Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/03/20021. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, December 3, 2002, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. October21,2002 5. Public Headng None 6. New Business a. County Road D Extension and Alignment Study - Chuck Ahl 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. October 28 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson b. November 13 (Wednesday) Council Meeting: Ms. Junek c. November 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Roberts d. December 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller e. December 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2002 I. CALLTO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Tushar Desai Mary Dierich Lorraine Fischer Matt Ledvina Jackie Monahan-Junek Paul Mueiler Gary Pearson William Rossbach Dale Trippler Present Absent Present Present Absent Present Absent Present Present Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Trippler seconded. The motion passed. Ayes- Desai, Fischer, Ledvina, Mueller, Rossbach, Trippler IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for October 21, 2002. Chairperson Fischer had a correction on page 5, under the staff presentations, in the first paragraph. Please change the sentence the decision was to reschedule the meeting of Tuesday, 12-2-02 to Wednesday, 12-3-02. It should read Monday, 12-2-02 to Tuesday, 12-3-02. Commissioner Ledvina moved to approve the planning commission minutes for October 21,2002 with the amended change. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes- Desai, Fischer, Ledvina, Mueller, Rossbach, Trippler V. PUBLIC HEARING None. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-03-02 -2- VI. NEW BUSINESS a. County Road D Extension and Alignment Study Mr. Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director, said this project started in March 2001 at a city council retreat. Traffic and congestion in the area was discussed as one of the city's top priorities to address. He said as part of this process a multi-jurisdictional study task force was put together and they came up with traffic flow alternatives. Mr. Ahl said the study was brought before the planning commission in March 2002 and one of the recommendations was the extension of County Road D. Staff is looking for input from the planning commission regarding this Alignment Study and for a recommendation to the city council. Mr. Ahl said the city council will hold a public hearing on the Alignment Study at the city council meeting on Monday, December 9 at 7:15 p.m. If the city council decides to move forward with this project, a feasibility study and a right of way map will be conducted and be returned to the planning commission in February 2003. He said it's estimated that construction would be started in November 2003. Mr. Ahl said the eastern half would be completed in late 2004 and the western half would be completed in late 2005. Mr. Karl Keel of URS gave a presentation on the County Road D Extension and the Alignment Study. He said during this study URS discovered that many of the intersections in this study area were failing by today's standards and by the year 2010 URS expects that "most" of those intersections will fail. Regarding development, the large parcel located west of Maplewood Mall will greatly impact traffic operations. He said it would be appropriate for the City of Maplewood to consider limits on the development to soften the impacts of future increases in traffic due to development. Mr. Keel showed a traffic presentation of what the traffic would look like by the year 2010 if no improvements were made as well as what the traffic flow would look like with improvements made. He said there are a number of wetlands in the potential alignment paths and this would be a cost factor in any future development of roads. They looked at utilities and the transformers in the area, a soil test was performed, and they looked at the development potential of the large parcels in the area. Mr. Keel said when URS knew what the constraints were they drew up a number of proposals with different traffic flow scenarios. Commissioner Trippler asked if he understood that alternative 3 was not a possibility? Mr. Keel said that is correct. Alternative 3 was taken off the table because the right of way could not be acquired. He said another reason was a development was recently built in the City of Vadnais Heights. Aisc, he said, the project is not within the limits of Maplewood and the city cannot control a condemnation against that property. He said there was a technical problem in that MnDot was somewhat concerned about the grade of those ramps and the grade may not accommodate truck traffic as well as MnDot would like. Commissioner Trippler said the report talked about the unsuitability of the soils by the golf course that is in peat or wetlands. He asked what assurances could anybody give to the City of Maplewood that once the road is in place it is going to stay there and it would be serviceable for any length of time? Mr. Keel said as part of the feasibility report URS will collect soil borings which will give a better idea of what is in that area. He said URS anticipates that one of two types of construction would be done. One would be to excavate the peat underneath the road and the peat could be as deep as 60 feet deep. