Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/04/20021. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 4, 2002, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 4. Approval of Minutes a. February20, 2002 5. Public Headng None New Business a. Hillcrest Animal Hospital Conditional Use Permit (1320 County Road D) b. Larpenteur Avenue Redevelopment Plan (at Adolphus Street) c. 2002 Goal Setting Session with City Council 7. Unfinished Business a. Planning Commission's 2002 Annual Report 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. February 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson b. March 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Ahlness c. March 2~ Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MARCH 4, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Rossbach called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Eric Ahlness Mary Dierich Lorraine Fischer Matt Ledvina Paul Mueller Gary Pearson William Rossbach Dale Trippler Absent Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Ledvina seconded. Ayes-Dierich, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes for February 20, 2002. Commissioner Trippler had a change on page 8 of the minutes in the ninth paragraph. Please change the word aid to and. Another change is on page 12 in the ninth paragraph. Please change the third sentence to read What the staff is proposing to change are the ordinances or regulations for currency exchanges, and the city council has already approved the licensing requirements that limit one of each business in the City of Maplewood. The recording secretary also noticed a typo on page 18 in the third paragraph please remove the _t after the word referring. Commissioner Mueller asked if the minutes are supposed to be past tense, third person, first person, sometimes it is difficult to understand. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-04-02 -2- Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the minutes with the noted changes. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes-Dierich, Ledvina, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Abstention - Mueller V. PUBLIC HEARING None. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Hillcrest Animal Hospital Conditional Use Permit (1320 County Road D) Mr. Roberts stated that Dr. Jennifer Bouthilet, representing the Hillcrest Animal Hospital, is proposing to build a 7,000 square-foot animal hospital at the southwest corner of Highway 61 and County Road D. This proposal includes constructing a new animal hospital to replace the current animal hospital and a former house on the site. Specifically, the owners recently demolished a house on the property, will construct the new hospital (if approved), and then will demolish the existing hospital after completing the new hospital. The proposed building would be constructed of decorative rock-faced block and stucco and would have asphalt shingles. The applicant is requesting approval of the following: A conditional use permit (CUP) to build the new building closer than 350 feet to a residential zoning district. The nearest residential district is immediately to the west of the site. The proposed building would be 229 feet from the west property line of the site. 2. Approval of site, landscape and architectural plans. The proposed building also would be 300 feet from the nearest house to the west. The proposed future addition would be 256 feet from this house. The city may want to consider methods like hours of operation, screening and light-glare control to protect the nearby residents from disturbances. The proposed site plan shows a future addition on the west side of the hospital building. The location of the addition should not cause any problems. In fact, the proposed future addition would be farther east than the existing animal hospital. Mr. Roberts said that Chris Cavett, the Assistant City Engineer, did a review of the proposed drainage/storm water and grading and erosion control plans. His comments were in the staff report and should be noted since he has many concerns with the proposed plans and will be requiring many changes to the plans before the city will issue a grading permit or a building permit for the project. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-04-02 -3- Mr. Roberts said that the city and the owner will need to agree to a plan for providing water to the site before the city issues a building permit for the new animal hospital. Mr. Roberts also stated that the proposed site now has two separate lots. The former house was on one parcel and the existing animal hospital is on the other parcel. The city should require the owner to combine the two parcels into one property as a condition of approval of this project. Mr. Roberts said that staff is recommending approval of item A. of the staff report, subject to the seven conditions listed. Commissioner Ledvina said he is unclear to the property ownership of the lots at 3065 and 3085, are they both owned by Sparkle Auto? Mr. Roberts said yes they do, and he should have made it more clearly in the report. Commissioner Trippler said he was offended by the reference to the veterinarian by her first name instead of by doctor. She has been his veterinarian for 20 years and he did not even know what her first name was. She deserves to be addressed as doctor and he said staff and members generally do not and should not address people as their first names. It is very inappropriate in his opinion. In