest square feet couldn't you move some square footage over onto parcel b and parcel d to even it out better? It seems kind of arbitrary how the lines are drawn out. Couldn't you make some changes to make it closer to the minimum 10,000 square feet for all three lots? Mr. Mogren said part of the problem is the anticipation of the garage on the existing home. The garage is rough and it is there while it is a rental property but once it is not rental property a garage will be added. To answer Mr. Rossbach's question this is zoned as R-1 at this point. This will blend in nice. If it was single family lots being built instead of carefree villas on this site you would have houses a lot closer than this being within 10 feet of their backyards. With this plan with the villas there is a 50-foot setback allowing more privacy for the residential homes. With a PUD this allows more flexibility with these kinds of things. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -9- Commissioner Rossbach said he is not following the point Mr. Mogren is trying to make with the 10-foot setback he is referring to. Mr. Roberts said he believes what Mr. Mogren is trying to say is instead of more town homes coming off the driveway and the cottages as an alternative if there were single family homes fronting on the private driveway then the setback is only 10 feet verses the 50-feet setback on a multiple family home. Commissioner Trippler said he did not understand that the planning commission was approving parcel a,b,c, and d. Where does that show up in the report? What if the commission disallowed the three individual single-family lots? Can the commission just approve the PUD for the cottages? Mr. Roberts said the commission could make that a recommendation. On page 6, item C, that talks about the lot split which is diagramed on page 19. In the proposal on the front page of the staff report the items are outlined as well. The commission could recommend approval of the 12 units for the cottages and not the three lots if you chose to. Does this seem to fit in this area, if it doesn't than staff would not recommend approval. If the commission is comfortable with the proposal then lets move it forward. Chairperson Fischer asked staff that under administrative powers on a rare occasion you may have a lot that is under 10,000 square feet, and you can administratively make a decision on that lot size, what is the margin of leeway in a situation like this? Mr. Roberts said there is a process for administrative variance approvals for up to 5% of lot area. Which in this case is a minimum 9,500 square feet, and that involves notifying immediate property owners. Staff gives the neighbors a couple of chances to comment and raise any concerns. If they don't and it looks reasonable, then the city staff can approve it. Commissioner Frost said if you look at the three lots, if you look at the total acreage it is 30,000 square feet plus. The average is 10,000 square feet that makes it fairly close. Commissioner Mueller said he feels uncomfortable going with parcel b and d as it is just because there is a proposed garage that they hope to put on parcel c. It is 11,000 square feet and all you have to do is change the property lines. Mr. Roberts said in defense of Mr. Mogren, on page 21 of the staff report it shows the proposed grading plan and the location of the proposed garage. There is some rationale as to why the property lines are where they are because of the location of where the garage would fit in. Commissioner Trippler said in order to get parcel b. to 10,000 square feet you would have to move the property line west five feet. If you did move it five feet and you didn't move the location of the future garage and you did not make it any smaller, you would not be able to put the garage in there anyway because it would be within five feet of the property line. You could put the garage in a different location maybe putting it back behind the house. He looked on the map on page 17 of the staff report and he did not see any lots on Flandrau Street that are less than 10,000 square feet in size. He certainly understands what Mr. Rossbach said earlier regarding living next to someone with a small lot and then they use your backyard as their backyard. He doesn't like the fact that Mr. Mogren is trying to squeeze something in just to squeeze it in. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -10- Mr. Mogren said if you look at the comments made by the residents regarding this proposed development they say it is a very quiet subdued atmosphere. Usually you would see some protests but so far there haven't been any, people are generally happy to see this proposed development go forward. When you talk about the existing home and the proposed future garage, someone came out and looked at the property and that is how a garage would be laid out with the notched out home and the property lines. This is how it is shown in the staff report without putting the garage in the backyard of the existing home. Commissioner Trippler said what is being discussed isn't the senior citizen homes but the three single-family homes and the size of the lots. If these parcels are going to be for sale to anyone then we need to look at would anyone buy these parcels to build a home on it with those property lines. Ms. Linda Olson, a member of the Community Design Review Board, addressed the commission regarding the Carefree Villas. She has an issue with the proposed sidewalks in that area. She believes sidewalks unite a community and provide an alternative means of transportation for people by walking. She did go out and see the site and felt it will be extremely tight to put the sidewalk in along Gervais Avenue. The sidewalk on parcels b,c,d should probably be delayed until the homes are built. Especially since the sidewalk would not be extended any further west at this time. Personally she would like to see