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-03-02 -3- He said the second alternative would be to float the roadway on a bed of lightweight fill. Mr. Keel said it is an accepted practice and has been used on several roads in Shoreview such as Lexington Avenue, County Road J, Gramsie Road, and Centerville Road north of Highway 96. Mr. Keel said it really comes down to a cost factor. Commissioner Rossbach asked what the development limits were that Mr. Keel was referring to as part of the development of the 85 acres in the Hajicek property? Mr. Keel said URS wouldn't recommend going to big box retail because that would generate heavy traffic use. He said a mixed-use type of development and a mix of housing would generate less of a traffic pattern. Mr. Ahl commented that question is being studied as part of the environmental documents for the Hajicek property. He said the original land use and zoning is business commercial. Mr. Ahl said that was unacceptable and traffic could not be accommodated in the area roadways. The starting point of traffic was 50% of the site. He said the property should be residential, industrial and other mixed type of uses with small type of commercial development. Commissioner Rossbach asked when was a peat bog not considered a wetland? Mr. Ahl said the characteristics of a wetland are defined by statute. He said a peat bog can become a wetland but you need to meet the three criteria. He said the three criteria are seasonal flooding or periodic standing-water, there have to be certain types of vegetation, and hydraulic soils. Mr. Ahl said peat bogs themselves do not make it a wetland. He said the wetland conservation act is the starting point and legal basis for determining what a wetland is defined as. Commissioner Ledvina asked Mr. Keel if the costs indicated in the proposal are accurate and do they include the roadways that would be needed in the Hajicek property? He also asked if the developer would incur the costs of this project in that area? Mr. Keel said the cost that is indicated in the report is the estimated cost of the roadway and it does not include the cost of the acquisition of the right of way. He said the next step for this process is to develop a feasibility report that would go into more detail about what the cost of the right of way would cost, the cost of the roadway and how it would all be financed. Mr. Keel said the financing would include city, state aid and county costs. He said because this includes problems with the interchange there would be a legitimate reason to negotiate with MnDot as well as assessments to property owners in the City of Maplewood. Mr. Ahl said the cost of this project is not the only deciding factor on this project there is also the impact on the wetland. Commissioner Trippler said he is upset that alternative 3 is not an option. He said it's the only option that does not impact the wetlands. He said the costs indicated are practically meaningless because the commission doesn't know how much the right of way costs will be to put the roads on. He asked how could the commission make a determination if nobody knows what the costs will be? Mr. Trippler said there isn't much wetland left and he doesn't see the City of Maplewood doing very much to retain and preserve what "is" left in the city. He said all the alternatives listed, other than option 3, look as if the city is going to go ahead and put the road wherever the developer thinks would be the best for them. He said it should be what natural resources the city has and how they can be preserved. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-03-02 -4- Commissioner Desai asked if the city is going to eliminate some of the wetlands in the area where in the city would they be replaced? Mr. Keel said they have not identified where the wetlands would be replaced but that would be part of the feasibility report. He said there are some upland areas that may be suitable to construct new wetlands on. Commissioner Desai asked if the access to County Road D for the Hillcrest Animal Hospital is closed off how would that affect their business? He also asked about the other businesses on County Road D by the Maplewood Mall such as Slumberland and how would the road affect companies like them? Mr. Keel said they spoke with the Hillcrest Animal Hospital and they were fine with the possibility of having to go to the new County Road D to get back onto Highway 61. Mr. Keel said businesses like Slumberland would not be affected by the change in the road. Mr. Ahl said given all the scenarios alternative 3 is the best option. However, because the area is out of the jurisdiction of the City of Maplewood it cannot be built. This is the reason it won't work. Mr. Ahl said the city looked at three alternatives but because of the impacts to the wetlands as identified by the watershed district, alternatives one and two were eliminated and alternative three was eliminated because it was not feasible. Mr. Ahl said the city does not have input from the developers, this has only been brought to the agencies including MnDot, the county and the city staff. Chairperson Fischer asked what the approximate traffic counts were at 694 at White Bear Avenue as opposed to Highway 617 Mr. Keel said White Bear Avenue carries approximately 20,000 vehicles a day. Highway 61 carries approximately 30,000 vehicles a day. Beam Avenue carries approximately 20,000 vehicles a day, and the new road will carry approximately 15,000 to 18,000 vehicles a day east of Highway 61. Commissioner Rossbach clarified that alternatives 1 through 3 are no longer options. Mr. Keel said correct. Commissioner Rossbach asked why those alternatives were listed as options if they are no longer options? Mr. Keel said yes, alternatives one through three have been eliminated as options. He said they were alternatives through the process. He said in a sense this report is a chronology of the decision making process to come up with the recommended alternatives. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-03-02 -5- Commissioner Rossbach said he felt the report should have had an addendum stating this is how the alternatives were developed and considered, but these options are now eliminated. He is disappointed with the report and felt that option three was the best option but it is not even a possibility anyway. He said it took no wetlands, stayed on the same right of way that already exists and has the best traffic ratings. He said there should be another alternative. He said in his opinion it's ridiculous to wind a road around the wetlands just to get out onto Highway 61 and end up almost onto Beam Avenue. He thought the idea was to get traffic off of Beam Avenue. He cannot recommend any of the other alternatives that are left because he feels that none of them accomplish any of the goals of the city. Mr. Ahl said he disagrees. He said in the traffic model the city is talking about the vitality of one of the major portions of the community in Maplewood. He said if the city does not do the improvements within ten years the traffic system would be unable to deliver the lifeblood to the Maplewood community because the system is failing and will continue to fail. Staff would like to bring the planning commission alternatives. Mr. Ahl said if the report does not provide the planning commission with the type of information they were looking for, staff couldn't recommend that the planning commission take no action about this due to the future economic distress of the failing transportation system. The city is hoping to build another road that would carry traffic like Beam Avenue does currently. He said to study each alternative would cost between $50,000 to $70,000. Rather than do that study five times staff is recommending to the commission that the study be done once. Mr. Ahl said if the planning commission feels that they have enough information to make a determination then they should make a recommendation to the city council. If the planning commission feels the alternatives that are provided don't give them enough information then the commission should report that to the city council. Commissioner Rossbach asked what would happen if the city would enlarge Beam Avenue? Mr. Keel said the city could enlarge Beam Avenue but you have significant impacts by doubling the size of it. He said there are a number of wetlands as well as developments on both sides of Beam Avenue that would be encroached upon. He said URS did not model widening Beam Avenue to four lanes in each direction but he suspects that would do a lot to improve traffic in the area. Mr. Keel said it is not "equal" to adding a second Beam Avenue as proposed but it would go quite a distance towards that. Mr. Ahl said the problem is that there would be over 100,000 vehicles per day trying to travel through the intersections of Beam Avenue and Highway 61 and it would probably not function very well. Commissioner Rossbach asked if there could be on and off ramps added between Highway 61 and White Bear Avenue to help with the traffic? Mr. Keel said MnDot would not allow it because they have to have minimal spacing allowances for ramps. Commissioner Rossbach said it was stated earlier that the city is trying to solve MnDot's traffic problem. He said MnDot caused the traffic problem to begin with and rules are made to be broken. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-03-02 -6- Mr. Ahl said the city brought up the question of traffic from our community access. He said the proposal Mr. Rossbach is referring to was proposed back in 1985 accessing the freeway near Southlawn. He said the access points to the freeway and the freeway system are also being clogged. He said most freeway systems are being clogged at the intersections. Mr. Ahl said adding another intersection on the freeway just moves the problem to another area. Commissioner Rossbach asked what the spacing is that MnDot requires for ramps being added? Mr. Ahl said MnDot requires one mile of spacing for ramps and intersections. Commissioner Trippler said it sounds like these are the alternatives for the planning commission to choose from and if the planning commission doesn't choose one of these alternatives then the City of Maplewood is going to blow away. Mr. Trippler said there are a number of other alternatives to work with that don't use any of the options listed and that don't destroy 50,000 square feet of wetland. He said the traffic report done by URS shows traffic flow getting grades of D's and E's. Mr. Trippler asked why the city would spend all that money to get those types of grades for traffic improvements? Commissioner Mueller said in his opinion the report looks great. He said the city has to solve the problem and there are more problems yet to come. He has to rely on what people at URS tell the planning commission because they are the experts. He said if they say they are going to replace the wetlands that are taken out he has to trust that they will replace them. Mr. Mueller said you can discuss this and come up with more alternatives, but you will never find that everyone agrees with one alternative. He said the planning commission has said in the past they didn't have enough information to make an informed decision and now they have the information but still don't feel it's enough to make a decision. Mr. Mueller said his vote is to move forward on this. Mr. Keel said the main function of putting these committees together of jurisdictional people was to try to get the experts that are most familiar with traffic operations and the rules for the jurisdictions