addition, staff said there were 17 property owners that were surveyed and only two replied back and both were for the proposal. He asked staff if the person living at 1296 County Road D respond to the survey? The reason he is asking is that staff raised some issues regarding adequate screening to the west and the hospital has been there for a long time and there has been no screening. He wondered if the screening is really that necessary? Mr. Roberts said the owner to the west did not reply. Commissioner Dierich asked if the veterinarian hospital will still have the same services that were offered before such as the grooming and boarding and does that require any permitted uses? Mr. Roberts said it was his understanding that they may expand the services available at the hospital and keep what they have as well. The only time the city would be concerned would be if the hospital wanted to have outside animal boarding, but they are not proposing that. Commissioner Dierich had a question regarding the new driveway. The current driveway is a straight shot up the hill and she is having trouble understanding where the driveway is going to access and where the new parking lot will be. Mr. Roberts said there will be the one main entrance off of County Road D and the second entrance off of County Road D near Highway 61 will be removed. From a safety and grading standpoint, this change will be an improvement. Commissioner Trippler asked if the applicant is going to regrade that driveway to make a more gradual slope? Mr. Roberts said it would probably be about the same. Mr. Cavett stated the parking lot is actually getting lowered a bit. It should be an improvement from what is there currently. Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 03-04-02 Chairperson Rossbach asked staff if the building will sit lower than the existing building? Right now the building sits on the peak of the hill. Mr. Cavett said the peak of the hill is at about a 918 so there will be about a five-foot drop in building height. Chairperson Rossbach asked if that means the building will be built down into the hill or that the top of the hill will be taken off? Mr. Cavett said the hill will be taken off and grading the side. Chairperson Rossbach asked if the applicant would like to come forward. Dr. Jennifer Bouthilet, the owner of the animal hospital at 1320 County Road D, addressed the commission. She stated they are really looking forward to this project because for many years they have been dealing with a very run down building with a lot of problems. There is a lack of room for expansion and there is only room for one full time doctor. Chairperson Rossbach asked if she or someone else actually lived in the house that was demolished? Dr. Bouthilet stated that until the end of December, Dr. Conway J. Rosell owned the house as well as the clinic building. They were already in negotiations for buying the property and the buildings. He had a tenant living in the house and there has been nobody living in the house since the end of August There were no other questions or comments from either the applicant or by the commission. Commissioner Pearson moved to adopt the resolution on pages 17 and 18 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit to build a new animal hospital that would be closer than 350 feet to a residential district at 1320 County Road D. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. This approval also includes the proposed future addition shown on the west side of the new hospital. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The owner shall combine the two properties into one parcel for tax and identification purposes before the city issues a building permit. 5. The city and the owner shall agree to a plan for providing water to site before the city issues a building permit for the new hospital. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-04-02 -5- 6. There shall not be any outdoor storage unless the city council approves a conditional use permit for outdoor storage. 7. The applicant meeting all the conditions and plan changes required by the city engineer. Commissioner Ledvina seconded. Ayes- Dierich, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion is passed. Mr. Roberts said this item will go to the community design review board on March 12, 2002, and then to the city council meeting on March 25, 2002. b. Larpenteur Avenue Redevelopment Plan (at Adolphus Street) Mr. Roberts stated that in 2001, Maplewood purchased three single-family homes on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street with funds from the city's Housing Replacement Program. The homes had been flooded after the pond located to the north of the properties overflowed during a rainstorm in April, 2001. The flooding caused a large amount of damage to these older homes. None of the property owners was eligible for flood insurance coverage through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust or through their private insurance companies. The purchase of the three homes by the city with the Housing Replacement Program funds helped cover some of the flooding damage expense as well as addressed an older housing stock within the city that needed upgrading. Mr. Roberts said that staff is now exploring several options for redevelopment of these properties. First, the city could sell the lots for redevelopment of three new single-family homes; second, the city could rezone the properties to a higher density for the development of townhouses; and