sidewalks in every residential and commercial roadway in the city but in this particular case there are some substantial trees that clearly would have to go in order to put a sidewalk in. These lots are small already and putting a sidewalk in the front yard may be an issue as well. Commissioner Ledvina said he has an issue with the overall site plan. There is a private drive that goes into this proposed development and then there are these three single-family lots that essentially will have double frontage. He realizes this is a small drive, but he thinks in terms of design in overall layout it is certainly not optimal. There can be some things with landscaping that has been proposed but he does not feel the design is optimal. Commissioner Mueller asked staff if that private drive that Mr. Ledvina is talking about is that pushed as far to the east as it can go? Mr. Roberts said yes it is. Commissioner Ahlness he continues to get the feeling that this proposed development is very tight. In looking at the garages to the north, they are right up to the property line, the driveways to the south are short and vehicles may be touching to the garage door and may hang out into the street. As a result, the lots to the south need to be made less than the minimum size. It appears that it is being over built for the size of the parcel in question here. They are asking for exemptions at every turn in order to get it all squeezed in. Chairperson Fischer asked members if there areas of agreement or areas of disagreement or do members want to address them individually or as one motion? Chairperson Fischer said the first request is for the change of the land use plan from R-1 to R- 3H for the twelve town homes. The second request is for the conditional use permit for the planned unit development. The third request is for the lot split. Is there a motion? Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -11- Commissioner Mueller said personally he thinks the proposed development needs more work. He thinks they need to go back to the drawing board and put this together in a better way. He agrees with a number of the comments of members that they are trying to put a lot of stuff on a small spot of land and it could be packed in tight but yet reasonably and he does not think the reasonably part has been met in his mind. Chairperson Fischer asked Mr. Mueller if he thinks they are reasonably close or a long way from what you want to achieve? Commissioner Mueller said he is not sure of how it could look unless you decrease the size of the footprint of the town homes. You could maybe spin things and have a driveway down the center off the existing driveways and have the town homes going east and west? That may increase the parcels below because you may not be able to get as many town homes in that plan. Chairperson Fischer asked staff where they are on the time frame with this proposal? Mr. Roberts these plans were received by the city on November 26, 2001, and requires council action by January 25, 2002, unless the developer agrees to a time extension. That would allow one or two council meetings in January. Chairperson Fischer said to staff that a great deal of discussion has been involved around technicalities, lot lines, lot sizes, and variances. The proposal basically that members are looking at is to put an R-H on the entire site that is proposed, is that correct? Or is it just an R-H on the part where the town homes would be? Mr. Roberts said it would be an R-H on the town homes would be his proposal, and keep the single family designation for the single-family lots. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if they would have had as many technicalities if the proposal had been R-H for the whole site? Mr. Roberts said yes you would, it is more dealing with lot lines. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if the lot lines would have been required to be 10,000 square feet if they were in an R-H rather than in an R-l? Mr. Roberts said yes they still would be. But it was covered in the proposal through a PUD. Chairperson Fischer said to staff that basically takes all rules aside and acts as a law onto itself. Mr. Roberts said yes it becomes essentially a negotiated development between the city and the developer. Commissioner Pearson said he is very uncomfortable with the idea that the footprint is too big for what they are building it on. He is wondering why parcel b. and c. could not be used for another four-unit town home building. That way you could adjust the roadways and have all the setbacks that you need and still allow a 10,000 square foot lot R-1 for parcel d? Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -12- Mr. Roberts asked Mr. Pearson was your thought that the existing house would be removed on lot c? Commissioner Pearson yes it would need to be removed? Mr. Roberts said he thought it was the developer's intent to try to work around doing that. That was a trade off that the developer chose. You may want to ask Mr. Mogren that. Commissioner Trippler said we could go on all night with the different scenarios for this proposed development. He thinks members should just decide whether they like the proposal or not and if you don't members should think about whether the developer should come back or not. Another scenario would be to put another four-unit town home built where the eight unit was and move the property line for parcel b,c, and d north ten or fifteen feet. Then those lots would be 10,000 square feet. There are kinds of different ways that given this amount of property you could put structures on it. He agrees with a lot of comments made by members and he thinks there is too much being squeezed onto a relatively small piece of property and it doesn't fit. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if they see anything that might be gained by a tabling to work on this proposal that might meet the concerns here or do you think this is a plan that will not be changed and members should act on what is before members? Mr. Roberts that would be a question for the applicant. Mr. Mogren said his team has put a lot of time and effort into this project and he thinks the spirit is to have it fit with his current project. He thinks his architects have improved this proposed project over the other project. He understands that members want to keep a lot to the minimum 10,000 square foot lot. Listening to Mr. Frost's comments as well and there is a PUD here and you have 30,000 square feet and three single-family lots. From all appearances you have the same amount of volume. He always tries to work with staffto the best of his ability and he looks at this as a good project. He wants to introduce some additional landscaping to mitigate 600 square feet that they are short and he thinks this will add an extra tier of privacy. At this point he would like members to act on what is before the commission tonight. Commissioner Rossbach said to Mr. Mogren in the PUD this is a negotiated development. What is it that the city gets from this verses what you as the developer are getting? Mr. Mogren said he thinks Maplewood gets an additional 12 units of senior housing that he thinks will be very nice. He thinks this proposal would be a great asset to the community just like the other 248 units are. He thinks the homes are on Gervais Avenue and he thinks the lots will be decent as well. He thinks Maplewood would get good quality housing, he has proven in the past that they do that. Not every developer that comes into the community builds as good of a product as he does. He said they take pride in what they do and he thinks it will add 12 great units for senior housing and the community and that is what the city gets. Commissioner Rossbach said he would agree with Mr. Mogren that his company develops projects. He encouraged the staff with the initial visit to the site and the concept seemed really good. He does not know how he possibly went through this and never realized that these lots were less than 10,000 square feet. Up until ¼ hour ago he was very excited about this project Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -13- and thought it would be a good fit. There are certain things where he draws the line and one of them is dealing with the size of lots, he just can't tolerate making exceptions to. He feels very bad that until this point he didn't realize exactly what was happening there. Certainly he would have had the opportunity to express concerns to staff during that process when you Mr. Mogren and the staff were just working this proposed project out. That doesn't change his thoughts about this proposed project. Mr. Mogren said they did not do anything to try and hide anything from anyone. It is right out in front. It is his opinion that this proposed project speaks for itself because if you talk to any of the residents they keep it up and maintain the properties. So it is not a matter of him talking about himself it is a matter of him talking about the project and what he thinks the projects have done for Maplewood. It has created some very nice senior housing for the city of Maplewood. He thinks whenever you get into a negotiated thing like a PUD he thinks one of the things is you could have a 10,000 square foot lot with no trees which would be less desirable, than a 9,400 square foot with trees along the back that provides privacy. The three lots together are going to be a total of 30,000 square feet so they will have trees back there to mitigate the size. Commissioner Frost he is looking at the R-1S that is on Lydia Avenue. He thought those were very nice houses. From the commission members prospective would this be a problem having these single-family lots being R-1S verses R-l? If it is R-1S it is well over the 7,500 square foot minimum. He looks at these three lots as almost separate like a buffer from the proposed cottages being built. These are almost isolated from the rest of the development as is the stuff on Lydia Avenue. From that prospective he would not have a problem having these three single- family lots going R-1S and then proceed with the proposed development as is. And actually you could make the lots a little smaller and get the driveway to work on the north side. Mr. Roberts said again, the PUD accomplishes the same thing. Commissioner Mueller said putting trees and shrubbery on a lot that is already less than 10,000 square feet from his prospective with having children made his lot a lot smaller. Because now I have all these trees on his lot, it gives him more screening but it does not give him any more room, it just lets him not see something in the next neighbor's lot. If this would pass for example, where would you put those trees on this small than 10,000 square foot lot? Would the trees go on parcel b or parcel c's lot? These trees are going to spread out seven or eight feet wide. Mr. Mogren said he would work with staff on that issue. If they fit on the lot that the proposed town homes are going on he would put the trees there. Otherwise he would put them on the back of the other lot, it doesn't matter to him. It creates a barrier or privacy between the town homes. Commissioner Trippler if Mr. Mogren reduced the eight-unit to a four-unit or rotated it, would that make the project undoable for you? Mr. Mogren said yes it would. One last comment if these lots were located on Flandrau Street where everything was 10,000 square feet then it makes a big difference. But this is part of a PUD and it is kind of a separate area itself and he thinks it is not a problem. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -14- Commissioner Frost moved that the planning commission approve the resolution on page 29 of the staff report. It changes the land use plan from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to RH (residential high density) for the 12 town house units of the Carefree Villas of Maplewood. The city bases this change on the following findings: This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential use. This includes being next to existing high-density senior housing units, a collector street and near two churches, shopping and Four Seasons Park. 2. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because: a. Studies have shown there will be no adverse effect on property values. b. There would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. Approve the resolution starting on page 30 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Carefree Villas, based on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the plans dated November 26, 2001, except where the city requires changes. Such changes shall include revising the grading and site plans to show the required sidewalk along Gervais Avenue. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. The owner shall not convert the town houses in this development to non-seniors housing without the revision of the planned unit development. For this permit, the city defines senior housing as a residence occupied by persons that are 55 years of age or older. 4. There shall be no outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats or trailers at or around the townhouses. 5. Residents shall not park trailers and vehicles that they do not need for day-to-day transportation on the town house site. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. The three single dwellings are exempt from reviews for conditional use permit revisions for any expansions, additions or changes provided that such changes would meet all applicable zoning and building standards and requirements. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -15- 9. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Approve the proposed lot split shown on page 19 of the staff report. This plan creates four parcels for the Carefree Villas development on Gervais Avenue. This lot division shall be subject to the developer or applicant completing the following conditions before the city approves the lot division deeds: 1. The developer or owner recording drainage and utility easements along all existing and new property lines, subject to the approval of the city engineer. 2. The developer or owner recording cross easement and access agreements for Parcel A to have access to Gervais Avenue across the adjacent property (the existing Carefree Cottages). 3. Signing 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. 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). d. Pay the city for the cost of any traffic-control, street identification and no parking signs. e. Install a sign where the new driveway intersects Gervais Avenue indicating that it is a private driveway. f. Provide for the repair of Gervais Avenue (street, curb and gutter and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway. g. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Changing the proposed lot division as follows: a. Dedicate drainage and utility easements along all property lines. These easements shall be pedestrian and utility easements in the front and shall be ten feet wide, shall be 10 feet wide along the rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. b. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development. These shall include any off- site drainage and utility easements, subject to the city engineer's requirements. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -16- 6. Record the following with the lot division deeds: a. All homeowner's association documents. b. An access agreement for the proposed town houses that ensures the tenants may use the existing driveway(s) for ingress and egress. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording to assure there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the common areas, private utilities, driveways and structures. 7. The city will not issue building permits until the deeds for the town house site and the three single dwelling lots are recorded and the developer has met the city conditions. Chairperson Fischer seconded the motion for purpose of discussion and to get this item moving. Mr. Roberts said if the commission is so inclined on item B. item 3. in regards to the age change for senior housing, if it does go forward you could change the age from 62 to 55 that should not be a problem. (changed in bold in the motion). Commissioner Frost concurred. Chairperson Fischer asked members if there was any further discussion or amendments to the motion? Commissioner Frost although the three single family lots are under the 10,000 square feet minimum, when people buy the lots they will know exactly what they are getting and what is surrounding the lot. You would be going in eyes wide open. He has no problem with the proposal. Chairperson Fischer said she is in agreement with Mr. Frost. As Mr. Frost said if the lot size is there when they buy into the neighborhood that makes a difference. Commissioner Rossbach said he would go counterpoint in that the neighborhood consists of lots that tend to be larger than 10,000 square feet and the cottages. It is his belief it would be good planning to continue what is there instead of introducing a completely new element into it. Commissioner Ledvina said he thinks the small size of the lots, and the possibility of having a rather large house on that lot makes him uncomfortable especially because you cannot restrict what size of house is put on those small lots. They could almost put a house on those lots from lot line to lot line. He has strong concerns about creating a backyard scenario that is a front yard for the town homes. Commissioner Ahlness he said if it just came down to the lot sizes that is something that may be excused but it seemed like exemptions were asked for and excuses were made to make it work