to brainstorm potential options. Mr. Keel said they spent considerable time talking about all the options and some options were dismissed. He said if the planning commission has other alternatives URS would like to see them. Mr. Keel said maybe they were already discussed and ruled out and maybe they weren't. Commissioner Rossbach said this has been discussed for 25 years and he wants to know what the rush is to get it done now? Mr. Ahl said the city council decided 21 months ago to push this ahead. Commissioner Rossbach said in his opinion that is not a good answer it doesn't make sense to push a poor alternative through just so the city can move forward. He said it is not good planning and it's not good thinking. He said there is one alternative and even though the city council decided 21 months ago to move ahead, it has been an issue that has been before the city council for 25 years. Mr. Rossbach said three years ago he stopped voting for any more development in the Maplewood Mall area because there was no traffic plan. He said in 1985 he was the one that suggested the city put a road across at Southlawn. He would recommend that the planning commission should suggest the best plan, figure out how to implement it and when it is finally done the city will have the best solution instead of something that will "sort of" work. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-03-02 -7- Commissioner Ledvina said he shares the commissioner's frustration that the best alternative, option 3 isn't possible. He said recognizing there are so many factors that are associated with a solution he is inclined to support the staff in their recommended alternative. He said understanding that the remaining parcels have development pressure and the city is trying to work out a solution. He said regarding the wetlands, he is concerned about the loss of the wetlands but it is a little more than an acre of wetland and in the scheme of things there could be other opportunities to enhance that situation. He said there are very good people evaluating these wetlands and the best alignment of the road and recognizing all the factors he would support the staff recommendation. Chairperson Fischer stated this was not a public hearing, did the planning commission feel they want to hear the audience speak regarding this subject? Commissioner Rossbach said he would recommend the audience members go to the public hearing Monday, December 9, at 7:15 p.m. Chairperson Fischer asked if the planning commission members agreed and they responded yes. Commissioner Mueller moved to approve the City of Maplewood adopt the County Road D Realignment Improvement Study and adopt the recommended alternative as the preferred option for implementation of the County Road D Realignment project. Commissioner Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Mueller Nays - Desai, Fischer, Rossbach, Trippler The motion failed. Commissioner Trippler moved that the planning commission recommend to the city council to implement something that coincides with alternative 3 utilizing the existing road grade of County Road D. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Rossbach, Trippler Nays - Ledvina, Mueiler The motion passed. Commissioner Rossbach requested a list of requirements in order for the planning commission to make a more informative decision. 1. To locate the road as far north from Beam Avenue as possible. 2. Can this be done within our own jurisdiction? What might be a suggestion to get it done? 3. To have this done with minimal wetland impact. 4. To have a reflection of the total cost for the including the right of way costs not just the road cost for the total project. 5. Where would the wetland mitigation occur, preferably in the City of Maplewood? 6. Case law concerning wetlands and changes made to alter them from a wetland. And is a peat bog a wetland? Planning Commission Minutes of 12-03-02 -8- VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Pearson was the planning commission representative at the October 28, 2002, city council meeting. Mr. Pearson was absent, so Mr. Ekstrand gave a report on the meeting. Mr. Ekstrand said items on the agenda were the CUP for Quality Restoration extended for five years. Jiffy Lube was approved at the old Pizza Hut site. The Maplewood Imports expansion was withdrawn from the applicant and it was pulled from the agenda. The adult use ordinance was approved and granted a first reading. Highwood Farms was discussed and pulled and no action was taken. It will be discussed at a later date pending city council review. b. Ms. Junek was the planning commission representative at the November 13, 2002, city council meeting. Ms. Junek was absent so Mr. Ekstrand briefly reviewed what was discussed at the meeting. CUP's were passed for Ponds of Battle Creek, Hill Murray School, Schlomka Landscaping, Chili's Restaurant, and the Marathon Station on County Road B and Highway 61. The city council discussed and tabled a request of the Hartford Group concerning the Hajicek property. They also gave the second reading for the adult ordinance. c. Mr. Roberts was the representative at the city council meeting on November 25, 2002. Mr. Roberts was not present at the meeting to give a review of the meeting. d. Mr. Mueller will be the planning commission representative at the December 9, 2002, city council meeting. Items for discussion will be the County Road D Extension and Alignment Study. e. Mr. Ledvina will be the planning commission representative at the December 23, 2002, city council meeting. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. Xl. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.