third, the city could purchase two adjacent lots allowing for a more comprehensive plan to include rezoning all five properties to a higher density for the development of townhouses. On December 13, 1999, the city council approved a Housing Replacement Program in order to improve the condition of the single-family housing stock in the city. This fund was created from surplus tax increment proceeds and was approved with an initial budget up to $687,000. Mr. Roberts said on July 23, 2001, the city council authorized the purchase of the properties at 209, 211 and 215 Larpenteur Avenue with Housing Replacement funds as follows: Property Address 2000 Tax Market Value* Negotiated Purchase Price 209 Larpenteur Avenue 211 Larpenteur Avenue 215 Larpenteur Avenue $102,800 $145,000 $110,000 $155,000 $102,100 $146,000 Total $446,000 *Note: The tax-market value can be 20-25 percent below market value. Property values have increased about 10-15 percent for 2001. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-04-02 -6- Mr. Roberts stated at the time of purchase it was estimated that the city's net cost for each property (after reselling the lots) would range from $80,000 to $100,000, for a total city cost of approximately $250,000 to $300,000. This cost, however, did not include grading and drainage improvements that must be made to the site to ensure that the properties will not flood again. Prior to the purchase of the three properties, the fund equaled $547,000. After the sale of the three lots and without adding in the grading and drainage improvement expenses, the Housing Replacement fund will be left with approximately $247,000 to $297,000. After reviewing these figures and the housing needs within the city, staff proposes exploring the options available for redeveloping the land at a higher density. Creating a higher density development would make available a larger number of housing units within the city and should create a profit rather than a loss for the city's Housing Replacement Program The three Larpenteur Avenue properties have the following lot area and lot widths: Property Address Lot Area Lot Width 209 Larpenteur Avenue 16,873 s.f. 75 feet (interior lot) 211 Larpenteur Avenue 16,873 s.f. 75 feet (interior lot) 215 Larpenteur Avenue 16,877 s.f. 135 feet (corner lot) Total 50,223 s.f. All three lots meet or exceed the lot area and lot width requirements. No additional single-family lots could be created with the existing zoning without lot width variances. Therefore, the redevelopment of the property with the existing zoning is limited to three single-family houses. Because of the double and multiple dwelling zoning districts to the west of the site and the commercial zoning district to the east, rezoning the properties to a higher density is an option to consider. The Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) zoning district allows for 3.45 units per acre and the Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3) allows for 6 units per acre. For discussion and comparison, staff prepared five redevelopment proposals that are attached and described below: 1. Rezoning the three city-owned lots to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) - 4 townhouse units (3.45 units per acre). 2. Rezoning the three city-owned lots to Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3) - 6 townhouse units (5.17 units per acre). 3. Combining 1701 Adolphus Street to the three city-owned lots and rezoning to Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3) - 8 townhouse units (5.44 units per acre). 4. Combining 1701 Adolphus Street and 189 Larpenteur Avenue to the three city-owned lots and rezoning to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) - 6 townhouse units (4.08 units per acre). Planning Commission Minutes of 03-04-02 -7- 5. Combining 1701 Adolphus Street and 189 Larpenteur Avenue to the three city-owned lots and rezoning to Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3) - 11 townhouse units (5.97 units per acre). Mr. Roberts said three of the proposals would require that the city purchase one or two adjacent homes in addition to the three city-owned lots. These two property owners have not yet been contacted and staff is unsure if they would be willing sellers. Staff is requesting direction from the planning commission, housing redevelopment authority, and the city council before contacting these property owners for the possible purchase of their homes. The redevelopment proposals show two different styles of townhouses. These include the front- loaded garage style townhouses constructed by Masterpiece Homes at the Highpointe Ridge and Gardens developments and the tuck-under garage style townhouses constructed in the New Century Development. Mr. Roberts said staff recommends the planning commission make a recommendation on the following items: Should the city redevelop the properties with three single-family homes or redevelop the properties with town homes? Should the city approach the property owners at 189 Larpenteur Avenue and 1701 Adolphus Street for the purchase of their homes for redevelopment? If the properties are developed for town homes, should the city rezone and amend the land use classification for the properties from Single Dwelling Residential (R-l) to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) to allow for 3.63 units per acre? If the properties are developed for town homes, should the city rezone and amend the land use classification for the properties from Single