from the north side to the south side. One of the lot's are surrounded by three sides of a private driveway and that is going to be used by multiple people. We say we don't want to take down trees to put in a sidewalk but you would have to take down a big tree just to put a garage in. Just Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -17- about every where you go in this project you run into problems and he thinks the developer needs to go back and see fundamentally what fits in there that is economically feasible. He just thinks this project is too large to fit on this site and it needs to be reduced in size maybe with less units on this site. Chairperson Fischer asked staff about the three proposals, are they all intertwined? Do they all have to be a package as one or can they be divided? Mr. Roberts said he thinks you could divide item a. that is the plan amendment from b. and c. But b. and c. are definitely intertwined. Commissioner Rossbach said he would question whether a. can be divided from b. and c. because it reflects the changes that would follow along the property lines? Or are those property lines right where the land use changes would occur? Mr. Roberts said the intent of the amendment was to shift the high-density line from the north line of the south site to the south line of proposed parcel a. that would be the south line of the proposed town homes. So that line might move three or five feet one way or another. The intent of the plan was accommodate the twelve town houses. Chairperson Fischer said those in favor of the motion indicate by saying aye. Ayes - Fischer, Frost Nays- Ahlness, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Motion Failed. Chairperson Fischer asked staff when this item goes to the city council? Mr. Roberts said it tentatively goes to the city council January 14, 2002. Chairperson Fischer said the city council will make the final decision. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ISTS (Individual Sewage Treatment Systems) Mr. Roberts said at the planning commission meeting in November the commission had some concerns about the Water Resources Management Plan and many concerns about the proposed ISTS (Individual Sewage Treatment Systems) ordinance. Staffwent back and worked on both of those, specifically on the Water Resources Management Plan on page 2 of the staff report items 5 and 6, on page 3 items 1,2, and 6, page 4 item 5, as well as number 2. at the bottom of page 4. Lastly on page 5 under groundwater goal number 2, are all policies that staff changed taking the direction of the commission. On the ISTS (Individual Sewage Treatment Systems) ordinance and took all the references to Washington County and the numbering to make it strictly a Maplewood code. The technical Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -18- parts of the code have not been proposed to change. The intent of this ordinance is to go into effect for new systems to be put in or for major city reconstruct or repair of an existing system. Existing systems that are in place would be grandfathered in and would not have to be moved or changed and would fall under the provisions regarding maintenance and pumping. If they have a system that fails then they would have to meet the new standards. Mr. Trippler approached Mr. Roberts before the meeting and has found some technical errors in numbering that need to be corrected. Staff is recommending the planning commission: Approve the revised Water Resources Management Plan starting on page two of the staff report. Adopt the ordinance starting on page seven. This ordinance adds to the Maplewood City Code the standards for Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS) in the city. Chairperson Fischer, Mr. Trippler and Mr. Mueller had some changes to the ordinance that will be made and given to members for the next meeting. Commissioner Ledvina asked if Washington County is currently using this ordinance? And if so how long has it been used? Mr. Roberts said yes it is currently being used and has been used for a few years now. Commissioner Ledvina asked if this ordinance has a 100-foot separation between the septic and well? Mr. Roberts said yes that is what he recalls. Commissioner Ledvina asked if previously it was 50 feet? Commissioner Rossbach answered it was 75 feet the last time he built. Commissioner Ledvina had a comment regarding implementing this ordinance and operation and maintenance of septic systems on page 62. Under Maintenance of Septic Tanks there is a major discussion stating you need to pump the septic tanks every three years, and then as an alternative the owner can inspect and measure the accumulations of sludge. He thinks this alternative to the three years of pumping is going to be a very difficult thing and also for the staff to determine whether the homeowner has actually done the pumping. He believes the alternative part should be eliminated from that paragraph. If staff thinks the septic systems should be pumped every three years than that is probably enough. Commissioner Frost said he would agree with Mr. Ledvina. However, there are exceptions to having the septic systems pumped every three years. If you had a septic system built for six people and now there are two people living in the house, you will never fill that septic system back up again. So that would be an exception. You would have to call a septic system to come and look at the system, the will charge as much to look at it as they would charge to pump the system. So it would probably just be easier to have it pumped, however, some people are knowledgeable and may know it doesn't need to be pumped. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -19- Commissioner Ledvina asked if there should be something said about the owner shall document this and measure the thickness of the sludge in the septic tank yearly after the first three years? If the homeowner does it once and they are good for the whole life of the system. It seems to be non-specific in terms of the guidance and it is complicated. Commissioner Frost said it is easier if you just get it pumped every three years and then nobody has to worry about it. Commissioner Ledvina said he thinks someone could read the ordinance and say they looked at the septic tank and they do not have sludge therefore it does not need to be pumped. And what would the city say? Chairperson Fischer asked staff if they have a recommendation on this? Mr. Chuck Ahl said on those types of issues typically the staff would inquire as Mr. Frost described, some type of knoWledgeable person to have done the inspection and document the measurement. In most cases staff does not always take a persons word on things, they like to see documents in order to meet the intent of the ordinance. This looks to him like as a staff person is looking for intent and he would suggest it would require a documented inspection. Commissioner Ledvina asked Mr. Ahl if that should be said in the ordinance? Commissioner Mueller asked if it could read "May have the septic tank inspected by a certified septage inspector and documented". Mr. Chuck Ahl said that would okay. Chairperson Fischer asked about the wording in the water resources management plan and if it should be referred to as retention or detention. Mr. Chuck Ahl said retention means the holding of water forever and never having an outlet. The meaning of detention means to infiltrate, slowdown or detain. The correct word should be detention. Commissioner Frost moved that the planning commission approve the two items: Approve the revised Water Resources Management Plan starting on page two of the staff report. Adopt the ordinance starting on page seven with the modifications that were discussed at the meeting. This ordinance adds to the Maplewood City Code the standards for Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS) in the city. Commissioner Rossbach seconded the motion. The motion is passed. Ayes - Ahlness, Fischer, Frost, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson,Rossbach, Trippler Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -20- Chairperson Fischer asked staff when does this go to the city council? Mr. Roberts said this goes to the city council on January 14, 2002. VII. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Frost would recommend having something put in the comprehensive plan that deals with the mall area traffic study. Whether it be a new County Road D alignment study between White Bear Avenue and Highway 61, and the additional lanes and bridge crossing or underpass on Highway 694 and White Bear Avenue. He would recommend that they add something to the comprehensive plan to indicate such before it gets sent to the Met Council so the planning commission does not have to amend it in the future. Mr. Chuck Ahl said on the transportation plan, his suggestion might be, because of the significant nature of those improvements and the extent of the study, to wait and allow the public input. It is a major confine amendment and involves a major shift in change in transportation policies and priorities. VII. VISITORS PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS The November 26, 2001, city council meeting was reported on by Ken Roberts. Nothing pertaining to the planning commission was discussed at that meeting. It may be of interest was city council gave first consideration of the ordinance tighting the regulations about pawnshops and currency exchange with businesses. The December 10, 2001, city council meeting was represented by Jack Frost. The only item that was discussed regarding the planning commission was the water utility McCarron's Plant CUP Revision and it was approved ayes - all. The December 17, 2001, city council meeting was reported on by Matt Ledvina. Everyone at tonight's meeting was present at the city council meeting but there were no planning commission meeting actions at that meeting. Mr. Roberts added that one thing that was on the agenda was the final purchase agreement for Mr. Bruce Mogren to buy the property on Van Dyke Street that the city owns north of Emma's Place. He is putting a proposal together for a 30-unit town house development on this site. The January 14, 2002, city council meeting will be represented by Will Rossbach. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-17-01 -21- Chairperson Fischer asked staff what the procedure is if a planning commission member calls the day of the meeting and cannot be a representative at the city council meeting? Mr. Roberts said staff would contact another member to see if they would be available to be a representative at the city council meeting. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Roberts mentioned that Ms. Fischer, Mr. Ahlness and Mr. Ledvina's planning commission terms are up at the end of the year. Please let Mr. Roberts know what your plans are to leave or continue on with the commission. There were going to be interviews at this meeting to replace Mr. Frost, but because some of the candidates could not attend, the interviews were rescheduled for some time in January. If you want to be reappointed it needs to go back to the city council and a report is done so please let Mr. Roberts know one way or the other. Mr. Mueller said since members received the list for 2002 he thought he would mention that although it is a long time off on the calendar for 2002, he would not be available on April 8, 2002. Mr. Mueller mentioned if anybody would like to switch meetings with him in advance to let him know. Chairperson Fischer said on that schedule for the council meetings for 2002 that second phone number shown for her is only good on Tuesday and Thursdays. Commissioner Ahlness said he has a new work phone number to give to members offthe record. Xl. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:27p.m.