Dwelling Residential (R-l) to Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3) zoning and Medium Density Residential (R-3M) land use to allow for 6 units per acre? Commissioner Trippler said there is no indication in the staff report of how much it would cost to do these five homes and he believes this would help him make a decision as to which way he wants to go with this project. Chairperson Rossbach asked how the fund is funded, is it a one-time funding source or a continual tax increment fund? Mr. Roberts said it was a one-time funding source. Anything that is spent out of the fund with the sale or redevelopment of properties, then that money is put back into the fund to help replenish it. The fund will go down unless the city can make a profit off a redevelopment site. Staff did not want to get into a lot of financial analysis until staff got a better feel from the city and the commission what everyone would be comfortable with and what type of land use is used there. Staff wanted to come to commission members early in the process to get a feel for what members thought and not spend too much doing any analysis if three out of the five ideas are a waste of time. You may be able to make a better decision by having some of the financial information available but if it is not a good land use scenario, then it was a waste of time. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-04-02 -8- Commissioner Dierich asked staff if the city has to build on these sites or can it be left as open space? Does it have to be developed as multiple family? The front page of the staff report says the city council approved a Housing Replacement Program in order to improve the condition of the single-family housing stock. Are they going to be single-family houses or multiple? Or is it not likely that someone would buy because of the business of the site on Larpenteur? Mr. Roberts said one of the recommendations on page 4 asks should it stay as three single-family homes or should it be multi-family, the staff is open to ideas. The thought of getting more units on the site is to sell the property for more money and to replenish the Housing Replacement Program fund. If the city redevelops the sites as single-family sites the city does not believe it will generate as much income. The city is not bound to building single family homes in that area. That is what is currently there and will be removed. Commissioner Ledvina asked staff if the wetland has been classified? Mr. Roberts said it his understanding it is a Class IV wetland. Commissioner Ledvina asked if traffic concerns have been reviewed as it relates to Larpenteur Avenue and whether you can have multiple driveways at that location backing out onto Larpenteur Avenue? Mr. Roberts said that has been a design consideration. He knows that when Ms. Finwall was designing the project and reviewing these with staff, for example, one of the plans takes three driveways and turns it into one driveway exiting out onto Larpenteur Avenue. Another plan puts the driveway exiting off onto Adolphus Street. Staff is trying to minimize the driveways onto Larpenteur Avenue so that would be an improvement over the three existing homes that back onto Larpenteur Avenue. Commissioner Pearson said at the time the HRA purchased these properties, they were looking at maintaining the R-1 and putting the three homes in. But when you look at the area, if you had two willing sellers that area would be better approved with scenario four and access onto Adolphus Street. But it is hard for the commission to make a decision on anything until the commission knows if there are willing sellers living in the other two homes. Another possibility would be to develop those sites as four R-IS lots to get another house in there. In addition to the flooding, there has been a problem with sewers being backed up that effected the resident's foundations also. There was discussion of getting some type of a backup or check valve in place if the city was going to purchase three more homes. He asked if there was anything different with the sewage situation that would make a radical change by changing the grade? Mr. Cavett said depending on the scenario that is chosen, one would be to extend a new main off of Adolphus Street that would greatly reduce the problem that had occurred was on the sewer service. The buildings would be raised and they would not have basements so that would eliminate the problems that had occurred. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-04-02 -9- Commissioner Mueller said this site is in his backyard. On Adolphus Street is Western Hills Park that is a nice park. Having the apartments and the double dwelling residential it seems to make a lot of sense if the city can get the whole corner and make it all double dwelling residential, apartments, or town homes. According to the newspaper article he cut out awhile back, it states that people need rental property from $375 to $1,250 a month or homes below $125,000. Even without a basement he doubts the city will be able to put a house in that area for under $125,000. The city needs homes available for people that need them and this is the city's opportunity to provide them. He will really be against this is somebody puts a home for $200,000 in there. If the city is going to use this project for an appropriate way for the community he would hope that whatever the city does that it be affordable to whomever comes in there to rent or buy. Commissioner Trippler said he would agree that is extremely difficult to make any kind of conclusion about how the commission should vote without knowing if 189 Larpenteur Avenue and 1701 Adolphus Street are interested or are willing to sell. He would recommend to staff and to the city council that if they can get those two parties to be willing sellers at a reasonable cost to include them in a broader development. Because that whole open space and the pond sits there, he would think this would be an excellent opportunity to find a developer to come in and maximum the number of units there. If he understands this correctly, any money that can be made on this project can go back into the fund and that can be used to do this again some place else. If that is the case and the city can make money on developing this and regenerate the fund than the city can continue doing this same kind of treatment in areas that need it. Chairperson Rossbach said his thought is that if the city cannot get both properties to get the whole corner than it should stay as single-family homes. It would not be appropriate to leave one house and have it be trapped by itself. When you take single-family residential and you turn it into anything else, unless you are making it open space, it becomes the new outer tier and the next homes that are subject to decay are the ones that sit in front. He feels that happens whether you put in commercial or higher density residential. The current lots that the city has should stay as single-family residential lots if the city cannot get the two other lots. He said he would be open to making it an R-1S scenario to get another house in there and help the fund out more that way. If the city can get the two other homes his feelings would change a little bit because then you would not be trapping any homes. He would like to stay away from the highest density and stick more with twin homes or something along those lines. There is already a lot of density in that area and the city does not have to pack the homes in. Commissioner Dierich said she would agree with Mr. Rossbach. She would not like to trap any of those two homes either. She would like to see lower density. Staff made a comment several meetings ago that the City of Maplewood has met the housing density needs for Metropolitan Council. She does feel that the city needs affordable housing but she does not want to see it higher density. Affordable housing should also be nice for people to live in and not so high density. She liked the number 4 plan that shows the driveway going out onto Adolphus Street with the six units. Commissioner Ledvina said he agrees with Mr. Rossbach if the city can get both lots and do a development proposal. Scenario five is his choice but scenario four is also acceptable to him. He would not like the units to back onto Larpenteur Avenue. He asked staff if the homes that exist are a health hazard from the sewer backup etc.? Planning Commission Minutes of 03-04-02 -10- Mr. Roberts said the fire department has been using the homes for drills and once they are done then the homes are coming down. Since these homes will not have basements they will be small and not have a lot of square footage in them. Mr. Roberts asked the commission to clarify if it was the consensus of members to have the city pursue the two adjoining properties? Chairperson Rossbach said to summarize, if the city cannot get the two properties that the city should not pursue the higher density and would require that they stay with the single-family residential arrangement. It sounds like members would not want to trap one of the houses in a development. It sounded like there was varying thoughts if the city could get the two other homes there was varying thoughts as to what the density would be but it seemed to be somewhat split between the medium and the high density. Chairperson Rossbach asked staff if there is no action needed right now because there is going to be more discussion on this item correct? Mr. Roberts said yes it will be discussed again, this was just a starting point for discussion. Chairperson Rossbach said there was discussion about who should be grading these lots. His thought is if the city does town homes, and the whole area is developed at once, the developer should do it. If it is going to remain as single-family lots then the city should do the grading. c. 2002 Goal Setting Session with City Council Mr. Roberts said the city council has set a joint meeting with the planning commission for March 18, 2002, at 6:00 p.m. in the Maplewood Room to talk about the goals that were outlined in the annual report. Chairperson Rossbach made a comment for staffto note on Monday, March 18, 2002, he can only attend the meeting until 8:00 p.m. Chairperson Rossbach said Mr. Ledvina brought up at the last meeting to add to the list looking at the Carver Ridge neighborhood at the southern end of Maplewood. He would like that added to the list of 2002 activities. He would also like to add to the list an in-service training session dealing with the do's and don'ts of land use and zoning changes. Mr. Roberts said he did not ignore the fact that Mr. Ledvina had asked to have it added to the 2002 list of activities. The city council considered that request a year ago and they did not want to get into doing any zone-code amendments or any changes in that area at that time and that is why he left it off the list. If the planning commission still feels it is important and they want to try and pursue it again, it is your annual report and list of activities and you can suggest it again. However, the city council did not think it was a high priority last year. Commissioner Dierich said she believed the city council did not have the Carver Ridge presentation presented correctly. Given the fact the homeowners are usually self-builders, they are not held to the same standards she doesn't believe as the builders who are licensed to build homes are. She would really encourage the planning commission to take a look at this item this year above and beyond what the city council directs members to do. If it has to be done during an in-service than members should do that. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-04-02 -11- Commissioner Ledvina said he has Carver Ridge neighborhood review as number one on his list. He said it is an extreme future problem. If the city has a neighborhood that they know is not going to be sewered and it is going to be single-family homes to 10,000 square foot lots. He said it is almost negligent to leave it zoned as farm-residential. If it were sewered he would be okay with it but with it's current scenario and the topography it is a priority and it cannot stay the way that it is. He said the city can either delay it 5 years and have a lot more problems or tackle it right away and have fewer problems, but that is up to the city council to do that. Commissioner Pearson said in 1997 the commission did an in-fill study and a commercial property study as it related to encroachment on R-I. If staff has any copies available of that the commission would enjoy reading that and it would be especially helpful to new members. Mr. Roberts said five or six years ago the commission also did a study on the Carver Ridge neighborhood and started talking about the potential concerns of the map and he could certainly find that report as well. Chairperson Rossbach stated after a lengthy discussion by the commission, the top items on the 2002 activities list were ranked accordingly: 1. Have quarterly in-service training sessions or materials for the planning commission. 2. To look at the Carver Ridge neighborhood. 3. Review the PUD ordinance for possible changes. 4. Review the city's overall land use plan map for possible changes. 5. Work with the consultants and city staff on any code or land-use plan changes that result from the Hillcrest Area Study. 6. Study the area west of Maplewood Mall (including the Hajicek property) for land use and transportation issues. The remaining items on the list ranked below in various areas. Chairperson Rossbach asked if the items mentioned by Mr. Pearson and Mr. Roberts could be available for members in the next packet. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. 2001 Annual Report Mr. Roberts pointed out the changes and additions he made to the 2001 Annual Report from the last meeting. Commissioner Trippler said he has to express a lot of frustration of having to go through the Planning Commission 2001 Annual Report once again. He thought if staff could have taken the minutes from the meeting and gone through them it would have pointed out what some of the commission members had asked for. The chairperson had asked for a numeration of the vote count for the planning commission and the city council to see if the counts were close or not. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-04-02 -12- Commisisoner Trippler said there was also a request that if the planning commission approved something and the city council made changes to the planning commission recommendations or did not accept changes that the planning commission had asked for, that should be reflected in the notes. In many of the cases it looks like it is an even approval for both sides and in many cases it is not like that at all. There is discussion and issues and it makes the years efforts look very vanilla. He thought the issues that planning commission members raised are all in the minutes but they did not show up once again in the 2001 Annual Report and he cannot understand why. Mr. Roberts said the reason they are not is because Melinda Coleman said it was not necessary. There is too much staff time spent and the Annual Report would become about 9 pages long. It was her opinion and staff's opinion that members get very lengthy minutes and they get council reports from planning commission members on each council meeting and members have those items to reflect back on over the past year. The annual report is to be a summary and not a blow- by-blow account of everything that has been done. That is what the minutes are for. To go through and label each vote, Ms. Coleman felt it wasn't necessary. Chairperson Rossbach commented that as far as the conditional use permits he would tend to agree with staff and Ms. Coleman. He thought about it a little bit and he thought maybe this is one area that commission members are asking staff to do something when maybe commission members are not doing such a good job of it themselves. He knows that there is a representative that goes to the city council meetings and reports back to members at the next meeting but he forgets to bring his notes to refer back to them when he has to report back to members about what was discussed. He thought about it and he thinks maybe commission members need to do a little better job of referring back to the minutes. He did comment to Mr. Trippler that the minutes are in the public domain and is it really necessary that the comments be put back into the annual report again if during the course of the year members kept a book of the minutes of the year? Commissioner Trippler said all of the issues that he raised were just issues that were brought up by members of the planning commission. He is not saying that he agrees or disagrees with them it seemed to him that the staff is supposed to be supporting the planning commission and if members ask staff to do something he expects that they will follow through. He doesn't know if the annual report would be used by anybody else other than planning commission members but he thinks if the planning commission is going to have an annual report it seemed to him that it really ought to provide some level of information that is helpful to people. What is provided in the annual report is very brief. It tells him that there was only one item that the planning commission denied that the city council approved over the commission's denial. So it looks like both the planning commission and the city council are in harmony. When he thinks about issues that took place over the year, there is not a lot of disagreement bur there is a level of disagreement that is not being reflected in the report. Commissioner Pearson said he was one of the members that had asked for more information. What he had in mind was that after the approved or denied section in the land use plan changes that staff put a 5 to 3 vote (for example) after each item. Not that there be a long drawn out explanation of it, but just the vote split. It is not a crushing issue to him but rather it would have been helpful and informative. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-04-02 -13- Commissioner Mueller said he teaches at a university so he gives students a little bit of information and if they want to find out more than they need to do that. He thinks that this is what the minutes are for this report is just a summary. He doesn't know what the definition of an annual report is but this report gives him enough information. Chairperson Rossbach said he had a comment in regards to what Mr. Trippler said regarding the staff supporting the planning commission. Yes they do support the planning commission but they only support the commission as far as the city council tells them to. He asked staff if it is necessary that members accept or deny the annual report or ask staff to do more with it? Mr. Roberts said he needs an action one-way or the other. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the planning commission's 2001 Annual Report. Commissioner Mueller seconded. Ayes-Dierich, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Nay- Ledvina Commissioner Ledvina commented that the reason he voted with an abstention is that he believes that the planning commission should review land use issues associated with the Carver Ridge neighborhood and that is the reason he abstended. This item can be discussed with the city council when they review the annual report at the meeting. Chairperson Rossbach replied, so noted. VIII. VISITORS PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. February 25, 2002, Mr. Pearson was the planning commission representative at the council meeting. Mr. Pearson reported the Carriage Hills development and the entrance and exit lanes were discussed and passed ayes- all. Mr. Roberts added that the developer did revise the plans to shift the driveway as far south as possible. The city council also directed staff to do a traffic study of the areas as a condition of the approval. And the developer incorporate any changes that the traffic study deemed necessary. Commissioner Trippler asked staff what exactly is the charge of the traffic engineer and the traffic study? Mr. Roberts said as he understands it from talking to the city engineer, it is to study the current conditions and to figure out how to ensure that the new development is as safe as possible. That may be putting a turn lane in, or a putting a median in, or adjusting the stop lights, etc. Commissioner Trippler said it is not just an assessment whether 200 more cars on Parkway Drive is going to upset the flow of traffic or anything? Planning Commission Minutes of 03-04-02 -14- X= Xl. Mr. Roberts said no it is to be more than that and to show what are the developer and city going to do to make it work. Commissioner Pearson said at the city council meeting there was interest expressed in knowing what the actual traffic count was during the rush hour was. b. March 11,2002, Mr. Ahlness will be the planning commission representative for the city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be Maplewood Toyota addition, St. Jerome's Church addition, and the Code Amendment for Currency Exchange and Pawnshop. c. March 25, 2002, Mr. Trippler will be the planning commission representative for the city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be the Hillcrest Animal Hospital addition and the annual report. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Chairperson Rossbach asked what the status was for appointing a new planning commission member? Mr. Roberts said the city council interviewed applicants at the last meeting but one applicant was out of town. They agreed to interview him at the meeting March 11 and they will make a decision after that. March 18th would be the soonest that a new planning commission member would be at a meeting. Mr. Roberts discussed the All Parks Alliance For Change report that was covered at the February 25, 2002, city council meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m.